637
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 18:
Line 18: + +
→Well-Read
::Thanks for making the changes! I would claim, however, that the paragraph did not refer only to skill books, whatever the intent. I can see now that one might have inferred that, but it was a hidden enough meaning that I missed it entirely. Glad to have it sorted out. :) [[User:Giles|Giles]] ([[User talk:Giles|talk]]) 18:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks for making the changes! I would claim, however, that the paragraph did not refer only to skill books, whatever the intent. I can see now that one might have inferred that, but it was a hidden enough meaning that I missed it entirely. Glad to have it sorted out. :) [[User:Giles|Giles]] ([[User talk:Giles|talk]]) 18:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
::After looking this over again, I think there's still a problem. I do understand what is intended, and I do agree that one can get that understanding from reading all the words of the article. But both the interplay between the articles '''and''' the Books article itself are still misleading. The Achievement description says only "read every book". Follow the link, and you find the Books article, with the complete list of books. The impression is very strong that every Book must be read, and only the full article text can correct that mis-impression. Furthermore, the article does not clearly define "skill books" as a whole set. You can extract the basic meaning well enough, but then you are faced with having to sort through the whole '''single!''' list to identify which book belongs to which subset. The article needs two tables, one for each subset, or at least a single table clearly subdivided into two lists. In addition, the text about skill books should be moved out of the are that is supposedly describing all books, and be clearly associate with the skill book list. Finally, the Achievement description should say "read every non-skill book" (or something to that effect), regardless of what the Steam description might be, because that description is simply false. The Wiki should reflect the game, and that achievement is notably outside the base game, so its terminology or descriptions should not be held sacrosanct. Anyone have any thoughts about such a re-organization? [[User:Giles|Giles]] ([[User talk:Giles|talk]]) 19:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)