From Stardew Valley Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This talk page is for discussing Books.
  • Sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
  • Put new text below old text.
  • Be polite.
  • Assume good faith.
  • Don't delete discussions.

Questioning an "error correction" edit, as to correctness

In reference to , an edit of 5 April 2024 at 00:34.

Regarding the opening two paragraphs: So the edit is saying that no "additional or increased advantages" come from a second reading of any book? That contradicts text that was present since before my rewrite, which explicitly listed 100 extra points. I would argue that points constitute advantages, so maybe the argument is about semantics. What is not advantageous about points? The other changes also shift the other sentences into different paragraphs, but that makes meaning less clear, because paragraphs separate topics, and the shift puts some of the text in the wrong topic.
Regarding the lead to the power books section: The edit reintroduces the mistaken idea that books give powers. It is not the books that give the powers, it is the reading that gives them. The lead sentence now misleads the reader at its start, which requires a correction at the end, and may provoke a need to reread in order to understand clearly. More likely, it will generate confusions in some.
The same edit adds the sentence "Subsequent readings of the power books grant 100 XP in a particular skill." Which skill? If different for different books, which skill with which book? And what skill would that be for the Animal Catalogue or Friendship 101? So, perhaps this doesn't apply to every power book but just to some. Which ones? The sentence is hopelessly vague, unintuitive, and is also an addition to previous info. Perhaps it was an attempt to add info to the article, but it can only cause more questions. If there is something to say, perhaps it could be better address in an additional bullet item to be placed in the description column of individual books?
Finally, the lead to the skills book section, and reference back to the article lead: 1) skills, or skills? This change is a reversal of reversals being done more generally throughout the Wiki. Which is it to be? The latter is inferior (in my opinion), simply because it depends upon the definition of a redirection within the Wiki. That's not what redirections are for, principally, and overloading their use may not be in the Wiki's best interest. But I leave that call to Margot, later, when there is more time.
The meaty part of this last section is about saying skill books don't give extra skills when re-read. Really? That's not what the article seemed to say earlier. In fact, that seemed to be the point about re-reading, and the power books section now says it's about them instead, or something like that? So I think the confusions have all been bred by the ones I've mentioned for the power books section, coupled by the Wiki's use of the non-game book grouping we've been calling "skills books". Maybe they need a new handle. I tried to wedge the Queen of Sauce into skills by mentioning "proficiency in cooking", which I hoped would imply both cooking skill and a separation from the game-defined skills-by-points. The state of the article at present seems to show approval for that idea, but I think it's still trouble using the "skills books" label. Referring to "points" is problematic now that there are skill points and mastery points, and points in the game at which it's one or the other, but not depending on the books. If I think of a label I like better, I'll change it in the article, and others may try that also. But change is inevitable.
I intend to proceed from the current state of the article, rather than going back to the specific edit discussed here, but I may reverse some language which was introduced in this edit. I invite discussion on any points I made here, or in future edits. Different ways of looking at the language are the essence of making language say what's needed to the most people. Thanks. Giles (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
The edit in the first two paragraphs removed "In some cases, a second reading gives additional or increased advantages." not because it's incorrect but because it's something that can be introduced later, as the edit did.
No, it said "Each of the 19 power books gives the player a power the first time they are read." Nothing misleading was introduced. Although looking back at it, it could've been reworded to be even more clear, which I now changed.
That's something that's incomplete and should be clarified more with further testing (I might do this later on a throwaway farm with the CJB Item Spawner mod). Also, it does say now that some of them give 20 XP in all skills, so hopefully the confusion of books like Friendship 101 are now clarified.
Skills is much easier for new editors to understand than skills and also, links like the former load faster.
Nowhere was it implied that skill books don't give extra benefits when re-read. I just removed the false claim that "re-reading skill books give 100 XP", because they do not give just that, they still give 250 XP like with the first reading. The edit corrected that misleading claim and said "Reading each of the other 5 skill books grants the player 250 experience points in the specific associated skill, or if the player has already unlocked access to the Mastery Cave, then 250 Mastery points." It never said anywhere that the benefit of earning 250 XP only happens the first time the player reads the book.
So yeah, the edit, while not perfect, actually corrected errors, unlike what you are claiming, and furthermore, it changed pretty terrible wording such as "The 19 power books can give a player special powers" (by just having them in inventory?) and "In some cases, a second reading gives additional or increased advantages" (like?). At least the 100 XP gain addition, while vague, actually pointed somewhere, and clarified what re-reading power books gave you in terms of benefit. I think we should just focus on what the Books page says now, and not a few days ago. User314159 (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I think you've mistaken my intent here, which was not to attack your edit, but to bring up points of how it also had weaknesses. I still do disagree with some of your characterizations, but I referred to your edit simply because it brought up wording issues that still need resolving. And I definitely agree we should move forward from the current state of the article. Thanks also for the clarifications in your comment. It was information I did not have (and could not construe from the article as it was). And your reply makes clear what things we can work on to get to a good final conclusion.
You're clearly a very competent editor and consistent contributor. I've never meant to imply otherwise. I guess I assumed you'd understand that even when I questioned some of your writing. It's in the nature of writing for wikis that such things are not always readily communicated, so I address it now. It's in the nature of just writing on the Internet that there will be unintended interpretations and the like. We all invest of ourselves in the business of writing and find it easy to be touchy about the work we have placed there. I plead guilty to that also at times. But not everyone sees the same language and interprets it the same way. I figure I have strengths to bring to the task. And I see that you do too.
Therefore, I think of this as a great opportunity to craft a unified message. My desire is to convey cordiality, and my respect for you. Understand that I get my outlook from working as a classical musician in the past (no longer physically able). When two good musicians join to perform a work of art, they must agree and unify on interpretation enough so as to present a coherent performance, or else all fails. I've known disagreements that became quite heated but were resolved well, and all with the same object in mind. If they couldn't be resolved, the players resolved to perform a different work. What else is there? So I speak my mind, without reservation, and with a bluntness that I hope conveys the inmost thought. I really don't know a more effective way to work together. I see others fail when they can't be honest, and I don't want to go there. So, my best to you. I hope you can meet me in that spirit, and feel free to respond accordingly. I'll back away otherwise. I'm not committed to editing here if it means contentiousness. I don't think any work is worth that. And I hope you now understand better where I'm coming from. Cheers! Giles (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I apologize if my reply was harsh. My intent with replying was to simply clarify the fact that the edit indeed removed false information (such as the fact that re-reading skill books actually still gives 250 XP rather than 100 XP as mentioned before) and removed vague wording (such as "power books can give special powers").
I do agree that there were (and probably still are) places where the page, especially wording, can be further improved. Feel free to improve any wording as you see fit. It's very very unlikely I will disagree with the wording change. Again, apologies if my reply seemed harsh. User314159 (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Glad there are no ill feelings. I saw nothing harsh in your reply, but was only concerned if I'd been too direct. These days, it's hard to tell just how others are responding to that approach. All's good. :) Giles (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Article lead

1) There have been competing ideas about the need to list cooking recipes in the first sentence. My idea is no, because - is a cooking recipe not a power of both knowledge and ability (to cook the recipe)? Seems to me the other words cover the matter. Cooking is not really an odd-man-out, unclassifiable with other stuff.

2) In my view, the first paragraph is just one sentence, telling about what the primary impacts of books are. The second paragraph ought to be just more general or background material: second paragraph for secondary material. Therefore, "Books can be obtained in a variety of ways." ought to begin the second paragraph, joined with gifting, a secondary purpose. Then if someone reads only the first paragraph, they get the meat. The rest is less informative, hence separated. Giles (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Only 1 book gives cooking recipes, get rid of it and make the paragraph more generic. margotbean (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Ah, Giles, you've added info whilst I was replying. My previous reply addresses point 1, I agree with point 2. I was thinking the same thing. margotbean (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


Since it now appears that all books can give points, I find that the info about it is inappropriately distributed around the article. Especially so, since points are not just of one kind. So:

1) Should I now take it that a re-reading of the Queen of Sauce cookbook produces points as with other books (non-specific skill)?

2) I'll make an edit to haul the general points issues up to the article lead, paragraph 1. That will leave specifics to be mentioned in their relevant places without undue repetition and complication. All in the interest of brevity and clarity everywhere. But that will cause any existing exception to Queen of Sauce to disappear. Need to know if it needs a special mention. I'm unable to check that out right now. Giles (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

In my last edit, my reading of existing text indicated that there was no additional re-reading benefit for any of the skills books, so I left that out. If that's in error, I'll depend on someone else to correct it for now. I'd leave the article lead as is, though, because points still need mentioning there, and what's there is all the generic info about them. Giles (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Location column in Skill Book table

Do we need to have the "Location" column in the Skill Books table? It's a bit bloated since the regular 5 skill books can be obtained in many ways. Perhaps we could remove the "Location" column from that table and keep those details on the separate pages, or specify the common obtaining methods in the paragraph above, with exceptions noted in the table. Bluestblur (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd recommend changing the "Location" column to "Source" in the Power Books table, and just eliminating that column in the Skills Books table. I agree it's a hefty list for the latter, and each entry is particular to the individual book. Why do we supply a link to the table article if we don't expect the user to go there to look things up? It's easy enough for them to do, and avoids the tendency to replicate information between articles. Giles (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)