# Talk:Dwarf Fortress

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dwarf Fortress/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 11:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll read through the article now and should hopefully leave some comments later today JAGUAR  11:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Can hardly believe this myself but this is an instant pass. I could find nothing wrong with the article; the prose is well written, well structured and easy to read, there are no dead links and all of the references are reliable. In all my 210 reviews I've never passed a GAN with no comments, but after three GARs this article seems to almost meet the FA criteria. I could honestly find nothing worthy of noting here, well done  JAGUAR  11:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow, thanks a lot. I can hardly believe this too. Anyway, nice...my first GA. I'll see about nominating it for DYK too. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The main article states that the game had "solely text-based graphics" for the majority of the game's history, only adding tilesets in 2022, but this is incorrect. The 2022 premium release added official sprites, but these are *not* the same as graphics/tilesets, and the game in fact supported these in versions as early as v0.28 (possibly earlier; I only got this information from a brief scan of the Dwarf Fortress wiki). While the game did not have official tilesets, users were free to create their own, and share them with the community. Anonymous 19:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.140.92 (talk)  

It should be accurate now. I think part of the problem was that it was too technical and explanatory, especially for the lead section. The same could be said for rest of the paragraph. Neutral0814 (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Going over the body now. I've looked at the sources that are cited alongside sentences that contain the word "text-based" and none of the sources refer to the graphics as "text-based". For example § Legacy has the phrase "Justin Ma, one of the developers of FTL: Faster Than Light, commented on its use of text-based graphics," but the source uses the term "ascii graphics". "ASCII graphics" is more accurate than "text-based", so i'm going with that here and a few other places. Neutral0814 (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I did not read your comment carefully and so anybody who read your comment and then read my responses and reviewed my edits may be confused. You're correct about the "solely text-based graphics" statement being wrong, but for a different reason. The mistake the article made was that it used the term "text-based" when it should have used "tile-based" or some other suitable term. A true text-based game does not use images and instead uses actual screen text, i.e. a TUI or teleprinter, something the game never did by default. (Linux version did have a text-based mode option, but I'm unsure if the feature still exists.) The game has always primarily used tilesets, even for ascii characters, so DF is a tile-based game. About sprites not being graphics/tilesets though: the new graphical tileset is still a tileset, even if it displays overlapping tiles in a sprite-like manner. Neutral0814 (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

As the game released on steam and itch with a official tile set, it probably how most players will be experiencing the game moving forwards. Is it time to change out the game play images to the official tile set instead of ascii? Maybe keeping 1 or 2 of the old ones to still show how it used to/can look look like. PocketFerret (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with adding the new pictures, but the ASCII ones can coexist. Firstly, that is what the game was for 20+ years, so it's of big significance in its history. Secondly, Dwarf Fortress is still a free game, but people playing that version will only see ASCII visuals. There are several people who can't or don't want to pay for video games in general. TakodaNotDakota (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

So, this is my first time on this page, but I noticed that the intro section is entirely devoid of references. Particularly, the last paragraph provides direct quotes. All of these things look to be discussed later in the article with sources, but should those same sources be linked in this intro?
For note, the edit for the last paragraph was introduced in this old edit link, and was written by @Neutral0814. I personally really like the edit and find that it's a lot clearer, but it does feel weird that it has no references. The Akashain (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Good question, and welcome to Wikipedia! Everything in the lead (what we call the "Introduction" on Wikipedia) should also appear in the body of the article.  It should actually be redundant.  What should be referenced is the appearance in the body of the article.  Appearances in the lead are assumed to be cited and ideally should not have reference tags there.   It is of course very common on Wikipedia for there to be all kinds of references in the lead, but it's not best practice and is somewhat frowned upon.  Marcus Markup (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)