Talk:Module

Style

Thanks Bilka for fixing my style issues. I don't want to re-edit your changes without consultation, but I was thinking maybe this capitalization would be even better:

Exceptions to the items listed in this tab are: the satellite, the recipes that fill/empty a barrel, as well as most of the centrifuge recipes: nuclear fuel, nuclear fuel reprocessing and the Kovarex enrichment process.

I'm not actually starting a sentence after the colon, so I thought they should be lowercase? And Kovarex is probaly actually a proper noun, so maybe uppercase that. But then I looked to find if I'm actually right and it turns out that also two colons in the same sentence are discouraged: [1]. So dunno, maybe a bullet list instead? Uukgoblin (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

You are right with useing lowercase after the colons. While Kovarex is technically a proper noun, we treat all recipe, item, and object names as simple nouns, so I'd do the same for the kovarex enrichment provess, for consistency. I don't want that bullet list on the page because it might lead users to believe that those are items the modules can be used on — it catches the eye and people tend to not read the text describing it :P So, I removed the second colon by removing the centrifuge recipe half-sentence and lowercased the rest. Let me know what you think. -- Bilka (talk) - Admin 14:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Yup that looks great, thanks :-) Uukgoblin (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Efficiency modules recommended everywhere

I find this addition to be... dubious:

When using unclean energy sources, such as boilers in the early game, it is recommended to use efficiency modules exclusively in all machines, with the exception of labs which should use productivity modules. This is because the additional pollution created by the production of electricity will always result in a net loss when using other modules. Labs are able to overcome this limitation due to their naturally low power consumption, the fact they don't contribute any pollution directly, and most importantly because the productivity bonus applies to all science packs being researched, leading to savings of several MJ across the entirety of the production chain in exchange for only a MJ or two of additional expense (roughly 2.2MJ of additional expense for productivity 1, with that number decreasing with higher tiers)

This presupposes that reducing pollution is more important than pretty much anything else. Also, I'm dubious of the numbers behind the idea that reduced resource consumption won't be better for pollution production than efficiency modules. After all, if you're consuming fewer resources, you're mining, refining, and processing fewer resources.

At the very least, this should be reworded to be a recommendation specifically about pollution control. That is, if you need to reduce your pollution to an absolute minimum (perhaps due to playing on deathworld settings), do this. Alfonse (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)