Wiki Downtime / Change Your Passwords!
This notice may be cached—the current version can be found here.

User talk:Albedo

From Dwarf Fortress Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi. I was recently (in mid-March, '10) appointed to the Admin staff on this site, mainly for my understanding of wiki style and how this DF wiki is put together, rather than any exceptional expertise/understanding of arcanities of wiki code. If I left a message on your Talk page, it was probably as an Admin, unless it was clearly otherwise.

But feel free to post any questions/concerns/comments, and welcome to the wiki!

If you don't know how to use these templates, check them out:


[edit] Aluminum in copper

I have definitely seen aluminum inside a copper vein. It was freakin amazing. Also found 3 magnetite flippin huge clusters, each as big as my fort, 3 lignite veins, 2 microcline (bleagh) big groups, gold and silver vein, 1 hematite vein. It was great. More iron than I know what to do with. But totally aluminum in copper. --Zchris13 12:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Stone articles

The articles on the various types of stone are based entirely on data taken from the game raws. It's possible the raw data has changed since the article was written, but observation alone is not good enough when we have that kind of inside info. If you see some sort of weird anomaly (like veins of aluminum), then Toady would most likely appreciate a bug report about that. VengefulDonut 06:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

not veins of aluminum. Aluminum adjacent to veins. I have seen it in hematite, and copper. --Zchris13 00:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Could someone point me to where the discussions are on how the articles should be set up? Sorry. I just... I'm being impulsive and driven and stuff and I want to know so I can /do/ stuff, and... you know, stuff. With stuff in it. I'm clearer after sleep, I promise. (Don't believe me, I'm always ambiguous, though rarely by intent.) --jaz 08:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
NM. Found it. Duh... Trust me, sleep is my friend. - jaz

[edit] (response)

But is it an anomaly? I'm not sure how to read the RAW's at that level. --Albedo 07:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Both are IGNEOUS_EXTRUSIVE, so, depending upon how the raws are acted upon, there are several ways this could happen...
1) The layer tiles are replaced first with veins(copper), and then small clusters (aluminum). Veins sometimes leave pockets of the layer stone incased, when the vein splits and then reconnects. I've seen it a few times, but I wouldn't call it common. The small cluster that would have been aluminum if the copper weren't there covers part or all of the area within the pocket. The rest of area of the small cluster is ignored, since the aluminum raws do not mention copper. (The way platinum mentions magnetite, for example).
2) The layer tiles are replaced first with the small clusters (aluminum) and then the veins (copper)... the copper vein just happens to meander around the pre-existing aluminum.
3) It does several iterations of whatever order it does, making both options 1 and 2 possible, potentially simultaniously (though not in the same tile, obviously).
4) Something completely different I have no clue about. I could make some stabs at things that could have caused that result, but they would all be both difficult and clunky, both in the design and in the implimentation.
5) It glitched. It's a computer. It happens all the time.
Was that completely useless, or just mostly so? - jaz 20:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC) (Poking around at modding is helping me learn to read RAW)

[edit] Trader

If the Appraiser skill is the highest skill you have, isn't the profession "trader"? I know I've seen the trader profession before. Below is what I think the skill/professions are.

Appraiser -> Trader
Building designer -> Architect
Organizer -> Administrator
Record keeper ->Clerk

I think that you are correct in that the overall skill (when you have two or more skills close in skill level) is also adminstrator. --Kwieland 20:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Just read your log - I notice you build walls around the pipe. Have you considered a channel around the pit? Same effect, but you don't have to carry stone.--Kwieland 21:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed Trader - my bad. Read the Skill discussion page - that group of skills is not at all clear.
I don't intend to go near the imps - the wall will create an AG enclosure above my dining hall/kitchen area, for AG crops, statue garden, private water and fishing area, etc etc. (More extensive answers in Kwieland's talk page) --Albedo 01:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] fuel

While it is true that I moved the page to "Refined coal", the page I moved it from was "Refined Coal". The naming convention you were asking about is to only capitalize the first letter, since wiki links are case sensitive on all letters except the first. I think the original name of the article was "Refined Coal".

As for the origin of the term, it appears in the cancellation message if you assign a fuel-requiring task when you have no fuel. If this message no longer shows up, I have no qualms about retiring the term. However, if it still does then "refined coal" is a more suitable name than "fuel" since only "refined coal" appears in-game. VengefulDonut 06:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the confusion needs to be cleared up, but I don't think separating fuel and refined coal into separate articles will help since they are just words for the same thing. I think that the best solution would be a short disambiguation at the top of the refined coal page. As long as all the terms redirect to that page anyone interested in any of them will end up seeing it. As for the title, we should definitely prefer an in-game term over a forum-supplied term. Everyone who uses the wiki plays the game, but not everyone uses the forum.
The article as-is contains all the information pertaining to the naming issue, but if you think it's confusing, the page organization may be to blame. Perhaps information pertaining to names and categories could be consolidated at the top. VengefulDonut 15:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "fuel coal". The terms are "refined coal" and "coal fuel". VengefulDonut 13:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I know, I know! And I find I can't shake that term! (esp when tired). Not sure where used it this time, but it's like Pres. Bush saying "nucular arsenal". Arrrggghhhh!!!! --Albedo 22:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Olivine

See Talk:Olivine VengefulDonut 07:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] That revealed vein comment of Zchris13

I totally understand why you undid that, but it was sort of funny. And I can accomplish that without using a third party utility. I can create down stairs on the level above, which reveals the tile. --Zchris13 23:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] armorsmith page - re quality of artifact armor

In my head, I thought artifact armour & weapons were better than masterwork too, but that's not what the Item quality page says:

☼Item Name☼ Masterful ×12 ×2.0
Unique name Artifact ×120 ×2.0

And we should assume that's accurate, neh?--Albedo 23:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

nobody knows. It is a mystery!!!! Ohhhh...
I really don't know what to believe. Toady has dropped contradicting hints, people report contradicting data, and nobody really knows what is going on. I say we just put a maybe in there. --Zchris13 02:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sorting table on Metal page by color

The issue is that the only plaintext in the color column is "*", which is hard to sort by. If we want it to be sortable we need the plaintext of each entry to not be identical. A pretty way to pull this off isn't coming to mind, but that's the goal. Nice work on the table, by the way. VengefulDonut 13:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the first letter of the color name, in the same color as the background. --Zchris13 17:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Or change the tile entirely - the more I look at it, not sure what the whole "background color" achieves. But as I understand it the use of the icon (the asterisk) representing the ore is the problem. May take some rethinking.--Albedo 22:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Every metal has a unique foreground color and a unique background color. On items like doors, you get to see both. This is actually why doors are included in the corners of the diagram on the assorted metal pages (eg: copper) VengefulDonut 23:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
<Nods> Got it. Is there a way to "pipe" the icon in, and use some numerical representation to sort? Meh, you've probably thought of that. Or piping the icon in??? Or using a subtly diff icon? Sorting by color is, admittedly, perhaps the least of our concerns with that table. Maybe remove the "sortable" part from the template for now?--Albedo 23:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
What is it we are sorting here? --Zchris13 23:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Metal page table (fixed in sub-title above)

HA! fixed. me r hte supra jeeeenius! Completely by accident, natch. Tried adding numbers in w/ the asterisks, to give the system something to sort. That worked w/ only 2 numbers, they all sorted. So I backed out, and tried same w/ small numbers for a better look. Then w/ only 1 small "A" for adamantine, no numbers - that worked too! Then, just for the helluvit, I tried making one asterisk small - and that worked too, w/ no visible difference in text. All it needed was one difference, and they all get sorted, np. woot and a half.--Albedo 01:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

lol. Did you try it with no change at all? I bet that would have sorted, too. Why? Because the edit right before yours was a fix :P VengefulDonut 05:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
... buzzkill! LOL! didn't even see an edit before mine. suuuuupra jeeeeenius!--Albedo 08:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User name vs preferred name/nickname

Albedo, I don't know why you think that it's unacceptable for someone to use a different name to sign their posts.
There's a built-in function for doing exactly that (once you figure out how to use it) in your preferences.
Additionally, while this isn't Wikipedia, you still shouldn't bite the newbies. -Edward 21:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess because I'm used to going to "User:Name" to find their page, and that doesn't work - why take one username when you intend to use an entirely diff nickname? And I felt I was more muzzling than biting - over-enthusiasm is laudable, and ignorance is something that everyone has, but a bad combination together in public.--Albedo 21:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I joined with my usual semi-anonymous handle, as I wasn't sure I'd stick around, or that the wiki was going to be worth working on. Later decided that I was going to try to be a significant part of the community, and set my nickname/signature to my Real first name. That's probably something similar to most people who use non-User name signatures. It's also possible that what name people would normally choose won't work for signing up. In the end, clicking the signature of a user will take you there, regardless of what they put in it or why they don't use their user name. -Edward 23:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Do tell. And you do this "clicking" thing with that computer mouse thing???... Stating the obvious is... well, exactly what it is. --Albedo 23:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
lol... ok, you want blunt? Don't tell other people to do something a certain way that you prefer, simply because you don't want to use the system already in place. -Edward
No, altho' blunt serves it's purpose. However now you're simply repeating what you've already said, which again serves none. But it seems I must follow suit - if I want to go to your page but don't have your sig in front of me, I would normally type "User:Edward" in the search box and hit "go" - that doesn't work. Hence, problematic, and NO direct system is in place. Solution? Either Search, or create a redirect for you. And your personal shift in names is not what TD did - which I thought would also be obvious. Your concern is admirable - I think you are/were confused as to my exact position, which is "Why adopt a psuedonym the same day you create the User Account?".--Albedo 00:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It annoys me too, Albedo. But I really just think we should let it lie. Can't really hurt anything, can it? Other than our brains, but whatever.--Zchris13 00:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
<nods> --Albedo 00:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
... I didn't mean to get you all riled up. And thank you, Edward, for asking him not to bite me, but I /did/ rather earn it... at least the ignorant + over-enthusiastic part. (I'm not saying I'm cured, yet, either.) Also, with warnings all over the place, if I can't handle a little criticism, I should just go home and cry, and not come back until I'm all grown up. Boo hoo. Ok, I'm done now.
Again, as to the me not signing with a link, it was a P.S. There was a (hand typed, oif) link directly above. Also, I was /really/ new and /really/ ignorant. I'm still fairly new (I've still got the "how to use the tildies to sign your name" guide at the top of my talks page so I don't forget), and I'll always be ignorant, but I'm fairly decent at figuring things out once five or six people have yelled at me about the same thing. Thanks, btw. I did need that. - jaz 20:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I might recommend putting in a new-user default page that explains basic behind-the-wiki language, except for 2 things. A) It would not have helped me keep out of trouble, since I initially signed up due to poor impulse control and I /had/ to respond to... I don't even know what, anymore. And B) most (but not all) is fairly easy to pick up on the fly if you (bother to) look at how it was done by the other six people who responded before you... which is why I was typing my link out by hand at first... and some of them said "Teres Draconis" instead of "jaz" because I didn't understand the syntax at all. When I say "I don't speak geek," I'm not joking. But I think I'm learning to read this dialect fairly well. - jaz
The WTML is fairly easy to understand, much easier than HTML. There is a very helpful help section at The Big Wiki. Note that their rules are different from ours, you don't need to follow their style guidelines.--Zchris13 17:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Dwarves guide to stone comment

I guess you removed my comment on alunite to avoid confusion with the value stuff? I've had places where you can't go more than 20 tiles or so without "You have struck Alunite!".--Smjjames 12:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(response) Np then as it's understandable to avoid confusion.

[edit] Armor sets

You seem to be interested in changing these. How do you like what I did?--Zchris13 01:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
VengefulDonut seems not to like it so much. hmm...--Zchris13 03:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] glass = wood

Elves dislike green glass as well? VengefulDonut 00:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point - now that you mention it, dunno. (I didn't make the original post, just expanded to explain the connection). I've got a Spring trading session coming up, and green/clear glass - I can triple check. Or, if you know the answer, of course feel free to edit the edit, np by me.--Albedo 01:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I have no clue on this one :P VengefulDonut 06:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Did you use charcoal as fuel when making the glass? (charcoal = dead tree) I've found that on the few fortresses I've had with /no/ source of coke, elves got /very/ picky about what they'd buy. If you used charcoal to smelt the ores, using coke to make finished products may "correct" this problem, but it's rather hard to tell, now. Of course, that doesn't help with glass, does it? That's a single fuel product. - jaz 09:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] quotes

You know, if you change a quote then it's not a quote any more. VengefulDonut 23:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, fyi, quote page policy is that re-adding removed quotes requites a talk page discussion. VengefulDonut 23:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
You're right, but considering your given reasons for that mass deletion, I didn't bother with a vote for each one, I just reduced their size and replaced. Not all of them - a couple I didn't feel should have been there to begin with, length or no.--Albedo 01:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
You didn't respond to the first issue, which is the bigger one imo. VengefulDonut 05:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
You can't change what someone else said just because they didnt say it the way you wanted them to. If the spelling bothers you so much, then feel free to tag it with [sic], but if you change the content at all then it's not a quote any more. VengefulDonut 07:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but that is, in my personal opinion, absolutely absurd. But fine - you asked for it.--Albedo 11:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Arbitrary quote removal is completely supported by the current quote guidelines. You can find them on talk:Main Page/Quote. These are not guidelines that I made up on the spot or forced on anyone. They have been around for a while. This is not cause for ad-hominem attacks (actually, I can't think of any situation that is) VengefulDonut 16:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Various disagreements

I just wanted to say that even though you and me are disagreeing quite a bit lately, I usually agree with most of your decisions. I think you're a good, rational editor. So please don't take things personally when an argument comes up. VengefulDonut 16:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Good rational editor. Yup.--Zchris13 22:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
And it all seems so polite. It's nice when people can disagree with courtesy and style. - jaz 09:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Defense Guide

Hi, I'm a lurker, and know squat about wiki editing. However, there is something that should go into one of the new pages - but I'm not sure which. Mechanics (and others) have a nasty habit of wanting to clean, or reload traps during conflict. Forbidding traps after they are built will keep, for example, DOdok McGoblinBait from deciding to reload a stone trap in the middle of a siege. I got this info from User:0x517A5D's Siege Checklist, which has some other defense info as well. FWIW, I think you're doing a great job with this. --Bob 01:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] [[link]]s vs [[links]]

You know why redirects were invented right?

So editors like me can be lazy. (Alternatively you could hunt up all the plural redirects and nuke all of them, there are plenty.)

Having said that, I made the change because I find [[masons]] easier on the eye in the edit window than [[mason]]s, but it's an "individual preference" I guess.

By the way: rhetorical questions in edit comments make you look like a smart arse, just like my first line makes me look like one. There is no "tone of voice" in an edit comment. GarrieIrons 06:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

G'morning! You're right. I was tired, and hadn't remembered you were an old hand at this. My comments were meant to be helpful, not condescending, but I can see how it could be read either way. So many editors dive in without realizing what's going on, and since it's invisible in the final product... Meh, in the end, masons, masunz - whatever works. I guess for me, it's all about the "root word stem", but as you say, that's just preference. For what it's worth, I agree with 99% of your edits that I've seen, and the other 1% are a coin toss by me. I guess this is one coin toss I kneejerked on.--Albedo 13:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
No harm, no foul... you say g'morning, I say g'night! All I know is I just survived an ambush for the first time without saying f#@k this and abandoning. Pop went from 65 to 50 though... :( (my recruits v their Master bowmen) Thank you surpentine passageway and stone-fall traps! Now what do I do with a half-dozen gobs? GarrieIrons 14:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshot Tilessets

I'm sure you're aware of Rule I.
Mentioning it due to the SS's you put up on the Vein (and other) page(s). -Edward 00:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

??? - I am aware of it, and I use the vanilla DF tileset - why do you mention it?--Albedo 01:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see the issue, you're using the default graphical set. Hmm.. the rule is kinda ambiguous there. I just picked up on it from seeing the bearded dwarf, since I always stick to the pure ASCII, as does most of the wiki. Perhaps this means that a call for clarification should be made on Rule I? -Edward 03:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, the "default graphical set" - and rule I says "Images and screenshots should use the default tilesets for clarity" - not sure what else it is that you were expecting, nor what "clarification" there needs to be made - default is defaul, neh? The recent tiles I posted in mega projects (tower) were straight off this site - here Character table. Can you point to an example of what you were expecting? --Albedo 05:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The graphical set and character set use somewhat different images for most of the tiles. Certain characters like the dwarves, and dwarfbuck, have noticeable differences between the graphical and character sets. It's no big deal really, but it seems inconsistent to have some SS's with the graphical set and SS's and diagrams with the character set. (Not that it's your fault either, mind you. I agree that the rule was followed, but as I said, I think the rule might need to be changed.) -Edward 21:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see - I remember that I tried using the default "tiles", but my PC balked at the very idea. It seems there are about 3 different "defaults" lying around - those two plus this wiki's ascii table - hrmmm. While standardization is good, I'm not sure how we can expect a "vanilla user" to conform to both sets. (How diff is it?) --Albedo 22:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Not sure how I could quantify the differences any further than I have already. You could look for yourself at the curses and graphical files in your directory for further comparison. The differences aren't really that big, and I agree that the average editor probably wouldn't know the difference, but then, you're no average editor, are you? ;) I guess the most I'm realistically hoping for is that a handful of editors that are looking for something to do (perhaps Jaz would be a good recruit for this?) would re-capture the images that don't use whichever set is agreed upon to be the standard. I dunno, don't really have any ideas for this, outside of the idea that we need ideas :p -Edward 21:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit]  ???

If you know what's going on, then I must be missing something. I don't get the point of what you did at all. How is [[rope]] different from [[restraint|rope]]? VengefulDonut 21:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] re: End of statement

See talk:soap. VengefulDonut

[edit] Masonry

I see in several articles you've mentioned that a building requires the masonry labor to construct. For a few of these, I'm suspicious because of how it is with screw pumps. There it depends on the building material, just as with walls and bridges. Rock, glass, and soap building materials will require masonry. Wood will require carpentry, and metal will require metalsmithing. I have only had this come up with bridges, screw pumps, and walls, but I expect this will hold in general. VengefulDonut 03:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, you're right - I make those with stone blocks exclusively, and wanted to emphasize the 2-stage construction - just spaced on other labors for other materials. I'll track down what I can.--Albedo 05:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] version tags

You can use {{subst:current}} to create a version tag on a page for the current version. When you use template:version in other cases, please try to use an actual version number (eg: since otherwise it will get stuck into category:unknown version rather than the appropriate version category. This will matter when game updates make us pick over the old stuff. Also, the game mechanics of 40d# versions are identical to 40d since the only changes are Baughn's OpenGL fixes. For this reason, it's safe to bundle those under 40d's umbrella. VengefulDonut 02:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Garnierite

I'm an absolute twit; It *was* in gabbro, i forgot that gabbro looks exactly like obsidian. *doh*. Riffraffselbow 01:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Burrows

Toady did put in burrows, but the version Toady is working on is different from Baughn's OpenGL project. The d# releases are made by Baughn. When we have another version from Toady (with different game code) it will have a different version number. VengefulDonut 18:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The "open gaming" was an just incredibly weird thing to see in the article. An "open gaming" update doesn't even parse right. It wasn't an intended as an insult; rather an exclamation at the strangeness of the thing. VengefulDonut 21:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the other arrangement wasn't consistent with the formatting of the article. I didn't think altering it would be a problem since the same information is available a paragraph away. It's aesthetic nitpicking. VengefulDonut 21:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2 minutes

That would mean your framerate would not be 100 FPS. Shardok 10:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

More confidence? It's obvious. That's *all* that needed said. And frankly, I don't care whether people with faster computers see the game as more of a game or not. All I was doing was explaining *why* it takes you 2 minutes as opposed to 2 seconds for you (which was already explained *in* the article after my revision. Shardok 10:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Except that you'd be deleting a talk discussion between multiple people. Even just deleting your parts would ruin the discussion, and whether or not it was or wasn't valid at this time doesn't mean it couldn't be a valid discussion for people later on, maybe someone using the Dig Deeper mod will have the same question and won't be certain if it's the mod or by default, then by seeing the talk there they'll see that it's the mod that does it. Or someone could have the same weird problem as you and might be able to give better explanation for why. Shardok 19:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] actually

would be nobles'. :) But this wording is better anyway. --Koltom 23:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Quietust explained the purpose of the restricted areas in the article. They are purely to demonstrate that the dwarves had no route except that one. VengefulDonut 23:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Ice Wolf

(you can "verify" yourself by looking at the file. 100% the same as "wolf" except biome and activity cycle)

My "Verify" was aimed toward the statement of them being "unnatural" creatures, not identical to regular wolves. Sorry for the confusion, though. --Bronzebeard 20:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Contact Info

Yes, I will make my email address available as soon as I get a few more things worked out with the server. Briess 18:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] IP Numbers / Sig

Is it possible you were logged out at the time? I enabled anonymous edits for at least a trial period earlier today. If that's not it, let me know and I'll dig deeper.--Briess 06:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC) does not have any edit restriction time; instead, they have a brief period of time before a user is auto-confirmed. IP issues may seem odd, but a user is not going to have his IP address dynamically reallocated while using the wiki (as that would cause an internet disconnection at the minimum), responding on the talk page is the same for as a user, and restricting edits based on an arbitrary account scheme is not exactly something that is welcoming. Instead, (and this is from my experience on wikipedia); you'll find that many times the users that continue on and perform substantial positive edits start out as an ip, and eventually register a username; also, the way the current captcha is set up encourages registration (skip the annoying captcha instead of filling one out every single edit, yay!). I understand where your concerns are coming from, but some people like to be anonymous contributors. We shouldn't begrudge them that; and if ip vandalism ever becomes an issue, it's trivial for an sysop to block an IP, range of IPs, or I can very quickly disable edits from unregistered users. At the very least, I want to see what kind of anonymous contributions we will get here for about a month before I go and disable anonymous edits again. --Briess 06:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeesh, you just want to make me work, huh? announcements all over the place! Yeah, I'll point out the stuff somewhere, but preferably when I'm less sleepy and slightly more awake. :) Also, my brain is not sufficiently on right now to answer your question in any fashion that would make sense, so I'll do that once I've had my caffeine for the day.--Briess 09:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Eagles

"In the real world, Giant Eagles are flying supermarkets that are nearly as strong as elephants." I laughed for a good couple of minutes.--Briess 21:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Er, oops, meant to see if you thought perhaps we should change it :V --Briess 22:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pages for Deletion

I went through the pages for deletion category, and the majority of them I instead redirected to the appropriate article, or rolled back to a version with a redirect to an article. --Briess 17:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to deleting pages - although administrators (sysops) can review the full revision history of a deleted page, it becomes inaccessible to any others who would attempt to access those resources. Also, the search engine capability is notoriously weak on the mediawiki engine; until such a time that either this wiki is upgraded to a version with improved spelling detection and / or the search system is replaced, I would prefer to err on allowing the redirect of spelling errors to the intended page; the redirect pages consume very few resources server-wise (1 redirect action is completely followed to the target page in as few as 180 lines of code, versus displaying a page which is a cost hit of 10s of thousands of processing events). I can completely understand your concern on keeping the site 'clean,' but until we have a feature for the wiki (and this is something I'm working on!) allowing for tagged 'stable' or 'excellent' revisions, I highly doubt any measure of cleanliness truly matters to anyone except for us wiki-connoisseurs. Also, if the inclusion of such a spelling travesty as "bizmuth bronze" allows some poor, um -- well, moron to access the material they needed, perhaps we can consider that a success?
Also, I don't want to claim here that any such policy is set in stone; instead, it's just something I felt would be an appropriate reaction. If you disagree, I propose we >>EDIT WAR!!!<< over these pages. Er, I really meant if you still disagree, I'm more than willing to continue discussing what the appropriate course of action should be over any editorial policies we may have on this wiki. --Briess 23:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Is that a threat or a promise? ;) --Briess 00:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Graphics gone missing

I thought I had recovered all the missing graphics, but I guess I was wrong. Let me know if another rears its ugly [404] head. --Briess 16:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Exploratory mining

I'm a bit confused as to what you mean by labor vs. net effect. Ordinarily, I would expect labor to refer to the number of mining jobs necessary to dig out a particular area, whereas net effect would be the number of tiles dug out. However, the comment you made would seem to imply the opposite. What exactly do you mean by labor? --LaVacaMorada 01:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Economic Stone: Bauxite?

Excellent edit. I like the way you did it better than I, and your point is well-seen. Just figured I'd pop by to give a thumbs up since I would assume editor's changes aren't well-received as a general rule (though it seems most people here run contrary to that tenet). Anyway, good work! Erd T. Mans (the guy who inserted Bauxite where it didn't belong!)

[edit] NO0B!

If you have questions, you can ask here or you can email me at locriani in the something is gmail address. Behind the scenes code is... fun, and the best place to learn that is at the mediawiki wiki, or, for the new engine, the [wagn] wiki pages. Wagn is rather interesting, but will take a bit to get used to. Yeah, I want to kind of get a few of the templates and features in on Wagn before we start really stuffing new version information into the wiki (and create an account, so I can grant you admin on that as well), so that's what I'm playing with at the moment. Honestly, even with the link in the front page, about 1/10 people will look at it, 1/1000 will register an account, and nobody will actually edit it, so I think we're safe for the new version pages. :) --Briess 17:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Your account password is now the name of the 5th Special:UnwatchedPages on the list, all lowercase. Please change it :) --Briess

[edit] Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Versions

Based on your comments and input on the administration requests pages I thought you might be interested in this kind of discussion. Please bring in your comments on this page and on it's talk page and let everyone know what you think. Thanks! Mason11987 20:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you drop by and comment on "consensus" again? [1] Mason (T-C) 00:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Current events

I'd like you to take a look here [2]. Thanks Mason (T-C) 15:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Disabling Edit Rights

If you click on hide patrolled entries, all of my edits will be hidden. --Briess 21:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Addendum - since QuietBot is marked as a bot, its edits are also hidden by default. --Briess 21:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Title of pages in tab

It seems with the "40d" migration, most pages just show 40d in the tab at the top of the article (like where the discussion, edit, etc tabs are) . Can that be changed to show the article title instead? I looked at experience and appraiser and they both had it so I assume it is universal. If you can check that appraiser question, I'd appreciate it too ;) --Kwieland 00:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, all of the 'normal' articles show "Page" in that tab, not the article title, since that tab is used to indicate the namespace in which the page resides. --Quietust 01:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand. What is a normal article? One for the "future" DF?--Kwieland 05:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The title of the pages have never been in the tab. I don't understand it except from observation - if you open any page from before the "new format" (for instance, and go back to the page itself (rather than any redirect to a d40 page), for instance hammer, you'll see the word "page" where you'd expect the Article Title to be. I suspect that's a sort of "domain", an organizational option for wiki. Default is "page", but "those who know wiki code (better than I)" have set up a different one, "40d", to distinguish those articles from the previous, or what until now have been "normal" (ie, undistinguished/default) ones. This umbrella category for articles is called a "namespace". The current Admin paradigm is that for every future version release, there will be a new namespace - so there will be a (ver = DF2010) namespace very soon, and then some years in the future a (ver = 201?) namespace, etc., etc., to keep the articles from muddying each other, and to allow any legacy versions to keep their documentation intact. (It's been said before, but it bears repeating - Users should remember that "DF2010" will 'not be the official version name, that's just a "working title" users have adopted to refer to the imminent(?) release... and personally I'd find it darkly hilarious and not overly surprising if it weren't released until 2011.) --Albedo 13:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfA isn't a mod

But I can't remove {{mod}} from it because it's locked. Could you do it? VengefulDonut 15:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] modding guide

The article is about how to make mods, not about particular mods. Also, I didn't RA because I haven't thought of anything I need it for. If I find a use for it, I'll ask for it (: VengefulDonut 16:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Your template includes articles in category:mods. The modding guide is already in category:modding. VengefulDonut 00:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Template: ArticleVersion

No. It was to a template page. A template that uses lots of parser functions -- it's only reasonable to test on the pages it actually exists on.

Do you use IRC or gtalk? I'd be happy to explain some of the more complex wiki stuff to you, a few places I've gotten the feeling that you just haven't had a chance to learn about them yet. Let me know. :) Emi 00:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Premature Arenalation

Fair enough, that was one of my earlier edits before we sort of worked out how we wanted to do this change. No need to inform me of any changes you make to something I did though. If you think you could improve what I did (even if it's by undoing it) go for it and if I think I disagree I'll bring it up to you. Short: Cool, agreed. Mason (T-C) 02:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I had actually originally intended to take the DF2010 article and split it into a bunch of articles so people can read about each of the new features in a full article that would later develop into the details when they were available after release. It seems we aren't going that way, and that's cool. But Arena was the first and only one I split off. Mason (T-C) 16:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] re: cv

I'm not sure I completely understand your question, so if my response doesn't answer your question, let me know. The only redirects that are being changed to CV: are ones from mainspace articles to 40d currently. I'm sure some situation exists, in which a mainspace article should redirect to the 40d namespace, but the number is very small. We're not using CV for redirects anywhere but in the mainspace. If you see them somewhere other than the mainspace (and main talk space) they are incorrectly there. Emi 00:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Double Redirects (40d:Gold Bars)

Don't delete these double redirects. They are /very/ important in the wiki's proper functioning. All mainspace pages that are on a topic that is version specific are supposed to redirect to cv:foo, so page gold goes to cv:gold, not cv:metal. This is important, because if it redirects to cv:metal, we've lost the version independence that we're trying to create. So a redirect chain like Gold bars -> 40d:Gold bars -> 40d:metal is correct, don't change it. Emi 01:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a very good reason for it's existence. Gold bars -> Metal was a pre-existing redirect, before the whole 40d: thing. I agree that it's maybe a silly redirect, however, right now I am making sure these redirects all work properly, which means the redirect chain I said. If you want to get rid of the redirect, delete the entire chain, and then go and check to make sure you haven't broken a poorly made link somewhere. All you did was delete one part, creating both broken links and broken redirects.
As for moving everything to 40d: -- that wasn't me, but they did it the right way. It's much easier to automatically move everything and then go back and change the ones that aren't version specific than to go through and move every one manually. Emi 02:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, do you happen to have msn or gtalk? I think we have the same end goal, just differing methodology, and talking over one of those methods is much easier than this. Emi 03:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Discretion only slows down serializable tasks like the one I was doing. It's much easier to follow the same pattern over and over and then go back and do all the stuff necessary to remove a silly redirect. Emi 03:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, because there's no real reason not to have most of these redirects, it's silly to bother checking each one before fixing them. If the admins at this wiki are of the "I'm an admin, so my word is law" attitude, I'm not sure this is a place I want to be. Emi 03:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The reason I mentioned that was because your original message gave the feeling. If you had read my actual message, it was regarding the fact that you only broke a double redirect. Had you just deleted the entire chain, I wouldn't have had a problem. Also, I didn't notice that you had deleted it until after I had recreated it. Anyways, I ask again if you use either of those other communication methods, as I think this is more a misunderstanding than anything, and it's much easier to work these things out in real time. Emi 03:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Colored Notice Box

See: Template talk: Colored Notice Box. I thought I'd point you to that, as you are one of the most active people here. Let me know what you think. Emi 05:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Treants and Wizards

I know this may be a reeeeally late answer, but you mentioned wizards have no raw file? I'm pretty sure wizards are included in creature_standard, along with treants. The reason they don't appear in game at but can show up in engravings is because they have no defined biome, thus they don't spawn anywhere. Regarding ogres and trolls, for all hack 'n slash purposes, they're the same thing, apart from having different biomes, prefstring, bonecarn, different number of fingers/toes, etc.

Comments on the rarity of certain creatures are based on their frequency and biomes. Creatures that spawn only in certain biomes and have lower frequency (like stranglers) are naturally considered more rare. Dakk 20:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Fix this page template

All I can find is the fix this image template. Hrm. --Briess 18:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. Of course, we can always make one :) --Briess 20:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] And so it begins...

Haha, yeah. We hit more than 15x the normal pageviews per day yesterday. I'm still waiting on ToadyOne for an "official" / blessed nickname for the version series we are on. --Briess 18:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that you make me laugh (re: over eager editors). Thanks for handling that. :) --Briess 19:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Site Announcements

Is this better now? You have to explicitly close it on each page. --Briess 21:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] EmiBot Notice

EmiBot is going to be breaking some links in the 40d article namespace right now, I figured that'd be a better place to start with these edits, since people are mostly going to be interested in 0.31.01 right now. Later EmiBot will go through and tag all the pages that now have red links with {{red link}} so that they're all added to a nice category where they can be fixed by hand, because unfortunately the reason that some links will break is something that EmiBot can't fix. Anyways I was wondering if you might add to MediaWiki:Sitenotice that the red links are expected behavior, so people don't start freaking out about them. Emi 19:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

EmiBot has standing orders to check all df2010 pages for {{av}}, so you might remove that part of the notice, because that site notice is a little long. Also, I'd remove all of the new editors stuff but the don't copy/paste part, because they're the most important things currently. Emi 20:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, the links won't be fixed automagically, they'll be tagged for manual fixing, since they can't be automatically fixed. Emi 20:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Could you at least remove the Admin Announcements, New Editors, and thanks the admin, lines? They are fairly superfluous I think. Or maybe change the new editors group of stuff (except for the copy/paste line, because that's extremely important) to a read this type link. The smaller we can make the site notice, the better, because it'll be confusing to non-editors I think. Emi 20:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree, remove those three lines but somewhere add a link to some sort of place where people can ask questions/comments about what's up there. Mason (T-C) 20:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Is this better? (note, I'm still afkish)--Briess 20:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Even though I already mentioned it in IRC, yes, much better. Emi 20:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Meh, I have to disagree. Site Messages are not for those who are conscientious enough to go and read them, they are "HEY- YOU!", in-your-face, "Ha - TRY to avoid reading this!" type announcements - which is exactly what we need for these first chaotic days. The main reason those lines seem so out of place is b/c we haven't used that notice much before, and the more they look out of place the better the message is communicated. Plus, as is, only people who check will ever see any changes, and many won't check to begin with.
I strongly suggest we go back to how it was, or some combo. Visually, a dozen lines is not much more than a half-dozen, and that information seems to be exactly the sort that our new (overenthusiastic and ignorant) editors need to know. (And the first and last lines clearly demarcate it as something outside of the current article).
I don't know code, but I know style, presentation and communication - and this won't reach a fraction of whom it otherwise would, and less than that of the new editors that we need to reach. The current link is soft and nice and ignorable - an announcement needs to be ugly and jarring because then it's working, and it won't need to be so for long.--Albedo 21:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I could've sworn I had said hourly, though actually I just have a continuous loop going, so it should get pages within say, 5-10 minutes of them being made without a {{av}} tag. Also, could you remove the "collapsed" portion -- oh I see that's already been done actually, I had an idea involving that and custom .css scripts. Could you also add id="siteannounce" before class=etc...? This will allow the default to be open, and allow users to add to their personal .css page to have it be collapsed. Emi 21:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

(Think someone beat me to it - let me know if not. Collapsible version (default = open) is good by me - solves both concerns nicely.)--Albedo 21:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Version Issue: Lists, Templates, etc...

Pages with procedurally generated content, such as the rock layer pages (eg, 40d:Basalt), in addition to regular links also have links applied by template. Some of these, such as the { {Rocks} } navigation tool at the bottom, seem to respect version number. But the sidebar Igneous rock layer list template doesn't, and I can't figure out how the "uses" links are even being generated. Do we have some policy on how this should be fixed? Do we need to make a 40d Igneous rock layer template? How does the Rocks navigation template know how to respect version number?

Or, more succinctly, arg!

(Note that the rock layers don't seem to have gotten tagged with {av} at all, nor did their links get updated to 40d ones, so there's a lot of manual work besides the obvious to bring them up to snuff.)

Edit: While I'm thinking about it, do we have a plan for categories? Because names that start with 40d are going to come before DF2010, and otherwise just be a nuissance.

--Squirrelloid 13:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so i figured out how to fix templates. There's still stuff I can't figure out how to fix (where is it generating those 'uses' links from???)
Also, the category problem is a *big* problem - we need a policy and it needs to get implemented sooner rather than later.
--Squirrelloid 16:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Was about to add this on Briess' page when I saw Squirrelloid note it here. I totally agree. Not being able to sort by alphabet is bad enough (everything's listed under 4 or D) without the user confusion. --Retro 02:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
It seems like many of the categories are applied to pages through the use of templates. Would it work to modify the category tags in the templates (and the tags manually embedded) to something like [[category:{{NAMESPACE}}:blah]]? It seems like this would effectively split the categories for the two namespaces on the majority of pages, but there may be something that I'm overlooking. Also, Squirrelloid, there is not a lot of consistency in the templates right now, some of the links are built in to the template itself and some are added by the user when the template is invoked in the page. I've been trying go go through and make all of the built-in links dynamic on all of the templates that make sense. The only problem I can foresee is that it will break these templates for users that have them on their user pages, but it seems a small price to pay for the re-usability it imparts. --Soy 03:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Bwahahaha, random discussion on an admins talk page that he's not chosen to be involved in! (yet...)
Anyway, yeah, i've been using the { {L| notation for templates because it works and lets us keep one template (the alternative is to have one template per namespace - uggh). But the stone 'uses' section is neither generated by page content or by template content that *I* can determine, at least, i did look around to find them in both places and couldn't. Its possible the template calls another template or something crazy like that - I didn't even look! --Squirrelloid 19:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
No comment until now. I think those templates just need to be updated, and/or (urgh), as suggested, distinguished between versions: Template:Stone layer--Albedo 19:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The big deal from above is *categories*. We should really have distinct categories between the namespaces because someone clicking a category link probably wants pages for the namespace he's in. ... I suppose the second remaining issue is if anyone knows how the 'uses' links are being generated, but that's a lot more minor and doesn't involve and structural editing (i hope!) --Squirrelloid 19:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Quick question: what exactly within Template:Stone layer is not working properly? Can you give me an example so that I can see what the issue might be? Thanks! --Soy 20:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Re: So read it...

Well sorry if I annoyed you. My bad with the plural form, good to know. But I did take a look on the 40d page and copied some parts, but -and I may quote- "Please do NOT copy/paste old articles into new namespace unless you screen them for accuracy." So I only transfered those parts where I were 100% sure were valid. I'm no raw-digger, so I just thought I start the article for others to fill in. If you got a problem with that... --Spectre 16:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Well, I tried to express what I meant there, but it eludes my efforts to put it in words (Does that make sense? I dont think it does). Anyway accept my applogies for any offense taken. I'm simply tring to give my share towards the renewing of the wiki, since it allways was a great help to me in the previous version. --Spectre 17:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Example - some fish

Regarding this edit, wouldn't placing the page in the DF: namespace make more sense than 40d? As it is a stylistic example/test and not game info? Emi [T] 17:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Meh - it was a style discussion during 40d, using 40d material. Either way, pretty much marginalized now - didn't belong in 2010, that's for sure.--Albedo 17:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Plant Table

I was intending it to be a general plant table because they share an object in the raws. I made a new table because much of the information on the Crop page didn't apply to all plants. And yes, for practice. Still, if you want me to make it a crop-only page, I'll do that. --Eagle0600 05:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Request for deletion

Sorry to start a new section for this, but I'm afraid that I'm not completely educated on proper etiquette for Talk pages. That being said, would you mind taking care of deleting the 40d:forest and 40d:tundra pages so that I can migrate the existing pages into the proper namespace? It would be much appreciated. --Soy 18:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Re:DF2010:Activity zone

Well, maybe i'm not clearly understanding the idea of migrating to DF2010... but now revision 85744 seems to be almost identical to mine(85077). The difference is that i made links with {{L|page|text}} while he used [[DF2010:page|text]]. -- Peregarrett 06:53, 7 April 2010

[edit] re: nm

There's also the mediawiki technical reasons, so even if it had been CMD, I probably still would have argued for Cmd with a redirect from CMD. Emi [T] 02:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Revised AV Template

Just curious what you think about the work Briess and I did on it? Any suggestions? Emi [T] 00:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd love to get your thoughts on this. --Briess 00:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
it looks meh, a bit bare, and the green stings slightly (compared with the bluish color of the old one), but that's just me. --Tarran 00:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it should <BLINK>blink!</BLINK> 01:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Req for Comments

Hi, would you care to comment on this section before I go any further with it? Thanks. Garanis 12:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] "Real World" Flavor text in Stone Pages

Regarding the real life facts that were provided by Justyn for the stones, I feel that the Wiki should be a repository of game-pertinent information. Just because it can be found at another Wiki doesn't mean it isn't pertinent, and just because it is real doesn't mean it isn't pertinent. A understanding of the stone can help in game a lot more than a blank page. I could understand if you were talking about pages full of the information, but most of the reverts I have seen you do are short paragraphs, which don't seem to be harmful at all. Having the information also provides a starting place for new contributions that are more game-important (such as notes that unlike in real life, mineral x isn't found in y kind of stone, which is VERY important to some people.) Remember that Toady bases a lot of the physical properties of Dwarf Fortress with real life. It has some fantasy elements, and the rule of cool is prominent, but real life is a good baseline for information when information is sparse on the subject. Examine, for example, the subject of Olivine. His "Real World" information mentioned that Serpentine could be found in it. While that same information can be found by going backwards, it no longer (in its incarnation of 4/20/2010 @12:00 AM MST ) mentions it in the Olivine page. There is a reason that serpentine is found in Olivine though, which can make somewhat of a difference to some people (myself one of them.) ~Kogan Loloklam

I think as long as the real world information is appropriately set apart from the rest of the article, and it doesn't contribute excessively to the page (The chemical composition of blah blah blah is CO4 something which makes it appropriate for desalinating slugs) should be ok. This is just my opinion. --Briess 06:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I would also like to add my vote to the fact some real world flavour is useful. If it contradicted the game world I would agree with you but we all know how closely the DF geology follows Earth's. On top of that some of these pages are now blank, and they may as well have some content. --Shades 08:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The real-world info has my vote as well. --Toksyuryel 18:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

First, let's be clear about some of what was deleted - here's the first that caught my eye. Note that no distinction was made between DF and RL information...

Malachite is a copper carbonate mineral (Cu2CO3(OH)2) formed as a result of the weathering of copper ore bodies, alongside its "twin" mineral Azurite (which is not present in Dwarf Fortress), which it is known to pseudomorph from, and other secondary copper minerals such as Cuprite (Cu2O; not present in Dwarf Fortress) and Chrysocolla ((Cu,Al)2H2Si2O5(OH)4·nH2O).

Here's another wonderful example...

Gypsum is a mineral and stone composed of Calcium Sulfate Dihydrate, (CaSO4(H2O)2) known for it's very soft nature: gypsum is soft enough to be scratched by human (and presumably dwarven) fingernails. Gypsum forms as a result of a bodies of water evaporating and leaving behind particulate matter that crystallizes in super-saturated liquid. When formed in a single cleaved mass, it is called Selenite; when formed in massses of silky fibrous material, it is known as Satinspar; and when formed in a very fine crystalline form, it is called Alabaster.

There are links* to game terms in there - does that mean that the RL info is accurate in-game? I know there are stones, and ores - but now the distinction "minerals" is in the game too? I dunno, but it sure implies that it is! Does this add anything to the game information? Respectfully, no, and in fact is counter-productive to that end. Some of the info I deleted referred to RL relationships (stones found in other stones) that did not occur in DF - this actually hurts the wiki's usefulness, for some players at least.

(* links appear broken because this page is not 2010 namespace, and so those links are not finding "same version" pages. But they linked to 2010 articles in the original.)

Malachite is a copper ore, and green. Gypsum makes cast powder, and is white. Not a lot more to say that helps the game (and isn't found in the template, and 3 of those 4 facts are found there).

...just because it can be found at another Wiki doesn't mean it isn't pertinent, 
and just because it is real doesn't mean it isn't pertinent.

But pertinent to what? A deeper understanding of RL concepts that Toady may or may not have modeled the item on, or how the game actually works? And which do you think is a realistic goal and mission for this wiki? If the former, then wouldn't the link to the RL wiki article serve far better than an abbreviated and edited version? (I'm all up for links - but RL and DF are not the same, and mixing the two lies the way to madness.) (Madness, I say!)

At a policy level, the problems with permitting RL info are twofold:

1) Readers will get confused and believe aspects of the game actually work like RL. Terms will be linked even when in RL context, further confusing the issue. This happens with dwarven physics all the time, and is a huge pitfall. DF can be convoluted enough, and once we add RL correlations with DF terms (linked or not), "muddy" is the polite way of putting it.

2) Once started, there is no end to RL trivia that can get added - and soon we are both the DF and RL wiki for those topics, with all the ensuing quibbles about what RL info is best and accurate. Anyone remember the 40d:pike (weapon) discussion page, and article? Or all the "RL mythology" info added on the 40d:hydra article? Oy, the pain. (cont'd below...)

I would certainly like to see these 2 to 5 lines of information, rather than a blank page.--Draco18s 18:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

<nods> Absolutely! Once upon a time, no item got an article unless there was something to say about it! But with 0.31, editors have gone "template crazy", and now we have an article on EVERY SINGLE STONE AND GEM!?? Gimme a break. Amber opal, bone opal, cherry opal, gold opal, and another two dozen "opals" (and then we can start on the "agates"!) - what does this add that couldn't be better contained in a table, as in 40d?
I've had better things to do than bring this up, but since we're here - I agree 110%! An article that has nothing to say should not be an article, and padding it with RL trivia and chemical formulae does not make it acceptably significant. Make them all redirects to a table on "stone", as in 40d. Or split the diff, and have a separate table for similar "types" of stone, taking a lesson from the new DF2010:creature article format.

If, otoh, the info in the template is deemed important enough by itself, then we (you, me, everyone) have to accept that as the sum total of the "content", and we go back to what some similar 40d articles said... "Just another rock".--Albedo 19:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Albedo at all points. RL info has to be clearly separated, set below the DF info, focused on helping with the game, and short. To my best knowledge, Chrysocolla has nothing to do with Malachite and is not a "secondary copper mineral". I also recall someone adding a lot of well meant details in lots of 40d articles on animals that were plain wrong. In fact, checking, some of that bullsh** is still in (40d:Alligator). Plus, instead of getting the DF2010 namespace up to speed with actual game info, we have mineral enthusiast who copy wikipedia content and put pretty pictures in. Gah! --Birthright 01:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the chrysocolla thing was a misnomer: chrysocolla is a mineraloid, not a mineral, as it lacks a proper crystalline structure. But it is a secondary copper mineraloid, as it forms off of preexisting copper deposits. And chrysocolla having nothing to do with malachite only goes to show your lack of research, not me making things up: in game, chrysocolla is a gem that is found in malachite. Justyn 02:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
But J, you prove my point - "mineral"? "mineraloid"? Why should any DF player care, and how would they know the diff? (Not a complex person with mixed interests who also plays DF - that's not our mission!) If it isn't helping DF, it doesn't belong in this wiki, it belongs in another one. And if that information could be useful (and it is, no doubt - I've found RL geology to help me in DF more than once!), then it's better to go that RL wiki, and not copy all redundant info to DF articles, or edit it and decide what is/isn't "of interest" - or (using your example) worry/debate if it's accurately copied or not. If RL info is allowed in some articles, it will creep into all articles - RL info on plants and fertilization, on tanning processes and leatherworking, on sociology and psychology, on gemcutting and hunting and butchering and recipes for animal organs and (shudder)... yes, even on Combat, and weapons, and combat styles, and metallurgy and weaponsmithing (oy). It's a trap I refuse to fall into, or let this wiki fall into - I suppose proving that I am not a dwarf.
Links? YES! Include links to the RL articles, please! But redundant info that is better screened and more complete in another article - and already complete there, a RL article dedicated to that purpose - sorry, I just don't see it here.--Albedo 10:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
As long as we have a slew of articles where all of the pertinent game info takes up very little space... a little flavor would be nice. I think real world info fills that niche perfectly. Much better than what passes for humor around here. VengefulDonut 22:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools