User talk:JohnnyMadhouse

From Dwarf Fortress Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to this wiki! Dwarf Fortress rapidly becomes more complicated, and we're always glad to have new writers.

Constructive criticism up at the top![edit]

Welcome! "Copy/paste errours" are mainly just due to editor laziness - if you check the info against the RAW files, or against actual gameplay, check that every keystroke and token and announcement color appear the same (we don't expect perfection, tho' it'd always be nice), then you're good to go. Readya later, --Albedo 19:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

From the raws that I've looked at, it looks like there are still a few small errors to be ironed out, like unicorns giving birth to elk fawns, which has been ascribed to Toady copy-pasting. I expect that will be fixed soon, but until then would it be best to hold off on adding that information to pages? Thanks! --JohnnyMadhouse 19:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to say nice work on the traps page.

Thank you! JohnnyMadhouse 02:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, you edited my orcsicle maker entry making it much more concise, cheers. Vattic 05:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I took a look at the link to your user page and the trap was covered in such exhaustive, good detail there that I figured I could trim the trap page a little. It's a magnificent concept.JohnnyMadhouse 06:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


A regular [[]] link points to an article in the main namespace, but every page there is a redirect that looks like [[cv:somepage]]. These cv links are a precaution for the future: they always point to namespace corresponding to the most recent version. So regular [[]] links will point to more recent pages when (well, if) they show up. This is a bit of a problem if you want to specify which page you're linking to. So one way to do it is to type out [[DF2010:mylink|mylinkname]] which will link to the specified page in the specified namespace. The alternative is to use template:L, which generates a link to the namespace of the page it's placed on.

tl;dr: {{L|link|linkname}} is preferred over [[link|linkname]] VengefulDonut 15:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


You know, I don't really think that not having more info to add is a proper reason to make an article masterwork. There is always something to add, check out the Cave Spider article. People thought there was nothing else to add to it, then 2 new categories came to be, and an image, and only then it became masterwork. Think about it, does a blank page like those you bumped look "Masterwork" to you? They are fine, maybe exceptional, but I don't think they're masterwork. Speed112 21:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Want examples? You could add images, you could relate the page with the real life (like some of the other gem/stone/tree articles), to help imagine it a bit better in the game, you could make a little fun story (D for Dwarf). There are tons of stuff you can do to make it actually masterwork.
I really don't think it's necessary to add images beyond the df tiles for most articles, and adding the real life information is just extraneous nonsense that doesn't help anything. Every mineral article has a link to the wikipedia page on the same subject already (in the side chart), we simply do not require a chemical formula and a crystal matrix diagram for every mineral on a wiki devoted to Dwarf Fortress gameplay. EDIT: D for Dwarf stories are often pointless and not told well. Chert... does not require a story. JohnnyMadhouse 22:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I guess the problem lies in the guidelines, which is why we are working on reformulating them. That's why I ask you to stop rating all these articles masterwork for a while, until we figure it out. Speed112 23:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop bumping qualities for now, until we revise the guidelines for rating. We did not intend such short articles to be rated masterwork. If you want to be involved in the discussion over the new criteria, please feel free to participate on the quality page. --Briess 23:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Will do. JohnnyMadhouse 23:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated. :) --Briess 23:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting move... funny thing is I have been suggesting this for a while now. We shall see what other people think. I personally believe this is how it should be, so way to go. Speed112 22:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Johnny, I'm just writing here because I don't want to start a new header. First I want to thank you for looking over my creature stuff. I'm native german and I'm learning new things in english every day =). Now, the real reason for this post. When you updating the quality of an article please also update the timestamp or rather add a timestamp via typing 5 tides (~~~~~) for example {{Quality|Fine|~~~~~}}. Greetings --Used 06:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Waterfall article[edit]

Nice work on that, add a few images, make it look a bit better, maybe add some more details and we shall have a new PROPER masterwork article. I'll try and help out if i can. ---Speed112 14:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I personally like it :). It can still have a section regarding artificial waterfalls, using pumps and whatnot. Great job. Looking forward for more such articles from you, as from everyone else (including myself, cause I suck pretty bad). I'll look into tidying it up, making it breathe more as it seems a bit cluttered.
P.S.: Use * in front of the row when you want to enumerate stuff (like the drawbacks). It helps. Speed112 20:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
No problem, articles can always be edited again in the future. Speed112 20:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


The correct format for a redirect from a DF2010 page to another DF2010 page is #REDIRECT [[cv:Destination]]. The "cv:" part tells the wiki to get redirected directly to the DF2010 page, instead of having to bounce to the destination term and THEN to the DF2010 page. It also lets the admins generate new wiki versions easily, for when DF2011 (or whatever) rolls around.

Just so you know. --DeMatt 22:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was actually looking that up, after seeing your corrections. JohnnyMadhouse 22:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't DF2010 pages redirect to DF2010 pages instead of cv? That way, when DF2011 (whatever) comes, DF2010 will redirect to DF2010 instead of DF2011. (Or that is my assumption). --Nahno 11:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
That would be correct - the only place "cv:" should be used is in the main namespace. --Quietust 12:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Wait, so lemme see if I've got this straight. Bag should redirect to cv:Bag, which rignt now is DF2010:Bag. DF2010:Bag should redirect to DF2010:Container. Is that the right sequence? Or should Bag redirect directly to cv:Container? --DeMatt 22:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I would say that is the right sequence. Bag should redirect to cv:Bag, not to cv:Container. And currently DF2010:Bag redirects to DF2010:Container. --Nahno 13:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

User page quality[edit]

I'd say the easiest way to keep the tattered articles category page handy is to open any articles you are editing in tabs. That way when you are done, the tattered quality page is right there. --Shadowfury333 06:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That's true, but I often close and reopen tabs. I prefer being able to pass through my user page as a general shortcut. And I kind of like labeling my page as tattered, not going to lie.JohnnyMadhouse 06:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You put a colon at the front of the category marker, like so:

Category:Masterwork Quality Articles

Category:Fine Quality Articles

Category:Exceptional Quality Articles

Category:Tattered Quality Articles

Now they're links to that category page without adding this page to that category.