v50 Steam/Premium information for editors
- v50 information can now be added to pages in the main namespace. v0.47 information can still be found in the DF2014 namespace. See here for more details on the new versioning policy.
- Use this page to report any issues related to the migration.
This notice may be cached—the current version can be found here.
Editing 40d Talk:Olivine
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Warning: You are not logged in.
Your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history.
You are editing a page for an older version of Dwarf Fortress ("Main" is the current version, not "40d"). Please make sure you intend to do this. If you are here by mistake, see the current page instead.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
:Actually, it may be worth it to bite the bullet and put together a page for everything. The main downside would be that special features of things like [[graphite]] may get lost among all the seemingly equally important pages. [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 14:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC) | :Actually, it may be worth it to bite the bullet and put together a page for everything. The main downside would be that special features of things like [[graphite]] may get lost among all the seemingly equally important pages. [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 14:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
<br><br><br> | <br><br><br> | ||
Seems like it's getting a bit heated in here. I call for a three day recess from edits for you two, to take the time to re-read and further understand each other's position on this. I see the merits of both, and neither is particularly more important than the other, from an overall viewpoint. Being that no one else has contributed as much, I think the drawing of this new line should be handled between you two, but with a bit of time to let it sit and collect a tad bit of dust, and perhaps further outside opinions. -[[User:N9103|Edward]] 12:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC) | Seems like it's getting a bit heated in here. I call for a three day recess from edits for you two, to take the time to re-read and further understand each other's position on this. I see the merits of both, and neither is particularly more important than the other, from an overall viewpoint. Being that no one else has contributed as much, I think the drawing of this new line should be handled between you two, but with a bit of time to let it sit and collect a tad bit of dust, and perhaps further outside opinions. -[[User:N9103|Edward]] 12:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
− | + | <br> | |
− | |||
When you look up a stone, or anything for that matter, you want to be presented with all directly relevant information, and links to further relevant information. The stone page does not provide this for every stone at this time. I agree that the information about what olivine may contain is not very interesting, but it ''should'' be readily accessable. An Olivine page is the obvious, if not neccessarily practical, solution to the problem of finding ''all'' information (or links thereto) on olivine in ''one'' place. It is indeed a general problem on this wiki. You can look up something to see where it is found, but generally not to see what it may contain. It is the same with gypsum. You must use your browser's search function to find all the different stones that it may contain. Olivine takes the problem further, as it contains not only other stones, but also an ore. To see this you must use your browser's search function on the Ore page. And again on the Gem page to see if it may contain gems. Note that kaolinite, another stone of little interest, may contain turquoise. | When you look up a stone, or anything for that matter, you want to be presented with all directly relevant information, and links to further relevant information. The stone page does not provide this for every stone at this time. I agree that the information about what olivine may contain is not very interesting, but it ''should'' be readily accessable. An Olivine page is the obvious, if not neccessarily practical, solution to the problem of finding ''all'' information (or links thereto) on olivine in ''one'' place. It is indeed a general problem on this wiki. You can look up something to see where it is found, but generally not to see what it may contain. It is the same with gypsum. You must use your browser's search function to find all the different stones that it may contain. Olivine takes the problem further, as it contains not only other stones, but also an ore. To see this you must use your browser's search function on the Ore page. And again on the Gem page to see if it may contain gems. Note that kaolinite, another stone of little interest, may contain turquoise. | ||
Line 64: | Line 61: | ||
:I don't think this is "heated" - I think both VD and I are adamant in our individual viewpoints, and Respect to him for that. But I agree that we need more input from diff users, and not just let "us two" hammer it out. ''Something'' needs to be expanded/changed/improved, imo. A page for any large cluster? Can we group similar types of truly generic stones under one (sub)article that can cover all of them? A separate article/chart for small clusters? Maybe simply expand the info on that universal chart on the stone page, or break it into different charts to be more useful. I also agree (and mentioned) that this may be an opportunity to re-examine the larger question of (written or unwritten) policy on "what deserves its own page", and in so doing what function this wiki fulfills for both the vet and newb user. Okay, out for now, have stated position (and then some, ahem, sorry), will watch quietly.--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 14:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC) | :I don't think this is "heated" - I think both VD and I are adamant in our individual viewpoints, and Respect to him for that. But I agree that we need more input from diff users, and not just let "us two" hammer it out. ''Something'' needs to be expanded/changed/improved, imo. A page for any large cluster? Can we group similar types of truly generic stones under one (sub)article that can cover all of them? A separate article/chart for small clusters? Maybe simply expand the info on that universal chart on the stone page, or break it into different charts to be more useful. I also agree (and mentioned) that this may be an opportunity to re-examine the larger question of (written or unwritten) policy on "what deserves its own page", and in so doing what function this wiki fulfills for both the vet and newb user. Okay, out for now, have stated position (and then some, ahem, sorry), will watch quietly.--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 14:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− |