Dwarf Fortress Wiki - User contributions [en]

40d Talk:Sea lamprey

2010-03-26T12:02:30Z

85.12.64.150:

Just in case anyone was wondering, these things are harmless. This is useful information to people like me, who enjoy wrestling fish in adventure mode. --[[User:Smartmo|Smartmo]] 04:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Harmless my ass. I just lost 12 dwarves including a legendary miner to one Sea Lamprey.--[[Special:Contributions/173.26.114.20|173.26.114.20]] 07:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

:Seconded. Lost my skilled fisherman to one. And it wasn't just a case of "Oops, the dwarf fell in and drowned." It ripped off his arm and left half a dozen dwarf chunks in its wake. [[User:RedKing|RedKing]] 22:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
::Combat has ''a lot'' of randomizers in it. It's mathematically possible for a kitten to one-shot a dragon. With thousands of users each having dozens of games with hundreds of combats each with scores of attacks - weird things will happen, just expect them. If a non-swimmer ends up in the water, they can panic - meaning they aren't defending themselves at first. Add the [ATTACKFLAG_CANLATCH] and [SPECIALATTACK_SUCK_BLOOD:25:50] tags, and you have a recipe for potential disaster no matter what the odds.

::That said, one of the biggest ''constants'' in combat and damage is size vs. size. So, ''typically'', a size 6 dwarf should be able to rule over most any size 3 creature, no problem. Also, "wrestling" must be matched by "wrestling" - and if the lamprey can't wrestle, it's game over. So it makes sense (in the game, if not by any RL standards) that a novice wrestler (and one in [[Adventure]] Mode!) might dominate while a legendary miner often loses, especially if the creature is low on internal organs for that [[piercing]] pick to target. --[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 23:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

::*nods knowingly* Still, they don't lie when they call these 'predatory' - i've often had an adventurer dragged into the river chased by one or two of these. Not dangerous, unless there happens to be a carp group following you. --[[Special:Contributions/85.12.64.150|85.12.64.150]] 12:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC) ([[User:Libelnon]])
:::As a side note, "carp" are not predatory - it's been demonstrated that the ''typical'' time they attack is when they feel cornered, and that's usually when they're in murky pools and can't run. When in a river, they ''usually'' avoid combat - but that's another part of combat that seems random. Wild deer will also try to flee, but will (rarely) attack, etc. - same with Carp. The "Predatory" tag, however, means they will seek likely targets. Note that any predators (for instance, hunting cats like cougar, tiger, etc) will flee from a larger group, and/or often if a dwarf seems aggressive or dangerous - try Activating and armouring up a dwarf, and chasing down a lion or something - it will often decline to cooperate.--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 13:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

::::Really? Because I've often been attacked by sea lampreys when walking beside rivers, not normally near pools. --[[Special:Contributions/85.12.64.150|85.12.64.150]] 12:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC) ([[User:Libelnon]])

40d Talk:Undead

2010-03-26T11:59:21Z

85.12.64.150:

__TOC__

== "Is used to tragedy"? ==
One question: I had two dwarves that were not always occupied hunt small zombies and skeletons (hoary marmots, mountain goat and such). Apart from getting really good at wrestling, they both seemed to gain "Is used to tragedy" as a character trait. Can anyone confirm that? -- [[User:qwertyu|qwertyu]] 12:34, 9 March 2008 (CET)

:That always happens regardless of what they are killing.

==Pitting problems==
Should we include the fact that attempting to pit undead animals of any kind will result in them attacking the moment they are released, regardless of how close they are to the pit. (They can be right next to it but still attack the pit-ter once they are out of the cages)
--[[User:Umiman|Umiman]] 07:39, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

:I believe we should put it in as a warning to those who attempt to put captured undead in pits.
:--Rickola

::Should it be mentioned that the Undead versions are much more tougher than 'normal' creatures, once I had an entire fortress wiped out by a single Undead Racoon. --[[User:Hoborobo|Hoborobo]] 06:47, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I think zombies are a lot harder than skeletons. Maybe undead horses are just absurdly hard anyway, but I put all seven of my starting dwarves on a single zombie horse. Sure, they were untrained and unarmored and were wrestling it to death (except for the miners), but all seven dwarves went from untrained in wrestling to novice wrestlers, became tired/exhausted, AND two dwarves died and three got yellow/red injuries, before that single zombie horse went down. Then the other four zombie horses wandered in... Skeletons seem to be a lot easier to kill. --[[User:Sowelu|Sowelu]] 04:15, 22 November 2008 (EST)

::::Though zombies are easy to run away from. My dwarves sidestep zombies whenever they see them (which is often, on my current map), but skeletons would corner them. Zombies are, however, famously difficult to kill by wrestling. Use an axe or sword.--[[User:Maximus|Maximus]] 16:25, 22 November 2008 (EST)

:::::Zombies are utterly impossible to kill with wrestling. The only wrestling move that can kill at all is strangling, and zombies don't breathe or bleed. Dwarves set to wrestle undead will only ever destroy them with punches. If you're heading into an evil biome, I'd recommend bringing a well-armed macedwarf! That'll teach 'em to stay dead, pretty darn quick. Swords aren't so good, spears and picks even worse, though axes will do okay. In a pinch, at least make your dwarves shields to bash with. It's a matter of raw damage. --[[User:Navian|Navian]] 17:27, 22 November 2008 (EST)

::::::(It's not true that strangling is the "only" kill move - wrestling also includes punches, and a lucky punch can damage the throat or an organ. Not relevant here, but just saying for accuracy.)--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 06:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

:::::::{If you read what he said, you'll notice that he said that '''punches''' were the only way to 'kill' them with wrestling} --[[Special:Contributions/71.194.101.232|71.194.101.232]] 23:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

== Skeleton Corpse ==

I have a Skeleton Horse Corpses. That's not normal, right? It appears to have fallen several levels into a river. Adjacent to it (well... adjacent if you ignore the z-difference) are bridge squares and weapon traps. --[[User:Groveller|Groveller]] 11:55, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

:I saw [http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=22793.0 this report] a while ago on the bugs board. May be worth resurrecting it (especially if you can supply saves)? --[[User:Raumkraut|Raumkraut]] 14:21, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::Hmm, just noticed it wasn't on the bugs board, but on the gameplay questions board. May be worth starting a thread on the bugs board then? --[[User:Raumkraut|Raumkraut]] 15:49, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Ah, the board. I hadn't even looked at that yet. Anyway, the person you linked to posted in the bugs board too, so I guess this is known. I didn't think of getting a save... --[[User:Groveller|Groveller]] 07:24, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Skeletal creatures ==

I was told that skeletal creatures would lose their limbs whenever they hit broken status. Is this true?

As another note, if that is true, I have a bug that occured. Under the assumption broken bones = removed bones for the skeletons, one of my hammerdwarves hit a skeletal dragon so hard that its upper body was instantly mangled, skipping the broken (and thusly removed) state entirely.[[User:Milskidasith|Milskidasith]] 17:17, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Assuming the 'sever on break' tag applies to skeletons, it only applies to limbs. You can't 'sever' a torso. --[[User:Navian|Navian]] 17:27, 22 November 2008 (EST)

==Undead Megabeasts ==

Could this be elaborated on a bit? I've never seen an undead megabeast in the legends screen. How does this work? How rare is it (absurdly rare, I guess)? [[User:Lastofthelight|Lastofthelight]]

:I've had a zombie Titan... no idea why it was a zombie but it was the only megabeast i'd seen. Really, megabeasts are far too rare now that they can be killed off in world gen. --[[User:Squirrelloid|Squirrelloid]] 10:29, 8 January 2009 (EST)

::Agreed. Somehow, I've managed to avoid seeing a megabeast entirely as of yet. Zombies and skeletons are hard enough to find; megabeasts are nearly impossible.

::To be honest, I'm really hoping Toady hurries up and brings back the undead event that was talked about in [[Core components]]. That is, undead dwarves and pets that died in your fortress would pop through the floor and attack you. Spooky. ~ [[User:Midna|Midna]] 07:10, 1 February 2009 (EST)

::I got a skeletal dragon. Disappointingly, it succumbed to a cage trap. I used savescumming to run some experiments, and it seems it's quite hardy but not particularly powerful. The dragon is now sitting in a dragonfire pillbox in my fortress - by the way, it seems that the undead BUILDINGDESTROYER:1 tag overrides BUILDINGDESTROYER:2, so it can be stopped by a raised drawbridge. I tried activating the pillbox and engaging it with my marksdwarves - it took an extremely long time to even begin to return fire, and only ignited one marksdwarf. On the plus side, being skeletal, I'm pretty sure that ranged attacks won't even scratch it - but now it's going to be a glorified fire trap. --[[Special:Contributions/155.69.95.232|155.69.95.232]] 09:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

== Zombie Gas Warfare ==

It should be noted that "live" zombies also spread miasma if they are indoors. I have seen this on several occasions, but all with zombie fire imps, so I can't actually confirm that it happens with other zombie types.--[[User:Zipdog|Zipdog]] 02:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
:I'm not even sure how having undead [[fire imp]]s is even ''possible''. You'd think that a zombie fire imp, for example, would roast itself to the point where it would die.... ~ [[User:Midna|Midna]] 04:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
:: I embarked near a volcano in an evil biome. I was beset with ''skeletal'' fire imps. And yes, they do breathe fire! [[User:Iapetus|Iapetus]] 11:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

== Undead Building Destroyer ==
I have seen evidence that skeletal creatures have building destroyer. Has anyone had any experience with this or more evidence of it happening? Do they also trapavoid? If undead creatures do destroy buildings normally, it should be on the page, yes? -- [[User:CultOfTheRaven|CultOfTheRaven]] 18:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

: I believe that undead retain the traits of the base animal -- at least, I've had a skeletal raccoon steal items just like a regular raccoon does. --[[User:Sev|Sev]] 02:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

::The animal was a skeletal fox. I'm pretty sure regular foxes can't destroy doors. -- [[User:CultOfTheRaven|CultOfTheRaven]] 05:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

== Hammer vs Axe ==

After getting my 7 starting dwarves torn apart by a pack of skeletal muskox, I'd like to know just in case it happens again: what is more effective against undead, slashing or bludgeoning? --[[User:Smartmo|Smartmo]] 22:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

:I think bludgeon, as it has more raw damage while slashing has the advantage of easier bleeding, which is lost against undeads.[[User:Wagawaga|Wagawaga]] 20:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
:: Axes are very useful against the undead, since their criticals dismember limbs, it isn't uncommon for an axedwarf to cleave off a skeleton or zombies head killing it instantly even at low skill levels. You can test this yourself in adventure mode, using a Mace user and then an axe user to fight several undead encounters in evil zones. The combat system is inherently random, but after 20 or so fights each you'll quickly see some sort relevant data.anonymous edit - & see next section

== Cut apart to kill? ==
Undead can ~only~ be destroyed after losing thier Head, Upper Body, or Lower Body. Even after having lost all of their limbs they'll still be quite "alive", so to speak.

This was an anonymous (IP only) post, with this as an editors comment:
Tested this information while leveling an adverturer to legendary in almost exclusively undead encounters.

I'm removing it for now, at least until someone with a User name shows up to discuss it. Verification is needed before an absolute statement like this is made. Same in fortress mode? ''All'' undead?! Some of the above posts suggest that a hammer is a fine weapon for its brute damage potential, with or without smashing an undead into bits. --[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 06:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

== Depletion ==
Does the local population of undead deplete like normal wild animals? --[[User:Bouchart|Bouchart]] 23:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it. My military got into a scuffle with some zombie muskoxen whilst routing an ambush, and even as my dorfs (re?)killed them, replacement zombies continued to spawn at the map edge at the same rate the other zombies were being felled. It was a nightmare... While this doesn't prove they can't be depleted, it does mean that undead may use different mechanics than living critters, i.e. being created on the spot instead of existing previously and wandering onto the map. Normal creatures do not spawn that quickly AFAIK. --[[User:Mr Frog|Mr Frog]] 03:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

== Tameability? ==

I was not able to find any information on taming the undead in the Tame or Pet articles, so I thought I'd bring it up here. Is it at all possible to tame zombie or skeletal creatures? Because I'd certainly love to have a bunch of skeletal giant eagles floating around my fortress as an alternative to bowling them over with my military every time one shows up. The goats and marmots... eh, not so much. [[Special:Contributions/24.22.239.156|24.22.239.156]] 03:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
:I believe undead creatures are inherently hostile toward all non-undead creatures - using Dwarf Companion to make a tame animal undead makes it attack everyone. --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 04:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

== Undead vs Living Creatures? ==

In one evil fortress, most of the dwarves' opposition came in the form of undead mountain goats and hoary marmots. For the first few years it was just them, but then I ordered a dwarf, who wouldn't spar due to a spinal injury, to have a go at them since I needed bones. After killing a bunch of them, I saw for the first time LIVING mountain goats on the map. I think it may be possible that killing off enough undead beasties can cause them to lose influence, though I have no way of testing this.

FWIW, it was a part-good part-evil map. Unicorns hung around the northeast corner of the map in the spring and liked to stumble into cage traps, though this was the first occurance of living ''goats.'' ~~[[User:Loyal|Loyal]] 01:55, 28 December 2009 (EST)

== Flying Fish!!! ==

You know, I always thought that the undead-fish-on-dry-land phenomena was just them flying around in a ghostly, possessed kind of way.
:Speaking of ghosts, are they on the Dev lists? Maybe after magic is implemented? --[[Special:Contributions/71.194.101.232|71.194.101.232]] 23:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
:: I always thought it was because undead [[carp]] are so terrifying, even the laws of physics know better than to piss them off. --[[User:Mr Frog|Mr Frog]] 03:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
:: I though it was them swimming through the soil/rock, as without mortal limits to their muscles, they can keep exerting force. And the skeletal ones crawl using their ribcage as limbs.[[Special:Contributions/220.235.188.249|220.235.188.249]] 04:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
::: Now that WOULD be scary. --[[Special:Contributions/85.12.64.150|85.12.64.150]] 11:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC) ([[User:Libelnon]])

== Skeletal/Zombie tags ==
This is perhaps mainly out of personal curiosity, but would it be possible to overhaul all of the creature pages and include whether they can be zombies/skeletal or not? --[[Special:Contributions/85.12.64.150|85.12.64.150]] 11:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC) ([[User:Libelnon]])

40d Talk:Sea lamprey

2010-03-12T12:01:37Z

85.12.64.150:

Talk:Main Page/archive2

2010-03-04T10:18:03Z

85.12.64.150:

{{Archive|
# [[Talk:Main Page/archive1|Archive 1]]
}}

== World Painter Page ==
The wiki has needed a page on the [[World Painter]] for a while, so I've started one. The information in there is decent, but I'm relatively new to wiki editing, so the formatting probably isn't. If someone wouldn't mind cleaning it up a bit for me I'd really appreciate it. --[[User:Timmeh|Timmeh]] 01:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

:Well I don't know if someone helped you already, but it looks fine to me. --[[User:frandude|frandude]]
:I changed the name into World Painter so it looked better (no more petty redirects!) [[User:Inawarminister|Inawarminister]] 12:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

== French language wiki ==

Can we have interlanguage links with the [http://www.dwarffortress.fr/wiki/ French wiki]? -[[User:Alan Trick|Alan Trick]] 17:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

== Add a CptnDuck page? ==

Captain Duck is a DF video tutorial maker, which an impressive collection of 40 videos on youtube (and a few extra videos of sieges and arenas and whatnot), and explains how to do most everything, from magma forges to Dwarven justice. He adds humor to it and he's the reason a lot of people understand the game...I think we should give him a page. – [[template:unsigned|unsigned]] comment by [[User:Blackdoggie998|Blackdoggie998]]

:As it is insanely easy for anyone to sign up for editing priviledges on this site (I managed to, after all), I see no need to make one for him when he could make one for himself. However, if you wish to add user:CptnDuck, or invite him to make one himself, feel free. He can link to all of his tutorials from his user page. They even be searchable through that lovely little box to the(my) left. (Who knows where it is on your skin.) -- [[User:Teres_Draconis|jaz]] ... on this day, at this time.

:P.S. Does it seem odd to you to have it say "unsigned comment by [username]"? Or is that just me? -- [[User:Teres_Draconis|jaz]] ... on this day, just a little after the previous one.
:: Clicking 'unsigned' gave me all the explanation I need, might want to do the same [[User:Kinzarr|Kinzarr]] 23:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

:We don't need a userpage for him, but a page with the assembled listing of all his (and others of equal quality) video tutorials wouldn't be a bad idea at all. -[[User:N9103|Edward]] 16:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

== Articles on Olivine and other generic stones ==

There is a current discussion as to whether or not [[Olivine]] (and perhaps some few other stones) are duly covered on the current [[stone]] page, or are truly worth having their own article/page. This relates to a larger question of how this wiki is organized, and "What deserves a page" in a general sense. Any interested are encouraged to chime in, if only with a "me too" post pro or con. See [[Talk:Olivine]] for an idea of the issue. I'd like to have the debate move from the specific Olivine page to here since this is a more general issue that affects many potential pages. --[[User:Senso|Senso]] 21:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

:I'm not really sure which way to go on this one. A lot of otherwise useless stones would need their own articles if the guidelines were expanded... and yet, there's a good amount of useful information that's not on the main pages, that would further clutter them if it were added; And permitting more individual pages would solve both those problems. I guess this ends up being a vote both ways, with provisions on each. -[[User:N9103|Edward]] 23:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

:My vote is, if someone can make it amusing, then sure. If someone is of the bent to enjoy making such a page, then again, sure... otherwise, leave it at the bottom of the pile of "things that someday we might get around to if we feel like it" and don't stress. The relevant data is covered (or will be when someone notices it's not), and everything else is gravy. Beside, what would you rather do, play the game, or figure out how to make a whole page of jokes about how gneiss nice is.... (or did I get that backwards?)... ? --[[User:Teres_Draconis|jaz]] ... on this day, at this time.

::All relevant information is covered, yes. But not necessarily on a relevant page. Before the Olivine page was made you couldn't learn that olivine may contain native platinum from any page related to olivine or stone in general.
::Another example is kaolinite. You can look it up in the table of Other Stone to see it can be found in sedimentary rock. But in order to see that it may itself contain alunite and marcasite you have to go through the entire table (or use the browser search function). Now, in order to see if it may contain anything else, you have to notice the note at the top of the page (just above the table of contents) that points to Metal Ore and Gem, whith another two tables you have to search through. (Kaolinite may contain turquoise). --[[User:Nahno|Nahno]] 21:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

:It's not just about "which stones" - it's a larger question of how the wiki is organized and presented. Should each separate and distinct item get its own page, like the current one- or two-line articles on [[vial]]s, [[instrument]]s or [[Restraint|chain]]s, (just as random parallel examples of some [[finished goods]] that have their very own, very short, very dull, and predictably repetitive articles.) Surely the [[Masons guild]] and [[miners guild]] don't deserve or need separate articles. Do we need a separate and largely redundant article for every trap weapon? What about the cookie-cutter articles on ''every'' individual animal? The GCS deserves its own, and many others, but one on each separate type of shark and hunting cat? There is no actual article there, only a template.

:Quivers and bolts are sub-sections of the [[crossbow]] article, and I think that's a ''great'' call. Olivine, talc and kaolinite are merely similar examples, distinct enough to warrant special treatment, but on the borderline of being so small to each only represent a stub. Ultimately, I don't think a functional formal definition would be easily achieved - rather guidelines and a fuzzy target, combining related info into groups with optimal size limitations (both lower end and upper end). Perhaps a template should not be forced on every lesser example, but they could be grouped into a table on their own article, "other stones of note" or "sharks" or "finished goods" or whatever.

:In many ways, our only current guidelines are "what has been done so far" - and that varies widely and wildly. Too often, pages are cobbled onto related ones, or split off just because its a new topic, if a brutally short one. Myself, I'd like to see most related articles of less than 4 lines or so get grouped into larger, more universally informative articles, and anything larger than maybe 5 full sub-sections be considered for splitting up. If an item stands out from the rest, it should stand out somewhere, in an article - but that doesn't mean it has to have its very own, or invite every similar item to do so as well.--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 03:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

:: Please check out the (no longer) current [[Chalk]] page and tell me what you think. ... which is to say, it doesn't /have/ to be a stub, does it? It can be rich and detailed and sadly unamusing. It would please me to continue to do all stones in this manner, or another manner of your choosing.... Thus negating fussing over "this one was done this way, that one was done that way" arguments. I'll get to them all, in the order they appear on the [[Stones]] page. ... assuming you guys are ok with that. --[[User:Teres Draconis]] 08:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
:: P.S. Who's the outpost manager of this place, anyways? I'd like to know to whom I should be pandering. --jaz

::: I think 1) you should take time to read, if not learn the wiki format guidelines, 2) you should sign with your REAL user name, and stop using a pseudonym, and 3) you should not break someone else's post with yours in between their paragraphs. As to the chalk page, I think it's over-enthusiastic and pays no attention to previous article style or formatting precedent - which may be a good thing or a bad thing, depending. --[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 09:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

:::: 1) You're right, I'm sorry.
::::2) We've discussed user names on [[User_Talk:Teres_Draconis#Naming Conventions|my talks page]]. (Also, <nowiki>~~~</nowiki> still puts "jaz"... why bother with the link when it's just a P.S.?)
::::3) I'm sorry. I was (apparently) trained wrong, and that was a /long/ time ago. I was taught (20 years ago) that when responding, to do so in-line, so that people can tell what the response is actually relating to. (Like an actual conversation, except with a time warp. You say something, I respond, someone else adds, we all move on to the next topic.) It supposedly adds clarity. The style and curtesy rules of such things has changed. I can see I'll need to update myself. Thank you for pointing that out. =)
::::4) I was hasty. I had to have meatspace people explain to me why, as wiki-''writers'', you would not want so much detail on a page. Especially when, with every new game release, any given page on the wiki might need an over haul. I was only looking at it from the end-user perspective of "If I'm looking for information, I don't want a page that just tells me to go look at the three pages I've already looked at. I want a page that reduces the noise of the irrelevant, and distills to just that specific (sub-)topic." I /don't/ see the point of six pages that are identacle except for title, and all only three lines long. If it's got it's own page, it should have it's own page. If it just links back to the three pages that linked to it, and they all link to each other already, what's the point? If the only thing Chalk has going for it is that it's flux, why not just make a note on the [[Stone]] page reading, "These three rocks can be used as flux" and link to the flux page from there? Why should chalk have it's own page, if it's not going to be richly detailed and, you know, informative? - [[User:Teres Draconis|jaz]] 18:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

::::The templates are there because they are pretty, detailed, and condensed ways to display some key information. Rather than expanding existing information so that it takes up more space, it's more productive to add things that you think are lacking. [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 12:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

::: I changed the other [[Stones]] table to allow for interesting minerals that are in other[[Stones]] to be posted.--[[User:Mrdudeguy|Mrdudeguy]] 22:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
:What would actually be helpful is a [[Geology]] primer, indicating how layers and inclusions are placed, where, and what the implications of "You have struck XXX" are. I know, now, that if it's olivine, I have a chance of finding veins of native platinum. One good page explaining what all of the geological processes mean would be a lot more useful then all of the various descriptions of exploratory mining. [[User:Decius|Decius]] 22:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
::That sounds like a great idea.--[[User:Mrdudeguy|Mrdudeguy]] 22:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

:::I agree! But I have no idea how to write it. Most of what I know about geology I learned from looking at the raws. Everything else is "OMG, is that a ''rock''?! I've heard of those!" - [[User:Teres Draconis|jaz]] 18:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

::"More useful" to some, but I agree it would be a great addition. Also, the more I think about it, the more I like what MrDG did with the table in Other Stone - tables could condense any and all small, individual articles into single pages w/ (sortable?) tables where all these various similar objects could be compared/contrasted at a glance. Templates are perfect when there is a lot of various info, but if the different topics (semi-generic stones, animals, finished goods) all differ only in one or two details, and there is just not that many variables to begin with, a Table would be (imo) preferable. ''(And imo that table now covers such stones as Olivine well, to get back to the original example that sparked this discussion.)''

::As an additional example of how current stub-articles could be combined into a simple table, I've made this page - [[Example - some fish]] - which could be a model for such. (A page/table with all the "Sea-creatures" would be more likely approp, but this was faster for now.) It would replace every stub-article on related "generic" items, but any truly noteworthy items would still have their own full articles for expanded information and commentary (here, "carp"). It still has 100% of the prev information, but also allows immediate comparison and contrast, and, if sortable, allows a User to more easily compare relations between similar aspects (like "biome", in this example.)--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 00:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

::: Is it possible to put the expandable version of the raw ("game object data (show)" seen at the bottom of the [[carp]] page) inside the table, instead of the whole thing? Or does the one preclude the other? - [[User:Teres Draconis|jaz]] 18:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

:::Actually, if someone finds it easy to extract that information from the .RAWs, I would find that an improvement on what [[Creatures]] currently has. [[User:Decius|Decius]] 17:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

::::If someone here knows PHP they may be able to write a new wiki hook that pulls information from raw entries. That would make many things much easier. [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 22:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

:::Which information do you want extracted? I can probably do it for you, but you may have heard, I'm in the doghouse for not paying attention to style and formating rules. =/ Show me what there is, and one example of what you want, and I can probably do it for you with a minimum of stupid questions. ... ''Probably.'' - [[User:Teres Draconis|jaz]] 18:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

::::@ jaz, Dec - Did either of you look at this sample table? [[Example - some fish]] Does that cover what you were envisioning? It's just a rough idea - but it could work the same way that the table on the [[stone]] page currently does, to cover all the generic, almost-identical objects. Same w/ finished goods, weapon traps, probably many other sim categories of like items.--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 22:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I've read this sort of. My view is, wikis add value to the game far more for noobs than they do to legends who have been around since when the z-axis was just an idea. With this in mind, I reckon if everything with a name in the game had an article that would be *A Good Thing* (tm). Just my own opinion, feel free to disagree. Ideally, articles for things like stones should contain a template constructed from the raws, with prose/dialogue manually added.
Even things like [[screw pump]] could have a template driven section, advising what the components are / who makes it etc. Maybe <nowiki>{{building|Building Name|Component 1:Component 1 name|Component X| component X name|Constructed by|trade}}</nowiki> or similar.[[User:GarrieIrons|GarrieIrons]] 08:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

:I agree, probably, although that sounds like a lot of work. I think the stone templates and articles could do with a bit of a cleanup and more in-game information. I mostly use the articles to see if there's anything notable about a particular stone and then check out the wikipedia page. Some of the wikipedia links are broken or indirect now because disambiguity pages have been added since. Also, the wikipedia links are right at the bottom of very long boxes listing ores and gems and the like - I suggest adding drop down boxes to the templates that contain all that information but which are minimized by default. Or changing the template so that the wikipedia link wraps around the stone name at the top. --[[User:Harmonica|Harmonica]] 01:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Way late to this party, apologies. Tables are no good (to me) if they aren't sortable. The World Ends With You (a Nintendo DS game) Wikia portal/wiki thing has an ''awesome'' method for adding sortable tables. Some gadget called [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_MediaWiki Semantic MediaWiki] that hooks into the Wiki to automatically pull data out as you request it, then display it in easy-to-read and use sortable tables. The TWEWY Wikia has [http://twewy.wikia.com/wiki/The_World_Ends_With_You:Semantic_MediaWiki a page on it] for their editors, giving a few examples of how powerful it is. Their use of the tool is to easily pull information from a table of 304 items, each containing 30 attributes, to generate lists comparing and compiling various items. Hugely powerful, extremely flexible.

This type of tool would work wonderfully with a PHP RAW parser, or even simple dumps of the RAWs to the Wiki. Think of how easy it would be to update the entire Wiki across the board when new versions come out. New critters? Changes to existing critters? Update the information in one spot and it trickles down through the entire Wiki! That's in addition, of course, to being able to, say, generate tables listing how many bones each creature drops when killed, then sort to see which one drops the most. Pretty sweet stuff.

With some sort of system in place for wading through all the data on the wiki, one wouldn't have to worry about having too much information, right? -- [[User:Blank|Blank]] 04:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Particularly for stone, I think that it would be a good idea to describe each individual stone relative to other, similar stones. Let's use [[sandstone]] as an example. Suppose that I read (either in its own article, or in a table) something along the lines of "Sandstone is a [[sedimentary]] layer. Unlike most sedimentary layers, it may contain [[aquifers]] or veins of [[native copper]]." If I already know what a sedimentary layer is (and how it differs from other types of layers), this information will be much easier to process and much more useful than a full list of everything that appears in sandstone. If I have no idea what a sedimentary layer is, this will tell me that there are several sedimentary layers and that they all have many things in common, which is again more useful than a list of everything that appears in sandstone. --[[User:LaVacaMorada|LaVacaMorada]] 08:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
:That's not the way this (any?) wiki is set up. The idea is that a lesser concept (here, "sandstone") need not include redundant info from a larger, parent concept (here, "sedimentary layer"). If you don't know what a sed'y layer is (or an aquifer or a vein or whatever) you click that link. If, then, you don't know what a "layer" is, you click that link. Sounds good at first, but if every lesser article included an explanation, even a quick synopsis, of the info for all relevant articles on broader, umbrella concepts, the articles, and this wiki as a whole, would explode beyond usefulness. --[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 23:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks for making my point for me. If you look at the current sandstone article, it lists everything contained in sandstone. Looking at just the ores and non-generic stones, we have: Native copper, Hematite, Limonite, Magnetite, Native platinum, Tetrahedrite, Bituminous coal, Lignite, Bauxite. All of these except for native copper appear in every sedimentary layer. That's not even counting all of the generic stone (especially gypsum with its five other types of generic stone contained in it) and (mostly low-value) gems. 95% of the text in this article is redundant, and could easily be summarized by "This layer is exactly like every other sedimentary layer except for these two differences". --[[User:LaVacaMorada|LaVacaMorada]] 09:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
:::Ah - ''that's'' your point. (When you said "describe", I thought you were advocating a narrative commentary on and verbal expansion of the info included in the sidebar.) When I was talking about not having redundant info, I was talking text - which is quite terse in this case, exactly because of the point you make. Those sidebars were designed to encapsulate the key info, an "at a glance" sort of thing, to avoid exactly what you're talking about in narrative form. Are the sidebars redundant? Often, yes. But they are the style this wiki has adopted for ''all'' stone. So you're talking not just about changing sed'y layers, but the style approach to all stone, since they would not then be consistent across the board. (Not how I would have personally designed the layout, but it's there and it works, and well. Any stone, same layout, same info in the same place, bam got it.) And when discussing presentation and usability issues, any article has to be taken both individually and in the context of others "like" it - here, any "stone" article is the same layout, the same info at a glance, which (for now) trumps whatever redundancies exist. Perhaps a quick line such as you're stating would go well, since there is, indeed, very little unique to say about any one sub-type of sedimentary layer, and that is info in and of itself. (Take a look at any [[igneous extrusive]] except obsidian for something similar.)--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 16:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people have been talking a lot of things about reorganizing the information on the stones pages. After browsing around on them for a while, I've found the information to be mostly scattered and difficult to draw conclusions from. For example, I wasn't aware that each geographic stone type had a base list of stones that can appear, while only some of them have a couple of unique stones that may appear along with that list. It wasn't until I began gathering all of that data together for myself, that I found the patterns. I had to work to tie it all together. So, I have a partially completed table of pulldown menus on my user page right now. If anyone's interested they could take a look and tell me what they think? (Yes, I know a lot of it is redundant. I have an idea on how to fix this, but I haven't completely decided yet) --Kydo 13:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

== Not a Roguelike ==

Dwarf Fortress only resembles a Roguelike in the sense that everything kills you. ASCII graphics haven't connoted Rogue-resemblance since Diablo came out with modern 3D graphics and was still considered a Roguelike.
[[User:LogicalDash|LogicalDash]] 22:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you for Fortress mode, but adventurer mode is rogue like.--[[User:Mjo625|Mjo625]] 22:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

:DF is rogue-like like.[[User:GarrieIrons|Gar]][[User Talk:GarrieIrons|rie]] 08:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

LogicalDash, Diablo is in 2D, not 3D. --[[User:612DwarfAvenue|612DwarfAvenue]] 05:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

== Link to Add Quotes ==

To get help on how to add quotes to the main page, consult [[Talk:Main Page/Quote|this]] link.

== Incoming New Version ==

Guys. We might as well prepare for the new version that will be coming by the end of the year (maybe). What will need to change? Weapons and armor, the underground stuff... I don't know all of it. But it's extensive. Get ready.--[[User:Zchris13|Zchris13]] 17:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
:Well, we don't know all the details, and names of jobs/items can change before actual release. [[User:Kurokikaze|Kurokikaze]] 16:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
:I don't see what this has to do with anything, i guess it's nice of you to tell us. But what do you mean "get ready?"
: Gird your loins, gentlemen. Or something.
::It'll be hard to cover every page - if you edit, try to follow up on links, etc. Might also have to check the "oldest pages" listing to see that they've all been updated (except it's broken atm). The worst currently is that we ''still'' have legacy crap from earlier versions in obscure corners and comments that's not relevant to current version. Bonus.--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 06:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
:This might be useful: http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AT8EQVUjrv96ZGc5cnBwOHZfMjgyY3FzZHFtanA&hl=en
:Are we just changing this wiki? (as opposed to forking with the new version, in case some people keep playing 40d?) [[Special:Contributions/206.45.111.58|206.45.111.58]] 22:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
::Forking sounds good to me. But I have no idea how well wikis handle forking. --[[User:Nahno|Nahno]] 14:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
:::In any case I think it would be a good idea to updated articles as is, and not wipe them out like in the wiki's switch to 3d which simply wiped out a lot of good information along with outdated text. Forking is a good route to take if people don't want to lose 40d inforamtion. [[User:Richards|Richards]] 19:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

== Interwiki ==

Correct link to Russian DF wiki, please.
Right link = www.dfwk.ru instead current www.dfwiki.ru --[[Special:Contributions/91.192.82.106|91.192.82.106]] 11:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
:It's done, so should we delete this conservation? (not that great at wiki myself) [[User:Inawarminister|Inawarminister]] 09:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

== Random page ==

Why is "Random page" only bringing me to "Count Consort"? :\ --[[Special:Contributions/99.33.67.9|99.33.67.9]] 22:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
:It seems "Random page" is only random daily... Is this intentional? --[[Special:Contributions/99.33.67.9|99.33.67.9]] 20:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
::There's probably something wrong with your browser cache settings - it works fine for me. --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 20:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

== Random images ==

Where are the images on the main page coming from? It's easy to find the quotes, but where are the images? [[User:MC Dirty|MC Dirty]] 15:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

:I have an image I'd like added... I'll put it on my userpage if anyone wants to take a look at it and see if it's acceptable for uploading. --[[User:Waladil|Waladil]] 06:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

== New Category Idea - Well Known Dwarves ==

After reading some stories on many of the most awesome dwarfs to show up in this game. (Namely Captain Ironblood, Morul, Tholtig) That a category, perhaps a sub one to Humor and Stories just for Dwarves that are very very clearly above the normal for the already outrageous(ly awesome) game of Dwarf Fortress. However do to the fact this is less on the game mechanics and such, the idea is first here so other's can figure if it's worth having a category. One thing that comes to mind is there really should be some sort of limit to what makes a Dwarf and Epic/Well Known Dwarf so as to prevent people from putting everyone they liked up there rather then the few '''everyone''' likes. Mostly asking as there is a handful of such dwarfs and that number is only going to (slowly) grow. Each said Dwarf I think deserves some sort of noting on a page for my two cents on the topic.
:I definitely thing that this is a great idea in the true spirit of DF.

== Images ==

So, what does everyone think? Would it be a good idea to have real-world images (or possibly sketches for fantasy, if applicable) of the following:
* Trees
* Fish
* Land animals
* Weapons and armor
* Stones
* Ores
* Land features (desert, savannah, etc.)
* Gems
* Metals
* Plants
We already have two pages with example images for a [[Pike_(weapon)#Pike|weapon]] and a [[Sandstone|stone]] for example. I find this very nice for visualizing my fortress and what's going on, since I'm not very familiar with many of the distinctions DF makes. I mean, I know what a fish looks like but I haven't got a clue what the difference between a pike and a char is, or a birch and alder, or even bronze and pewter to be honest.--[[User:Ar-Pharazon|Ar-Pharazon]] 22:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
:The normal issues with this kind of thing is REAL-WORLD publishers being annoying with copyright. I guess if we can find it from the real-world wiki then there is a good chance it is a public domain image.
:There is no way in the world it would hurt an article to have one of these. Although, for fantasy objects, materials, and creatures, there may well be some discussion about if the "Dragon" should be a European, Oriental, or some other dragon (and so on for the rest).
:[[User:GarrieIrons|Gar]][[User Talk:GarrieIrons|rie]] 11:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
::Well, I've added pictures to some of the layer stones and vermin, as well as all the ores. If anyone is interested, you can link to files on wikimedia commons as if they were internal files now.--[[User:Ar-Pharazon|Ar-Pharazon]] 04:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
:::What if those of us with artistic skills were to produce original content for such pages? For example, I could easily do a few drawings depicting certain fantasy creatures as well as actual creatures. --Kydo 22:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
::Who says that the 'Dragon' as a creature isn't a generalization of any species? To be honest, with the graphics as they are, I think that most of Dwarf Fortress comes down to the way the user imagines it, rather than how it appears on screen. Rather like the old text based adventure games of old.--[[Special:Contributions/85.12.64.150|85.12.64.150]] 10:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

== No link to World Generation? ==

Home page needs a link to World Generation. I thought of adding it, but didn't want to upset the delicate symmetry happing in the menus. Thoughts as to where it could go? [[Special:Contributions/118.208.7.232|118.208.7.232]] 04:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)