Dwarf Fortress Wiki - User contributions [en]

Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Centralized Discussion

2023-01-11T10:45:56Z

Kaly2: Fix link

This page is for listing various wiki-related discussions. In this sense you can get involved in any of the major initiatives on the wiki and find information on how a particular consensus was reached. If there is a discussion that you'd like to be viewed by more users feel free to list it here.

Items will be occasionally removed from this list to ensure its usability and relevance. To discuss centralized discussion itself or this article please use the [[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Centralized Discussion|talk page]].

Wiki-related issues can be reported on [http://github.com/df-wiki/df-wiki/issues GitHub] or at [[DF:Error reports]].

:''To view changes to the below discussions click [https://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Centralized_Discussion here].''

== Starting a new discussion ==
* If the discussion relates to a specific article, start a discussion on its talk page (the "discussion" tab at the top of the page). If it does not exist and you are unable to create it, feel free to [[DF:PR|request it]].
* If the discussion relates to a specific policy, start it on the relevant talk page and link to it below (under "Current Discussions")
* If the discussion relates to the wiki in general (a request for comment, suggestion, etc.) or a large group of pages, create a subpage of this page (e.g. <code>[[DF:Centralized Discussion/DISCUSSION_NAME_HERE]]</code>) and link to it below.

== Current Discussions ==
<onlyinclude>
*[[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Centralized_Discussion/Pageviews|Pageviews]]: request for pageview extension
*[[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki_talk:Versions#v50_specific_issues|v50-specific wiki issues]]: ongoing efforts to update the wiki for v50
*[[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki_talk:Versions#v50_migration|v50 wiki migration]]: technical details and known remaining issues about the now-completed migration process
*[[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki_talk:Versions#v50_organization|v50 wiki organization]]: proposal for new namespace scheme for DF v50
*[[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Centralized_Discussion/Screenshots|Premium & Classic screenshots]]: which to use/add?
*[[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Centralized_Discussion/SkillsLaborProfessions|Skills Labor and Professions]] terminology.
*[[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Centralized_Discussion/Your edit was saved|Your edit was saved]] - Possible wiki bug, spurious "Your edit was saved" messages
*[[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Centralized_Discussion/Animal_Raws_for_Animal_Men| Animal Raws for Animal Men]] - Discussing adding the Raws of the respective creatures to their Animal Man counterparts
* [[/Announcements/]]: To discuss possible implementations and locations of wiki-related announcements
* [[/Translating the wiki/]]: To discuss the possibility of setting up a translation system on the wiki
*[[/0.42-micro-template/]] - When and how to mark minor 0.42-specific content when the full banner is not practical for formatting reasons.
*[[/Template for DFHack/]] - There should be a specific template for wiki sections involving DFHack, distinct from the one used for mods.
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Quality#Rating_tab_not_working_anymore.3F|Rate tab]] - Rating system not working
*[[Talk:Building_list|Building list]] - Transform it to "Places" or delete it?
</onlyinclude>


== Old Discussions ==
:''These have all been inactive for >1 month. But feel free to comment on them if you have something to add, then move the line to current discussions above.''

=== Content ===

*[[/Feedback reporter/]]: To discuss the implementation of a new feedback reporting tool.
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Centralized Discussion|Centralized Discussion]] - To discuss this page and the general concept of Centralized discussion.
*[[Masterwork talk:Community portal]] - To discuss editing guidelines specific to the new Masterwork wiki.
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Spambot attacks|Spambot attacks]] - Discussion of the recent (1/29/2011) spambot attacks.
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Redundancy|Redundancy]] - Articles should repeat tabled info as text.
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Article Consolidation|Article Consolidation]] - Are there too many articles forever destined to be stubs? (Ores/Stones/Gems) that can be replaced by tables?
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Real World Information|Real World Information]] - Discussing the place of real world information in wiki articles.
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Quality|Quality labels]] - Place to discuss the Quality label, as well as the process of labeling articles.
*[[Talk:Main_Page|Main Page]] - To discuss the layout of the main page, and the purpose of the main page talk for discussion.\
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Improvement_Drive|Improvement Drive]] ([[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki talk:Improvement_Drive|Talk]]) - Wiki improvement drive
*[[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki talk:Versions|Wiki Versioning process]] - Archived (as of 4/20) discussion about how to proceed with article versioning for the DF 03.31 (DF2010) upgrade. Project page describes how it was done and how articles are organized to support multiple different game versions.
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Community Portal|Community Portal]] - General discussion area, also to discuss the community portal page itself.
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Current events|Current events]] - '''old'''
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Announcements|Announcements]] - About the [[Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Announcements|Announcements]] box at the top of every page.

=== Administration ===
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Manual of Style|Manual of style (talk)]] - A general discussion about article style, including subtopics such as spelling (English/UK), the place for humor, page layout, image use, and "vanity articles".
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Deletion_Policy|Deletion Policy (talk)]] - To discuss the [[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Deletion_Policy|Deletion Policy]].
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Magmawiki|Magmawiki]] - Discussion about the on-going magmawiki project, which aims to replace mediawiki for this wiki's software.
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Request for Adminship|Request for Adminship]] - Discussions on granting Adminship to specific users
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Request for Adminship|Request for Adminship (talk)]] - Discussions on the Adminship-granting process
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Block policy|Block Policy]] - The not yet created policy for blocking users.

=== Article specific ===
*[[DF2012 Talk:Map legend]] — The map legend should cover what different ''background'' colors mean, not just foreground colors
*[[v0.31 Talk:How to correctly start fortress mode]]
*[[DF2012 Talk:Children]] — This page should be moved to [[DF2012:Child]] (first, that page needs to be vacated).
*[[DF2012 Talk:Bridge]] — Suggestion to remove or relocate to [[DF2012:Trap design]] a large section of the Bridge page, and replace with "See also"s.
==== Completed ====
*[[DF2012 Talk:Arena]] — This page should be moved to [[DF2012:Object testing arena]].
*[[Category talk:DF2012:Hermaphrodite]] — This category should be moved to "sexless" or "genderless".

[[Category:Wikiprojects]]

[[Category:Wikiprojects]]

Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Centralized Discussion

2023-01-11T10:43:42Z

Kaly2: Add new discussion topic

This page is for listing various wiki-related discussions. In this sense you can get involved in any of the major initiatives on the wiki and find information on how a particular consensus was reached. If there is a discussion that you'd like to be viewed by more users feel free to list it here.

Items will be occasionally removed from this list to ensure its usability and relevance. To discuss centralized discussion itself or this article please use the [[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Centralized Discussion|talk page]].

Wiki-related issues can be reported on [http://github.com/df-wiki/df-wiki/issues GitHub] or at [[DF:Error reports]].

:''To view changes to the below discussions click [https://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Centralized_Discussion here].''

== Starting a new discussion ==
* If the discussion relates to a specific article, start a discussion on its talk page (the "discussion" tab at the top of the page). If it does not exist and you are unable to create it, feel free to [[DF:PR|request it]].
* If the discussion relates to a specific policy, start it on the relevant talk page and link to it below (under "Current Discussions")
* If the discussion relates to the wiki in general (a request for comment, suggestion, etc.) or a large group of pages, create a subpage of this page (e.g. <code>[[DF:Centralized Discussion/DISCUSSION_NAME_HERE]]</code>) and link to it below.

== Current Discussions ==
<onlyinclude>
*[[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Centralized_Discussion/Pageviews|Pageviews]]: request for pageview extension
*[[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki_talk:Versions#v50_specific_issues|v50-specific wiki issues]]: ongoing efforts to update the wiki for v50
*[[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki_talk:Versions#v50_migration|v50 wiki migration]]: technical details and known remaining issues about the now-completed migration process
*[[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki_talk:Versions#v50_organization|v50 wiki organization]]: proposal for new namespace scheme for DF v50
*[[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Centralized_Discussion/Screenshots|Premium & Classic screenshots]]: which to use/add?
*[[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Centralized_Discussion/SkillsLaborProfessions|Skills Labor and Professions]] terminology.
*[[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Centralized_Discussion/Your edit was saved|Your edit was saved]] - Possible wiki bug, spurious "Your edit was saved" messages
*[[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Centralized_Discussion/Animal_Raws_for_Animal_Men| Animal Raws for Animal Men]] - Discussing adding the Raws of the respective creatures to their Animal Man counterparts
* [[/Announcements/]]: To discuss possible implementations and locations of wiki-related announcements
* [[/Translating the wiki/]]: To discuss the possibility of setting up a translation system on the wiki
*[[/0.42-micro-template/]] - When and how to mark minor 0.42-specific content when the full banner is not practical for formatting reasons.
*[[/Template for DFHack/]] - There should be a specific template for wiki sections involving DFHack, distinct from the one used for mods.
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Quality#Rating_tab_not_working_anymore.3F|Rate tab]] - Rating system not working
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Building_list|Building list]] - Transform it to "Places" or delete it?
</onlyinclude>


== Old Discussions ==
:''These have all been inactive for >1 month. But feel free to comment on them if you have something to add, then move the line to current discussions above.''

=== Content ===

*[[/Feedback reporter/]]: To discuss the implementation of a new feedback reporting tool.
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Centralized Discussion|Centralized Discussion]] - To discuss this page and the general concept of Centralized discussion.
*[[Masterwork talk:Community portal]] - To discuss editing guidelines specific to the new Masterwork wiki.
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Spambot attacks|Spambot attacks]] - Discussion of the recent (1/29/2011) spambot attacks.
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Redundancy|Redundancy]] - Articles should repeat tabled info as text.
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Article Consolidation|Article Consolidation]] - Are there too many articles forever destined to be stubs? (Ores/Stones/Gems) that can be replaced by tables?
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Real World Information|Real World Information]] - Discussing the place of real world information in wiki articles.
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Quality|Quality labels]] - Place to discuss the Quality label, as well as the process of labeling articles.
*[[Talk:Main_Page|Main Page]] - To discuss the layout of the main page, and the purpose of the main page talk for discussion.\
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Improvement_Drive|Improvement Drive]] ([[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki talk:Improvement_Drive|Talk]]) - Wiki improvement drive
*[[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki talk:Versions|Wiki Versioning process]] - Archived (as of 4/20) discussion about how to proceed with article versioning for the DF 03.31 (DF2010) upgrade. Project page describes how it was done and how articles are organized to support multiple different game versions.
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Community Portal|Community Portal]] - General discussion area, also to discuss the community portal page itself.
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Current events|Current events]] - '''old'''
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Announcements|Announcements]] - About the [[Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Announcements|Announcements]] box at the top of every page.

=== Administration ===
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Manual of Style|Manual of style (talk)]] - A general discussion about article style, including subtopics such as spelling (English/UK), the place for humor, page layout, image use, and "vanity articles".
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Deletion_Policy|Deletion Policy (talk)]] - To discuss the [[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Deletion_Policy|Deletion Policy]].
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Magmawiki|Magmawiki]] - Discussion about the on-going magmawiki project, which aims to replace mediawiki for this wiki's software.
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Request for Adminship|Request for Adminship]] - Discussions on granting Adminship to specific users
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Request for Adminship|Request for Adminship (talk)]] - Discussions on the Adminship-granting process
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Block policy|Block Policy]] - The not yet created policy for blocking users.

=== Article specific ===
*[[DF2012 Talk:Map legend]] — The map legend should cover what different ''background'' colors mean, not just foreground colors
*[[v0.31 Talk:How to correctly start fortress mode]]
*[[DF2012 Talk:Children]] — This page should be moved to [[DF2012:Child]] (first, that page needs to be vacated).
*[[DF2012 Talk:Bridge]] — Suggestion to remove or relocate to [[DF2012:Trap design]] a large section of the Bridge page, and replace with "See also"s.
==== Completed ====
*[[DF2012 Talk:Arena]] — This page should be moved to [[DF2012:Object testing arena]].
*[[Category talk:DF2012:Hermaphrodite]] — This category should be moved to "sexless" or "genderless".

[[Category:Wikiprojects]]

[[Category:Wikiprojects]]

Talk:Building list

2023-01-11T10:42:15Z

Kaly2: What is the new purpose of this page?

Should we delete this page or should we rename/redirect it "Places" to explain the new menu? - [[User:Kaly2|Kaly2]] ([[User talk:Kaly2|talk]]) 10:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Minecart

2023-01-11T10:34:19Z

Kaly2: Answers to the questions

I added in an example minecart function. If it is too complicated for the section I put it in, let me know what place would be more appropriate for it.

Is this actually using Metalcrafting? I assigned my metalcrafter to make like 12 of them and he is now a novice blacksmith.

Hey Tokmor! Thanks for your contribution, I think the examples are fine, but not sure if maybe it would be better to create another page. Please, remember to sign your comments with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. About the [[metalcrafter]] question, it may have changed recently, it requires testing. - [[User:Kaly2|Kaly2]] ([[User talk:Kaly2|talk]]) 10:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Centralized Discussion

2023-01-11T10:22:27Z

Kaly2: Add new discussion topic

This page is for listing various wiki-related discussions. In this sense you can get involved in any of the major initiatives on the wiki and find information on how a particular consensus was reached. If there is a discussion that you'd like to be viewed by more users feel free to list it here.

Items will be occasionally removed from this list to ensure its usability and relevance. To discuss centralized discussion itself or this article please use the [[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Centralized Discussion|talk page]].

Wiki-related issues can be reported on [http://github.com/df-wiki/df-wiki/issues GitHub] or at [[DF:Error reports]].

:''To view changes to the below discussions click [https://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Centralized_Discussion here].''

== Starting a new discussion ==
* If the discussion relates to a specific article, start a discussion on its talk page (the "discussion" tab at the top of the page). If it does not exist and you are unable to create it, feel free to [[DF:PR|request it]].
* If the discussion relates to a specific policy, start it on the relevant talk page and link to it below (under "Current Discussions")
* If the discussion relates to the wiki in general (a request for comment, suggestion, etc.) or a large group of pages, create a subpage of this page (e.g. <code>[[DF:Centralized Discussion/DISCUSSION_NAME_HERE]]</code>) and link to it below.

== Current Discussions ==
<onlyinclude>
*[[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Centralized_Discussion/Pageviews|Pageviews]]: request for pageview extension
*[[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki_talk:Versions#v50_specific_issues|v50-specific wiki issues]]: ongoing efforts to update the wiki for v50
*[[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki_talk:Versions#v50_migration|v50 wiki migration]]: technical details and known remaining issues about the now-completed migration process
*[[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki_talk:Versions#v50_organization|v50 wiki organization]]: proposal for new namespace scheme for DF v50
*[[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Centralized_Discussion/Screenshots|Premium & Classic screenshots]]: which to use/add?
*[[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Centralized_Discussion/SkillsLaborProfessions|Skills Labor and Professions]] terminology.
*[[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Centralized_Discussion/Your edit was saved|Your edit was saved]] - Possible wiki bug, spurious "Your edit was saved" messages
*[[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Centralized_Discussion/Animal_Raws_for_Animal_Men| Animal Raws for Animal Men]] - Discussing adding the Raws of the respective creatures to their Animal Man counterparts
* [[/Announcements/]]: To discuss possible implementations and locations of wiki-related announcements
* [[/Translating the wiki/]]: To discuss the possibility of setting up a translation system on the wiki
*[[/0.42-micro-template/]] - When and how to mark minor 0.42-specific content when the full banner is not practical for formatting reasons.
*[[/Template for DFHack/]] - There should be a specific template for wiki sections involving DFHack, distinct from the one used for mods.
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Quality#Rating_tab_not_working_anymore.3F|Rate tab]] - Rating system not working
</onlyinclude>


== Old Discussions ==
:''These have all been inactive for >1 month. But feel free to comment on them if you have something to add, then move the line to current discussions above.''

=== Content ===

*[[/Feedback reporter/]]: To discuss the implementation of a new feedback reporting tool.
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Centralized Discussion|Centralized Discussion]] - To discuss this page and the general concept of Centralized discussion.
*[[Masterwork talk:Community portal]] - To discuss editing guidelines specific to the new Masterwork wiki.
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Spambot attacks|Spambot attacks]] - Discussion of the recent (1/29/2011) spambot attacks.
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Redundancy|Redundancy]] - Articles should repeat tabled info as text.
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Article Consolidation|Article Consolidation]] - Are there too many articles forever destined to be stubs? (Ores/Stones/Gems) that can be replaced by tables?
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Real World Information|Real World Information]] - Discussing the place of real world information in wiki articles.
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Quality|Quality labels]] - Place to discuss the Quality label, as well as the process of labeling articles.
*[[Talk:Main_Page|Main Page]] - To discuss the layout of the main page, and the purpose of the main page talk for discussion.\
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Improvement_Drive|Improvement Drive]] ([[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki talk:Improvement_Drive|Talk]]) - Wiki improvement drive
*[[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki talk:Versions|Wiki Versioning process]] - Archived (as of 4/20) discussion about how to proceed with article versioning for the DF 03.31 (DF2010) upgrade. Project page describes how it was done and how articles are organized to support multiple different game versions.
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Community Portal|Community Portal]] - General discussion area, also to discuss the community portal page itself.
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Current events|Current events]] - '''old'''
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Announcements|Announcements]] - About the [[Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Announcements|Announcements]] box at the top of every page.

=== Administration ===
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Manual of Style|Manual of style (talk)]] - A general discussion about article style, including subtopics such as spelling (English/UK), the place for humor, page layout, image use, and "vanity articles".
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Deletion_Policy|Deletion Policy (talk)]] - To discuss the [[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Deletion_Policy|Deletion Policy]].
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Magmawiki|Magmawiki]] - Discussion about the on-going magmawiki project, which aims to replace mediawiki for this wiki's software.
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Request for Adminship|Request for Adminship]] - Discussions on granting Adminship to specific users
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Request for Adminship|Request for Adminship (talk)]] - Discussions on the Adminship-granting process
*[[Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Block policy|Block Policy]] - The not yet created policy for blocking users.

=== Article specific ===
*[[DF2012 Talk:Map legend]] — The map legend should cover what different ''background'' colors mean, not just foreground colors
*[[v0.31 Talk:How to correctly start fortress mode]]
*[[DF2012 Talk:Children]] — This page should be moved to [[DF2012:Child]] (first, that page needs to be vacated).
*[[DF2012 Talk:Bridge]] — Suggestion to remove or relocate to [[DF2012:Trap design]] a large section of the Bridge page, and replace with "See also"s.
==== Completed ====
*[[DF2012 Talk:Arena]] — This page should be moved to [[DF2012:Object testing arena]].
*[[Category talk:DF2012:Hermaphrodite]] — This category should be moved to "sexless" or "genderless".

[[Category:Wikiprojects]]

[[Category:Wikiprojects]]

Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Quality

2023-01-11T10:14:50Z

Kaly2: /* Rating tab not working anymore? */ new section

==Downgrade from Fine to Tattered==
Now that xTatteredx has been implemented, all of the -Fine- articles which are definitely not fine should be downgraded. I suggest we all go through a letter of the alphabet from [http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Category:DF2010:Fine_Quality_Articles here] and rate all the articles properly. I've already done so for letters A and B... 24 more to go. If you have extra info to add, don't hold back.

Go and rate!

: What's the difference between fine and tattered? At present you have the exact same criteria listed for both categories. --[[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 18:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
::I had changed Tattered to be different from Fine, but VengefulDonut apparently disagreed and reverted them back to being identical. So Yeah. --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 19:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

:::Either you two didn't read them or we disagree over what the word identical means. [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 19:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
::::Okay, ''nearly'' identical. Out of the 5 properties on each one, 3 are the same. --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 20:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::Alright. What about this? [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 21:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::: It's apparently been edited since I said something. I assure you it was identical when I posted, which was very confusing. --[[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 00:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::It wasn't identical, there was a slight difference. Too small but it was there. [[User:Speed112|Speed112]] 01:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

==Stone, gem and similar articles==
Any thoughts on how to rate these? Many of them seem to be tagged as stubs, but the stone template in particular seems to me to cover most of the salient information. [[User:Oddtwang of Dork|Oddtwang of Dork]] 20:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

:In my view, quality should be a reflection of the percentage of the total information about a given subject that exists. So if we're talking about non-special stones, there is very little information aside from their basic properties, colours, locations etc. Thus if an article encapsulates all of those, it should be rated fairly high quality. I can see that there could be an argument for adding like a little descriptive sentence on the page or something, but surely brevity and simplicity are features that suggest a higher quality of article. In addition, if you look at the current definition for Masterwork Quality articles, these basic stone articles are comprehensive on the subject, contain no unverified information, have an appropriate number of outbound links, do not have any redlinks and are properly categorized. The only feature I am not sure on is whether the links are in the right format, but I'd be willing to bet that it is. If that is the case, the only problem with them, and the only thing holding them back from being Masterwork (by the current definition) is the fact that they do not have multiple editors. Surely then, if we go through the pages and quickly check if the information is correct, we can then reclassify them as Masterwork. [[User:Pie|Pie]] 00:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

: 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.
: For vermin articles, it makes sense to have a longer article for the economically important cave spider. For mineral articles, it makes sense to have a longer article for the rare and game specific adamantine. A D for Dwarf section for minerals like chert is simply unreasonable, and would take away from the specific purpose of the wiki, which is information first.
: All of the mineral articles fulfill the masterwork obligations. They are as comprehensive on the subject at hand as necessary, because this is a game, not a geology lesson. If players are interested in geology, they can find the information they need more effectively elsewhere. [[User:JohnnyMadhouse|JohnnyMadhouse]] 22:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

:It seems that rating these articles removes the gamedata properties. The template is in place, but the actual information (i.e. layer, melting point, boiling point, etc.) is gone. I'm not sure how to recover it. [[User:Shadowfury333|Shadowfury333]] 00:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
::What browser are you using? [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 14:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Mozilla Firefox 3.6.3 [[User:Shadowfury333|Shadowfury333]] 18:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
::I see that you've rated 2 stone pages (Chalk and Chert), and both of them are still showing all of the appropriate information. --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 16:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Hmm. Going back they appear to have the information again. Maybe it just takes a little while to update it with the rating. [[User:Shadowfury333|Shadowfury333]] 18:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

:Well, I'm done fleshing out layer stones and vermin with descriptive phrases, and raised them all to ≡Exceptional≡ quality. I know the necessary information is there in the infoboxes and the raw files, but I would imagine newcomers to the game and wiki would appreciate an easy to read sentence or two giving a broad overview of the item in question. --[[User:Shadowfury333|Shadowfury333]] 01:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

:Okay, done trees and plants. Not sure what to do next. Probably any old skills not properly described. --[[User:Shadowfury333|Shadowfury333]] 21:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

==who rates those articles==
who rates those articles?
::I have been. If I shouldn't be, someone say so now. Also, should ~100% of content articles be rated? --[[User:StrongAxe|StrongAxe]] 18:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
:::As there isn't much of a vandalism thing going on here, I think it should be the original author of the article who rates it, with some admin verification following--[[User:Smd|Smd]] 15:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
::::Anyone and everyone should be rating the articles. Don't agree with an article rating? leave a note why on the talk page and re-rate the page in question. --[[User:Briess|Briess]] 01:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

:Anybody can rate an article, it's a wiki and we're ''supposed to'' all work together. Just try to correct or update anything that needs changing. If you spot vandalism, go to the '''history''' tab next to the discussion/edit tabs and revert the page to a pre-vandal version. [[Special:Contributions/97.90.193.201|97.90.193.201]] 17:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

== Changing levels ==
:There was a discussion [http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=54970.msg1183319#msg1183319 on the forums] involving changing the quality levels to Fine, Exceptional, and Masterwork. Yes/no?--[[User:Draco18s|Draco18s]] 17:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
::I think this is a great idea. [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 17:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
::I second. The forum thread linked above garnered broad support for -Fine-, +Exceptional+, *Masterwork* after discussing several options. -Grae
:::Agreed, with the quality modifiers in place, they're awesome for this wiki. I mean, what's more Dwarf Fortressy than having a good *article*? --[[User:Aescula|Aescula]] 21:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
::Indeed, it seems to fit the game better rather than fit with common player perceptions of the races in game.[[User:Vattic|Vattic]] 20:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
::Although I think the Fine, Exceptional, Masterwork is a better grading scheme I have to question the need for more than two levels. Either an article doesn't have enough information (currently Elven) or it does (currently Human or Dwarven. The distinction between the top too levels is mostly in how it links to other articles which I think is a poor way to grade. For example you could make a Human article Dwarven by removing any red links or badly formed links but arguably this reduces the quality of the article itself. So I'd suggest just having a rating for poor pages and leaving good ones without any tag. --[[User:Shades|Shades]] 14:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
:::I think there is some value to pointing out articles that are not only accurate and full of all the information, but also easy to navigate within and between. Hence the distinction between what is good and great. [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 16:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
::::But that is not what we are doing as by removing the links on a Human article you can end up with a Dwarven article. That is not a good reinforcement. --[[User:Shades|Shades]] 07:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
:::::I added another category requirement for an Exceptional article now. --[[User:Briess|Briess]] 00:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

== Template/method ==

I see that this was set up with different templates for each quality level. Is that really the best way to go? Couldn't instead of <nowiki> {{elven}} {{dwarven}} {{human}} </nowiki> could we do <nowiki> {{Quality|<low>}} {{Quality|<med>}} {{Quality|<high>}} </nowiki> (for whatever those three are)? Thoughts? [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 17:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
:That seems far more sensible to me. The three tags are now very confusing if you don't happen to have been around while the quality thing's been introduced. [[User:Oddtwang of Dork|Oddtwang of Dork]] 15:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
::I also agree - it would centralize the formatting rules, and even potentially allow people to set what kind of label they want to see. --[[User:Krenn|Krenn]] 07:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
:::Feel free to implement this if you feel so inclined. --[[User:Briess|Briess]] 00:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
::::Alright, I'll try to work on this tonight. [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 19:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This started out as a project to point what needs fixing. Fine is a '''terrible''' name for the bottom quality rank. If you are hell-bent on driving the DF reference all the way, make the lowest rank XShoddyX [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 12:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

:Also, the comments on the forums seem to be more objections than suggestions. Perhaps the original elven/human/dwarven ranking would work. [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 12:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
::I'd also like to nitpick that the current labels, "-Fine-" "+Exceptional+" and "*Masterwork*", are wrong - they ''should'' be "+Fine+" "≡Exceptional≡" and "☼Masterwork☼". --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 13:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

:I think the purpose of pointing to what needs fixing works just as fine regardless of names. Anyone who cliks those links (which anyone who wants to fix things on the wiki probably will) understand what fine pages need more work.
:I don't think elven/human/dwarven was any better at showing what needs improvement. While fine/exceptional/masterwork might not accurately measure the bottom level, at least it shows a gradient which elven/human/dwarven does not. I have no objection to bumping it to 4 levels (I think something LIKE stub could be there, shoddy isn't bad) that seems like a very good idea to me.
:Vengeful, I know there are a lot of objections but when asked for some suggestions this change seemed very highly requested. I simply implmented it because I agreed that "elven" doesn't really equal "bad" or even "worse then human".
:Yeah, Agreed Quiest, I'll change that. [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 14:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

::We don't need more levels. We just need the labels for the current levels to match their purpose. The bottom level, which represents "needs improvement" articles, needs to have a tag that sounds '''bad'''. xTatteredx and xShoddyx would fit the current theme. Replacing it all with number ranks would solve it (say, level of magma). As long as the label doesn't directly conflict with the purpose of the category, the way fine does. [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 14:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

:::Sounds good, it was a little work to make sure the shift happened correctly. If you want to do the change to "Shoddy" or "Tattered" then cool, otherwise I'll maybe do it sometime this week. [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 17:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

::::Something a little negative about that, isn't there? "Stub" says 'this needs more adding to it' whereas "shoddy" says 'what's here isn't much cop'. I agree that "Fine" is probably a bit generous. Offhand, however, I don't have another suggestion for the lowest level.
::::There's probably an argument to make that the middle level would be better as "Fine" if the lowest is changed - I think there's a clearer distinction then between it and the top level. [[User:Oddtwang of Dork|Oddtwang of Dork]] 21:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

::::I just noticed the addition of "xTATTEREDx". Now we have a brand new problem: There's absolutely nothing in between "poor" (tattered) and "good" (fine). We need something neutral. Poor - Neutral - Good - Great is a fine progression, but we don't have anything that sounds "neutral".[[User:G-Flex|G-Flex]] 07:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::Yeah. Fine really isn't a neutral word. What would be a good replacement? [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 12:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::How about Adequate (no -decorations-), to mirror the no-adjective change to skill levels? --[[User:Onul Rigothzas|Onul Rigothzas]] 03:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::Well tbh fine is fine, not good, as in it's not bad but it isn't good either = neutral. Exceptional = good and Masterwork = great. I was in fact thinking that, rating-wise, Masterwork is really close to Exceptional, and Exceptional is pretty far away from Fine, so it would be a good idea to turn Fine into Well-crafted and Exceptional into Superior, to have them all 2 levels apart: Tattered(0), Well-crafted(2), Superior(4), Masterful(6... or 12). --[[User:Speed112|Speed112]] 12:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

==Quality categories by version namespace==

Is there a relatively simple way to view a list of, say, all DF2010 articles of Fine quality? If not, could there be? It would be quite handy for targeting articles to be improved. --[[User:FunkyWaltDogg|FunkyWaltDogg]] 03:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
:Doing so would require editing the {{tl|Quality}} template itself, though it might not be a bad idea. --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 04:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
::I was thinking of doing that. We'll leave this here for a little so people can comment on it, but then if noone opposes I'll make the change. [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 17:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
:::With this in place, would calculating the "Overall quality rating" for each version not be more useful? Either for each namespace or for each + the articles in the mainspace, maybe? [[User:Oddtwang of Dork|Oddtwang of Dork]] 21:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
::::I've just updated the progress bar template to allow it to focus on a single namespace. 40d has a reasonably high rating, while 23a is way worse than even DF2010. I've also tweaked this Quality page to list the quality stats for all 3 namespaces - it's a bit busy, but the information should be useful. --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 13:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::Looks great IMO, thanks! --[[User:FunkyWaltDogg|FunkyWaltDogg]] 15:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::My god, stats. Stats everywhere! I love it. Well done. [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 15:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no mention of the "Version:Quality" style categories on [[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Quality|the quality page]]. Should those be added immediately, or are we waiting until we've reached a decision on if ratings will differ between versions? Because I would add them, but I don't want to screw things up. [[User:SenorPwnage|Señor Pwnage]] 02:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

==Drop in overall quality rating==
Why has the quality rating seen on the main page dropped so precipitously? It was at over 20% a week or two ago, now it is at 11%. Is this due to articles being rerated downward, or due to the hundreds of nearly-stub pages such as [[DF2010:Aquamarine]]? Has the calculation method changed? Or another cause? —[[User:0x517A5D|0x517A5D]] 20:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
:Almost certainly the latter, and probably partially my fault - whenever I find a page that has no rating at all, I just give it a "Fine" rating so it at least has a rating ''at all'' - I'm of the opinion that it's better for a page to be underrated than completely unrated. --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 21:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
::And I agree, the lowest rating should be applied to the worst articles. [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 17:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
:::Given that a bunch of the articles have been blindly categorized as "Fine", I'm going through and rerating a bunch of them as "Unrated" which will place them in a distinct category so other users can provide more accurate ratings. It would probably be beneficial to make the template recognize this rating and list it on this project page (and somehow include them on the progress bar thingy). --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 19:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
::::I'd suggest not doing that. Fine is currently the "bottom" rating. We can that name if we want, but having to go back and change unrated to "new bottom rating" will be a lot of unnecessary work, imo. Don't you think? [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 22:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::"Unrated" was '''not''' intended to be a "new bottom rating", but a way of denoting that an article ''needs to be (re-)rated'' - since the intent is that every page (or at least all of those in the DF2010 namespace) should have a quality rating, it's useful to be able to explicitly categorize an article as needing a rating without having to rate the article yourself (for those who are very poor judges of quality). --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 22:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
:I'm also rather shocked at the brutal re-rating of everything. Not one Masterwork article? Seriously? If everything's just going to end up in a morass of Fine, where Fine can be anything from a pointless stub to a half-decent, usable article, then the system really isn't helping. --[[User:Krenn|Krenn]] 05:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
::Ah - replying to my own post in case anyone else has the same confusion I did; the problem is that the links to the categories from the Quality page go to '''non-version specific''' categories of Fine, Exceptional, and Masterwork, and nothing is in those anymore. All articles are now of a quality rating specific to their own namespace, IE: [[:Category:DF2010:Masterwork Quality Articles]]. I still think rating is being too harsh, though, as there's only 3 masterwork right now and that seems low. --[[User:Krenn|Krenn]] 05:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
:::I'll fix this. Also, the count is just how many articles are labeled masterwork, if you can find some other than those three that are masterwork, please label them such :). [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 06:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
::::There are only 2!!! masterwork articles now for some reason. Don't know if the 3rd one deserved being downgraded or not, but this makes me kind of sad. We need to do something about all these "fine" articles which are anything but fine, and bump more-than-decent exceptional articles with some extra stuff to make them masterwork... guides maybe? I don't know. But I don't really like it. I'm trying to do stuff but I'm new (so I suck) and don't have time... the answer is for everyone to do small things and not let it to a few good members. --[[User:Speed112|Speed112]]

== Criteria ==

Currently, having a "substantial number of redlinks" is grounds for an article being rated as Fine. While this is okay for new pages, it's a bit unfair to articles in the 23a namespace, where most of the content is concrete but simply hasn't been imported from the Archive wiki yet. Should this distinguish between redlinks due to incorrect formatting versus redlinks due to pending creation of other pages? --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 19:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
:I tend to think the rules should be ''substantially'' different in the 23a namespace, as it is essentially historical content being ported into the current wiki for reference purposes. So I would actually argue that 23a pages should not be rated at all, nor taken into account in the quality rating. Speaking of that, it used to be wiki policy to make minimal edits — don't these repeated ratings lead to extra entries in the page histories and extra disk space consumed? Or are the ratings handled thru a database entry maybe? —[[User:0x517A5D|0x517A5D]] 19:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
::By that argument, should not 40d articles also be exempt from being rated? --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 20:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
:::Disk space is not a concern. However, fine as the bottom rating of articles is not fine. --[[User:Briess|Briess]] 20:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

== Proposal: No ratings for 40d and 23a ==
Those parts of the wiki are mostly static (and hopefully generally complete) and increasingly of historic interest only. The way I understand the rating, it's mostly to show the ongoing process of completing a new version and telling a user how to evaluate an article.

We could alternatively introduce separate rating templates for 40d and 23a.. --[[User:Höhlenschreck|Höhlenschreck]] 21:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps just alternate categories? [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 22:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

:Specifics of implementation aside, I think a ratings system that only counts current version and mainspace articles in the overall wiki score is a good idea. --[[User:FunkyWaltDogg|FunkyWaltDogg]] 00:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
::This is now implmented, the "score" is DF2010 only. Hohlenschreck, does this meet your ideas? Or do you not want labels on older articles at all? [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 06:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
:::I think this is fine --[[User:Höhlenschreck|Höhlenschreck]] 00:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

== Quality is not updating itself ==

I've been testing something, and looking at a preview via edit, it shows a different quality than normal, like it's not updating the quality at all. I'm not sure if this is a bug, or as possible as a wiki can go. Any ideas as to why this is happening? --[[User:Hugna|Hugna]] 07:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
:The quality won't update itself automatically while you preview. From Recent Changes it looks like (maybe) there is now something which automatically updates rating based on some script? Interesting if that's the case. But it definitely won't have any impact while you are previewing (also not immediately after you save either). [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 11:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

:What do you mean by a different quality than normal? If you hit preview when on the edit page, it will show whatever quality tag is currently on the page. Also Mason, the rate script is just an easier method to add/update a quality tag -- shouldn't have anything to do with what he's talking about, I hope. [[user:Emi|Emi]] [[user_talk:Emi|[T]]] 11:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

== Difference between exceptional and masterwork ==

I've noticed there has been some talk about exceptionals/materworks over on the [[Black diamond]] page. I'm continuing the topic here, to have everything in centralised discussion... My two cents: I think "exceptional" should be the standard for an article that contains all in-game information. Masterworks should then be articles that for some reason exceed the standard value and add something extra - like guides (great example it the [[Cave spider]] page) or massive amounts of information organised in a convenient way (like the generic [[Tree]] page). I'm saying this mostly as a user, who expects masterworks to be something worth reading. Having masterworks that are basically just stubs (eg. the [[Black diamond]]) is very counterintuitive, even if nothing remains to be said.
Yes, I'm aware this would mean rearranging the quality criteria. --[[User:Markus cz|Markus cz]] 11:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
:Makes sense to me. --[[User:Nahno|Nahno]] 12:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
::That's the way I view it too. Since we've now got xTatteredx for useless articles and +Fine+ for mediocre ones, putting ≡Exceptional≡ as "complete" and ☼Masterwork☼ as "over and beyond" seems appropriate. --[[User:DeMatt|DeMatt]] 01:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
:I agree, Masterwork articles need to be something particularly special. I don't think it's a problem if some articles, by their nature, may never be able to be "masterwork". [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 12:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
::I just want to point out that if Exceptional is the goal, it should score as 100%, not 60%, in the math for the quality rating. (I think Fine should also be bumped upward from 30%, and Tattered bumped up from 0% to maybe 10%.) I won't make the change myself, as my last edit to the math was reversed. —[[User:0x517A5D|0x517A5D]] 14:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
:::Your [http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php?title=Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Quality/rating&diff=prev&oldid=110861 last edit to the math] was reversed due to said change consisting of ''adding a random number from -30 to +40 to the rating'', as well as outright labeling it as "'''malicious'''". --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 16:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
::::Do you have a point? —[[User:0x517A5D|0x517A5D]] 16:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::The point is, your suggested contribution here is useful. The addition of a random element to the rating value was not judged as useful. One was reverted, the other is very unlikely to be reverted unless another better idea comes along. --[[User:Briess|Briess]] 18:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
:::And there in lies the problem (perhaps the only among all the positives) of a rating system like this. It doesn't let you specifically point out impressive achievements without marking everything else as missing something. I mean it takes away the benefit of highlighting the best work we've (well, not really me, but other people) came up with as a group in order to assign a score. But I can't think of another way of doing it. [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 05:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:Let's add the following requirement (or something along these lines) for an article to be considered masterwork:
:* This is enlightening.
:or maybe something like this:
:* All DF players should read this article.
:It would be good to have something that says the page is an important one, and not just a comprehensive one. [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 05:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
::::I agree. Maybe not specifically these criteria, but something along those lines. Masterwork articles should shine among other great articles (Exceptional) and be, indeed, masterwork.
::::Another idea would be to tweak the rating so that Exceptional articles are complete (100%) and Masterwork are complete with a spark of awesomeness. What I mean is that they should still count as 100% on the rating percentile, but there should be another counter of awesomeness which says how many Masterwork quality articles there are. [[User:Speed112|Speed112]] 10:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

== Problem with the timestamp via "rating page" ==

It's a little odd nobody noticed it until now. The timestamp the automated "Qualityrator" creates, is always '''08:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)'''. I don't think this should be like it is. Why do we have the timestamp when ist is alwasy the same? Do I get anything worng? --[[User:Used|Used]]
:Looks like the [[User:Emi/review.js|rater script]] just included the exact text <nowiki>"~~~~~"</nowiki> instead of splitting it into 2 strings, meaning it got substituted when the page was actually saved. I must admit, it's quite amusing that nobody noticed it until now. --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 12:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
::Yeah, thank you! You are great =). Now this can be fixed soon. --[[User:Used|Used]] 08:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

== Auto rate ==

the 'rate' feature hangs for me at
Automatic Criteria:
Is page orphaned.... NO
Is page deadend......
How many redlinks does page contain......

is this expected behavior? I've been working around by manually editing the quality, and adding the appropriate timestamp. [[User:Decius|Decius]] 02:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Addendum: looking at the script, it seems to be counting the number of ways that a page can be reached from the index. Would it be faster to stop as soon as one route was found, or is the cnt there more than a go/no go? [[User:Decius|Decius]] 03:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
:The count does affect the rating guidelines, and the script seems to work fine for me. I'll look into it and see what I can or can't figure out. What browser is this on? --[[User:Briess|Briess]] 12:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
::IE 8.0, using a marginal wireless network. If there's a significant data transfer involved, it will probably be interrupted. [[User:Decius|Decius]] 01:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

== <nowiki>{{l|linkname}}</nowiki> ==

This requirement for *Masterwork* is a little absurd, unless pages need to be created for every variation of the name of the article. Not only is the improper link formatting, but there are many possiblites when the use of <nowiki>{{l|linkname}}</nowiki> simple doesn't work properly. The requirement does say "except where a link to another namespace is required," which I suppose covers my previous statement; even then, if there is going to be such a huge exception, why even use it at all? Not only would it be easier to just use proper link formatting, but articles would be more standardized (which this Wiki '''badly''' needs).

This wiki is in sad shape, not only would this Quality page would be considered tattered (in my opinion,lacks information, information is unclear), there isn't even a <s>[[Manual of Style]]</s> [[Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] here!

I won't change any of the current <nowiki>{{l|linkname}}</nowiki> links on pages I edit, but until there is actually some standardization here, I'll be using <nowiki>[[pagename|linkname]]</nowiki> [[User:Gzalzi|Gzalzi]] 20:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
:You're supposed to use <nowiki>{{l|linkname}}</nowiki> the same way you use <nowiki>[[linkname]]</nowiki>. You can format it <nowiki>{{l|pagename|linkname}}</nowiki>, just as with the standard link formatting. The reason for using the L-template is because of the versioning process - when DF2011 comes around, they're gonna '''copy''' all the DF2010 pages into the new DF2011 namespace, and then change the L-template so DF2011 links bounce around in DF2011 pages, while DF2010 links bounce around in DF2010 pages. You can already see this at work in the 40d pages - clicking on an L-template link in [[40d:Stone]], like the links in the first paragraph, causes you to go to the 40d versions of the pages.
:I disagree with you on the quality of the Quality page. I'd put it at Exceptional. You'll have to explain what information you're looking for to convince me otherwise; unfortunately, these ratings are a little subjective, so trying to apply the "rules" as rules doesn't work very well.
:I'm reasonably, fairly, confidently, sure that the links in the Article Version template don't count towards the guidelines for Masterwork. --[[User:DeMatt|DeMatt]] 21:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
::Ah, well the reasoning because the use of the "L" template does make sense, and I will use it.
::The subjectiveness of the Quality page is the problem I have with it. If you're going to define rules, they should be able to be applied as rules. The definitions of what makes an article good and what makes it bad need to be much more clear, or some of the requirements needs to be changed around, though I don't have any specific suggestions at this time. --[[User:Gzalzi|Gzalzi]] 21:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
:::The <nowiki>{{L}}</nowiki> template has been obsoleted (by integrating its functionality into MediaWiki itself), so this should no longer be an issue. --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 17:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

== Quality Scale Reword? ==

I'm fairly new to editing, but I'd like to be able to contribute better. I've tried my hand at the "tattered" articles, but most of those have no info because you can't get the info. Most of the articles labelled "fine" usually fall under the criteria for "exceptional" (in my opinion) but the "exceptional" title seems misfit (which is probably why they're labelled "fine"). The criteria for "fine" seems to be an extremely poor, but moderately long article. "Contains little to no accurate information" feels like it should be under "tattered" not "fine."

It looks like there are either major flaws with almost half of the articles, or the quality criteria for page quality is skewed. I feel the definition of "Fine" should be revised to fit an average article, not have the description sound like the article needs great improvements when in reality it is a decent article. [[User:Williamrmck|Williamrmck]] 17:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

== Many current 'Tattered' articles should be 'Fine' ==

Looking through the pages currently categorized as being of Tattered quality, it seems that most of them deserve to be considered Fine, or even Exceptional in some cases. As was discussed in the older discussion [[#Stone, gem and similar articles|'Stone, gem and similar articles']], pages for stones and miscellaneous animals (where there is little notable variation from other identical creature types to speak of) should probably be upgraded to Fine as long as they have proper information, since Tattered should be reserved for articles that genuinely lack important content. The rating script seems to agree with me on this. I'll start rating such articles as Fine from now on, if that's alright. [[User:August|August]] 06:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

: Yes, that's correct. According to [[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Quality#Tattered|this page]], vermin, stones, and creatures shouldn't be rated "tattered" unless they are missing the information box on the left. Maybe [[User_talk:Quietust#Bot_Requests|QuietBot]] (or another bot) could do this, but feel free to go ahead and fix articles that you feel need it.
: Also check [http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/Category:DF2012:Tattered_Quality_Articles| this list] if you haven't already. (It looks like all the A's and B's are gone, so you probably did). --[[User:Lethosor|Lethosor]] ([[User_talk:Lethosor|talk]]) 17:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

:: Alright, sounds good. One thing I did notice that was missing from many of the animal pages was butcher yield information. I'll still go ahead and rate those as Fine, but at some point later I'll try and get that info. [[User:August|August]] 16:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

== Timestamps ==

While I understand the original intent of including timestamps in quality ratings, a quick glance at the statistics shows that the vast majority of the articles about the current version have "missing" or "outdated" timestamps. Naturally the results are even worse for prior versions:

{| {{prettytable}} width=75%
|- bgcolor="#ddd"
|Version
|Old timestamps
|Missing timestamps
|Total articles
|Percent old/missing
|-
|DF2012
|1246
|238
|1795
|82.7
|-
|v0.31
|1148
|231
|1382
|99.8
|-
|40d
|507
|555
|1065
|99.7
|-
|23a
|506
|118
|646
|96.6
|}
::''Historical data as of 19:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)''

In the case of prior versions, requiring our articles to be less out-of-date than the game itself is rather ridiculous. Since it is abundantly clear that these timestamps are not actively motivating improvement of the wiki, I am suggesting that the timestamps be dropped from the quality template. --[[User:Loci|Loci]] 20:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

: Makes sense to me. Timestamps should definitely be removed from the old namespaces at least (or simply not calculated as being "outdated"). However, I think timestamps could still serve some amount of purpose for the current version. Perhaps it would be best to simply extend the length of time required for quality ratings to be considered "outdated"? Or, if such a thing is possible, make it so that quality ratings are only stamped as outdated once significant changes have been made to the article since the last time it was last rated. This might make the most sense, since logically the rating shouldn't change unless the article changes first. [[User:August|August]] 22:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

:: Personally, I don't pay much attention to the "outdated" category either. I don't think an article, even one covering a 9-month old release, needs to be re-ranked every 10 weeks, particularly if the rating doesn't change. The only use I've found for the "missing timestamp" category is locating articles created by [{{fullurl:Special:ListUsers|group=bot}} bots], but this can also be checked by looking at their contributions. If it turns out that nobody uses these categories, I agree that they may as well be removed. --{{User:Lethosor/sig}} 23:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

::: Agreed, I never pay attention to them either. (btw this is really off-topic but that's an awesome rainbow signature) [[User:August|August]] 23:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

:I removed the timestamp categorization in [http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php?title=Template:Quality&diff=183096&oldid=182089 this edit]. --[[User:Loci|Loci]] 20:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

== Proposal: Add a fifth quality ranking ==

As pointed out in [[#Template/method|this topic]], there is a fairly large jump between "fine" and "exceptional" in-game, as well as in the category descriptions. [[#Quality Scale Reword?|This topic]] also points out the large gap between the two. The current descriptions make it hard to classify articles that fall between "fine" and "exceptional", leading to inconsistencies between some articles on similar topics (e.g [[DF2012:Armadillo]] and [[DF2012:Conger eel]] are "fine", [[DF2012:Badger]] is "exceptional", and [[DF2012:Coyote]] and [[DF2012:Cow]] are similar in content but have different ratings). I propose a new rating (*Superior* seems to fit according to [[DF2012:Quality]]). I know it would probably require a lot of reorganization for some articles, but I think it would provide a more accurate description of article quality. --{{User:Lethosor/sig}} 01:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
:Makes sense to me. --[[User:Briess|Briess]] ([[User talk:Briess|talk]]) 06:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

:I agree too. I am not entirely happy with naming it "superior", as I occasionally have to look up if superior or exceptional is actually the better quality but hey, that's what the game uses ;) Another concern I have is with the rating script: right now there is enough wiggle room to have an article go either way if one wants. We should find a marker for all 3 qualities that is decisive. Exceptional could probably be some sense of "complete", fine could be "missing important information", with superior being "incomplete, but no wrong or disputed content, no missing important information. Well, this has been discussed before, just my 2 cents. --[[User:Old Ancient|Old Ancient]] ([[User talk:Old Ancient|talk]]) 17:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I added a fifth ranking to the template. [http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php?title=Template:Quality&diff=183992&oldid=183800]. --{{User:Lethosor/sig}} 21:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

==Definition of "Superior"==
We need to come up with an accurate definition of "superior", to fill the gap between "fine" and "excepional". A few potential guidelines have been suggested, which I'll post here as a reference (along with a couple of my own):
* No important information missing (includes templates/infoboxes, obvious facts, etc.)
* May be missing some, less-important information
* Few redlinks
* Templates are "completed", in cases where not all information is easily extracted from the raws ([http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php?title=DF2012:Reader&oldid=159901], [http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php?title=DF2012:Aye-aye&oldid=180424]).
Again, these are mostly tentative suggestions, to get an idea of what "superior" means before adding it to [[DF:Quality|the description page]]. --{{User:Lethosor/sig}} 21:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
----
Mixing Fine and Exceptional with the suggestions above:

* No important information is missing (includes templates/infoboxes, obvious facts, etc.)
** May be missing some less-important information
* Has a substantial number of links, and very few red links
* Standard templates are included, and "completed" if necessary
* Is properly categorized
* Contains no inaccurate information, but may have a small amount of information that needs to be completely verified.

--[[User:Loci|Loci]] ([[User talk:Loci|talk]]) 19:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

===Working copy===
If there aren't any objections, I'll copy this over in a few days. We can always make changes afterwards too. --{{User:Lethosor/sig}} 22:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
* No important information is missing (includes templates/infoboxes, obvious facts, etc.)
** May be missing some less-important information
* Has a sufficient number of links
* Has very few red links
* Includes all standard templates
** Templates are completed when necessary (including butchering returns for creatures, labors for workshops, etc.)
* Is properly categorized

==Quality score calculation==
The quality score calculation needs to be updated to include Superior.--[[User:Loci|Loci]] ([[User talk:Loci|talk]]) 19:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
:Do you mean the script or the template? I think I updated [[DF:Quality/rating]] correctly, but it only changed the overall rating by 0.1% (I'm reluctant to increase the Superior weighting any further). If you're referring to the script, it has a few problems with the new wiki already, and I'm not sure when they'll be fixed. --{{User:Lethosor/sig}} 20:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

== Rating tab not working anymore? ==

This article says: "In order to rate articles, click the "rate" tab when on the page you wish to rank, then fill out the form in order to suggest an appropriate rating. If you feel the suggested rating is incorrect, you may override it and force a specific rating." but at the moment there is no "rate tab" anywhere, so the only way to rate an article (a necessary task with the addition of v50 pages) is doing it manually. Does anyone now what happened and/or how to add it again? - [[User:Kaly2|Kaly2]] ([[User talk:Kaly2|talk]]) 10:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Clean self

2023-01-11T09:56:15Z

Kaly2: Rate it as "Superior"

{{migrated article}}
{{Quality|Superior|10:55 11/01/2023(GMT)}}
{{av}}

The '''clean self''' [[job]] is a special job in that it is enabled automatically and cannot be disabled. Dwarves that have been [[Contaminant|contaminated]], be it by dirt, grime, or goblin blood, will take a bit of time off at some point to [[clean]] themselves if possible; dwarves that haven't had a bath in a while will do so as well on occasion. They can do this with access to a water source, be it a [[murky pool]], a [[brook]], or a [[well]] (but not rivers as they will be swept away). In the absence of such an area, or if the water source(s) are [[forbid]]den, they will not perform this job.

Cleaning oneself gets rid of anything on the dwarf, and doing so with a bar of [[soap]] in addition to some water has a good chance of providing a happy [[thought]]. It is most useful as preventative medicine: dwarves that clean themselves lower their internal dirtiness levels (even more when they use soap) and thus dramatically lower chances of an [[Health_care#Infection|infection]] in case they are wounded. Many fortresses, especially ones in [[evil]] biomes, include a [[Stupid_dwarf_trick#Bathtub|bathhouse]] in their design. This is important, because a non-military dwarf caught in a rain of repulsive goo will immediately run to clean themselves, usually by dashing in to the various rotting limbs of an undead creature.

{{Category|Jobs}}
[[ru:Clean self]]

Clean self

2023-01-11T09:55:18Z

Kaly2: Add links to "Cleaning" and "Stupid_dwarf_trick#Bathtub"

{{migrated article}}
{{Quality|Unrated}}
{{av}}

The '''clean self''' [[job]] is a special job in that it is enabled automatically and cannot be disabled. Dwarves that have been [[Contaminant|contaminated]], be it by dirt, grime, or goblin blood, will take a bit of time off at some point to [[clean]] themselves if possible; dwarves that haven't had a bath in a while will do so as well on occasion. They can do this with access to a water source, be it a [[murky pool]], a [[brook]], or a [[well]] (but not rivers as they will be swept away). In the absence of such an area, or if the water source(s) are [[forbid]]den, they will not perform this job.

Cleaning oneself gets rid of anything on the dwarf, and doing so with a bar of [[soap]] in addition to some water has a good chance of providing a happy [[thought]]. It is most useful as preventative medicine: dwarves that clean themselves lower their internal dirtiness levels (even more when they use soap) and thus dramatically lower chances of an [[Health_care#Infection|infection]] in case they are wounded. Many fortresses, especially ones in [[evil]] biomes, include a [[Stupid_dwarf_trick#Bathtub|bathhouse]] in their design. This is important, because a non-military dwarf caught in a rain of repulsive goo will immediately run to clean themselves, usually by dashing in to the various rotting limbs of an undead creature.

{{Category|Jobs}}
[[ru:Clean self]]

Soap

2023-01-11T09:24:03Z

Kaly2: Rate it as "Exceptional"

{{migrated article}}
{{Quality|Exceptional|10:23 11/01/2023(GMT)}}
{{av}}
'''Soap''' is a particularly useful type of [[bar]] used for [[clean self|personal cleaning]], which increases happiness ("recently took a soapy bath") and lowers the chances of an [[Health care|infection]] in case they are [[wound]]ed, and for cleaning [[wound]]s in [[hospital]]s, preventing infections from developing. It is thus a vital commodity in dwarven [[health care]], and one not traded in [[caravan]]s: you're going to have to make some soap yourself.

Unlike most other items, bars of soap have a "durability" level which allows jobs to partially consume them - each bar starts with 150 units, and cleaning jobs consume varying quantities of soap before ultimately using it up.

== Manufacture ==

Soap is made of two components, [[lye]] and [[fat]] (either [[tallow]] or [[oil]]), and requires a dedicated workshop, the [[soap maker's workshop]]. It has a somewhat complicated production process; lye must be produced at an [[ashery]] from [[ash]], which in turn must be created at a [[wood furnace]] from [[wood]] logs that must first be [[woodcutting|cut down]]. [[Tallow]] is rendered from the [[fat]] from butchered [[creature|animal]]s at a [[kitchen]], requiring either [[Meat industry|livestock]] or [[hunting]] activities, while oil must be [[pressing|pressed]] from [[seed]]s or [[rock nut]]s at a [[screw press]], which first requires [[plant gathering|gathering]] or [[farming|growing]] [[crop]]s and then processing them at the [[farmer's workshop]]. One unit of tallow or oil plus one of lye creates a single bar of finished soap.

{{/flowchart}}
{{clear}}
== Hygiene ==

Dwarves do not require soap to clean [[contaminant]]s such as mud and blood from themselves - if necessary, they will use [[murky pool]]s, artificial pools of water, brooks, or a [[well]]. However, using soap will often generate the happy [[thought]] "recently took a soapy bath". It is possible to construct bath-houses (rooms containing pools of water, a soap stockpile, and perhaps a few nice statues) so dwarves living deep underground need not venture to dangerous cave pools or surface brooks to clean off a little mud or some bloodstains. For cleaning wounds and preventing infection after [[surgery]], however, [[hospital]]s should be kept stocked with a small amount of soap. Soap will get used up as dwarves wash themselves, and dirtier dwarves consume soap more quickly.

Dwarves have an internal "dirtiness" level, which slowly builds up over time, gets lowered when they have a bath, and lowered further when they have a soapy bath. This "dirtiness" value is connected to the chance of getting an infection if the dwarf is injured, making soap useful as a preventative as well as treatment.

Soap is stored in bar/block stockpiles with the "soap" option enabled.

[[File:handmade_soap_preview.jpg|thumb|250px|center|Handmade soaps]]

{{Translation
| dwarven = uben
| elvish = dathe
| goblin = snubez
| human = kamven
}}

{{gamedata}}
{{materials}}
{{Industry}}

{{Category|Healthcare}}
{{Category|Materials}}
[[ru:Soap]]

Venom

2023-01-11T09:15:40Z

Kaly2: Rate it as "Superior"

{{migrated article}}
{{Quality|Superior|10:15 11/01/2023(GMT)}}
{{av}}

'''Venom''' is a naturally-occurring poison that will cause a [[syndrome]] in certain creatures when certain conditions are met, typically when entering the [[blood]] via a [[serpent man]] or [[Giant cave spider|giant cave spider bite]]. It is produced by certain creatures according to their [[raw file]], and may be [[extracts|extracted]] and stored in [[vial]]s.

Each specific animal's venom delivers a [[Syndrome#List of syndromes|specific syndrome]], which is a known combination of [[symptom]]s, some short-term, some long-term, and some (in rare cases) permanent (aka "chronic"). Some few syndromes (such as [[gila monster]]s') are seen as mild annoyances, some (such as a [[giant desert scorpion]]s') are a death sentence, but most are a mortal threat, at least. Of the wide of variety possible symptoms, one of the mildest is [[Symptom#Nausea|nausea]] and vomiting, but even that can dehydrate a dwarf and take them out of combat while they seek to quench their thirst. The most immediately dangerous venoms cause [[Symptom#Paralysis|paralysis]], which can stop the lungs, leading to suffocation. Most any bite that causes strong [[Symptom#Pain|pain]] can in turn cause unconsciousness, leaving the victim helpless in combat, which is rarely survived. Longer term, [[Symptom#Blisters|blisters]] can lead to deadly infections, and [[Symptom#Necrosis|necrosis]] (which causes tissue to die) of any body part can also lead to eventual death, but the usual treatment, amputation, is not much better. Even [[Symptom#Dizziness|mild dizziness]] can be a death sentence to any dwarf who works or travels near magma, water, or long falls (and do any ''not''?). There are few venoms that ''can't'' kill an unlucky dwarf, one way or the other; if your fortress has many venomous creatures nearby, have some [[coffin]]s ready.

Currently, it is disputed whether or not venom can be administered, but it may still be purchased or sold.

Research has shown that in at least some circumstances, venom and other syndrome-inducing materials can be spattered or covered upon weapons and bolts, which may result in attacks inflicting the related syndromes. {{cite forum|106397}}

Some [[forgotten beast]]s and [[titan]]s are generated with venom, which they can inject through bites or stingers, alternatively covering their bodies entirely, or making their [[blood]] toxic.

[[File:venom_snake.jpg|thumb|350px|center|A snake's venom.]]

==See also==
*[[Syndrome]] for a list of various venomous varmints.

{{Translation
| dwarven = zamoth
| elvish = neleni
| goblin = luskon
| human = ámtoc
}}
{{materials}}
{{Category|Creature attributes}}
{{Category|Extracts}}
[[ru:Venom]]

Opossum man

2023-01-11T09:13:30Z

Kaly2: Rate it as "Superior"

{{migrated article}}
{{Quality|Superior|10:13 11/01/2023(GMT)}}
{{Creaturelookup/0}}
{{av}}
{{creaturedesc}}
'''Opossum men''' are [[animal people]] versions of the common [[opossum]], inhabiting [[savage]] [[temperate]] [[forest]]s and flatlands. They spawn in groups of 1-5 individuals and are generally content to keep to themselves. In terms of size, they are a little over half the weight of the average [[dwarf]].

Like other savage animal people, they can join [[civilization]]s, become [[historical figure]]s, appear as [[visitor]]s and be playable in [[adventurer mode]].

Some dwarves [[Preferences|like]] opossum men for their ''ability to play dead''.

{{D for Dwarf}}
Despite what some forms of media may portray, there are no armored opossum men known as "rocket knights" with the ability to fly, and do not fight evil pig men or boar men of any kind.

[[File:opossum_man.png|thumb|200px|center|Can still do that hang-from-tree thing with their tails. Maybe. ''Art by Brett Neufeld'' ''Commissioned by TheDiscardedSnarl'']]
{{gamedata}}
{{Creatures}}

Siege operator

2023-01-11T09:10:58Z

Kaly2: Rate it as "Exceptional"

{{migrated article}}
{{Quality|Exceptional|10:10 11/01/2023(GMT)}}
{{Skill
| color = 4:1
| skill = Siege operator
| profession = [[Engineer]]
| job name = [[Siege operating]]
| tasks =
* Load siege weapons
* Fire siege weapons
| workshop = * [[Siege engine]]
| attributes =
* Strength
* Toughness
* Endurance
* Analytical Ability
* Focus
* Spatial Sense
}}
{{av}}

'''Siege operators''' are responsible for manning [[Siege engine|siege weapons]], loading them with any available [[ammunition]], and firing on command or at will. A sufficiently skilled siege operator will always fire them perfectly straight (to the north, south, east, or west), never veering off to the sides.

This is a task sometimes delegated to peasants as a cheap labor, as it can get them <s>s</s>killed swiftly. Catapults are also sometimes used to destroy unwanted stone.

Siege operators cannot "aim" sideways - they always try to fire perfectly straight, but if they're unskilled there's a chance that the shot will "go wild" and veer off to either side by a random amount. In the case of catapults, however, these "wild" shots will actually calculate their arc height based on whatever enemy units are present off to that side (rather than based on what would've been directly ahead).

As for the actual amount of variance, siege engines aim at a location exactly 60 tiles away and up to 10 tiles to either side (if the shot is "unskilled"), which works out to a 19 degree spread (9.5 degrees to each side). As of version 0.47.04, the game generates 3 random numbers from 0 to 14 and checks if any of them are less than the unit's effective Siege Operator skill level (where Dabbling is 0 and Legendary is 15, and status ailments such as Nausea/Winded/Stunned/Fever/etc. can each reduce the level by as much as 50%) to see if the sideways drift should be eliminated. This works out to the following probabilities:

{|{{prettytable}}
|-
!№
!Level
!Accuracy
|-
|0
|Dabbling
|0%
|-
|1
|Novice
| 18.7%
|-
|2
|Adequate
| 34.9%
|-
|3
|Competent
| 48.8%
|-
|4
|Skilled
| 60.6%
|-
|5
|Proficient
| 70.4%
|-
|6
|Talented
| 78.4%
|-
|7
|Adept
| 84.8%
|-
|8
|Expert
| 89.8%
|-
|9
|Professional
|93.6%
|-
|10
|Accomplished
|96.3%
|-
|11
|Great
|98.1%
|-
|12
|Master
|99.2%
|-
|13
|High Master
|99.76%
|-
|14
|Grand Master
|99.97%
|-
|15
|Legendary
|100%
|}

While viewing a dwarf's general stats, this skill is grouped with the combat skills instead of the typical labor skills.
{{Skills}}

Dark gnome

2023-01-11T09:09:00Z

Kaly2: Rate it as "Superior"

{{migrated article}}
{{Quality|Superior|10:08 11/01/2023(GMT)}}
{{Creaturelookup/0
|image=dark_gnome_sprite.png
|wiki=no
|contrib=no
|death=nobutcher
}}
{{av}}
{{creaturedesc}}

'''Dark gnomes''' are small humanoid [[creature]]s who inhabit [[evil]] [[mountain]]s. Their intelligence is on par with [[dwarf|dwarves]] and other sentient creatures, but they lack the ability to communicate verbally, one possible reason they haven't formed a [[civilization|civilized society]]. They have teal skin, yellow eyes and a wonderful variety of [[beard]]s. They're a rather long-lived race, with the oldest ones living up to 250 years. In [[adventurer mode]], they're only active during the night.

If you leave [[alcohol|booze]] out in the open, they'll come in groups of five to ten to drink it all. and scare the poop out of any civilians they encounter. If they reach your alcohol, they'll guzzle it with such efficient speed that your dwarves will soon be dying of thirst unless you have steady access to [[plants]] or [[water]]. They are even capable of stealing alcohol directly from your dwarves: If, say, an axedwarf is busy fighting a [[goblin]] <strike>liberator</strike> child-snatcher, the dark gnome will walk right up and drink their personal supply of booze (if they have one). They have even been seen swarming [[caravan]]s and chugging booze between getting hacked to bits by the caravan guards.

Despite their apparent malice, dark gnomes are not particularly violent and will run in terror when chased. They're able to equip [[weapon]]s and [[armor]] that are appropriately sized for them, but this is rarely seen. Any [[dwarf]] or [[dog]] can easily hurt them, but be wary of [[combat|fighting]] on [[mountain|mountainsides]], where a dwarf may charge the gnome, miss, and [[gravity|fall a very long distance]]. [[Gnomeblight]] is extremely toxic to dark gnomes, causing necrosis if somehow applied to them.

Their [[good]] counterparts are the [[mountain gnome]]s.

Some dwarves [[Preferences|like]] dark gnomes for their ''ability to hold liquor''. They have an inebriation dilution factor of 500, allowing them to drink more than creatures ten times their size.

[[File:Dark_gnome.png|thumb|center|Admired for its ''ability to hold liquor''.]]

{{gamedata}}
{{Creatures}}
{{Category|Humanoids}}

Giant lion tamarin

2023-01-11T09:06:31Z

Kaly2: Rate it as "Superior"

{{migrated article}}
{{Quality|Superior|10:05, 10 Jan 2023 (UTC)}}
{{Creaturelookup/0
|image=giant_lion_tamarin_sprite.png
|meat=13
|fat=12
|skin=hide
|hair=1
|bone=18
|tooth=2
|skull=1
|brain=1
|kidney=2
|spleen=1
|sweetbread=1
|tripe=1
|liver=1
|intestine=1
|heart=1
|lung=2
|cartilage=1
|contrib=no
}}
{{av}}
{{creaturedesc}}

'''Giant lion tamarins''' are much larger [[Creature|cousins]] of the normal [[lion tamarin]] found in [[savage]] [[tropical]] moist broadleaf [[forest]]s. They are solitary and only spawn one at a time. Being 3 times larger than a [[dwarf]], giant lion tamarins are more than a match for a peasant in combat, but they are benign and will only fight if cornered. All giant lion tamarins possess Legendary [[skill]] in [[Climber|climbing]] and are born adults.

Giant lion tamarins possess the standard high pet value of giant creatures, making them valuable [[pet]]s if [[Animal trainer|trained]]. Additionally, they can be used for the [[meat industry]] through hunting or if the player manages to capture a breeding pair, though they are noticeably short-lived animals, only living up to 3 years at most - because they're born fully sized, they should be butchered immediately. They are considered exotic [[mount]]s, so you may encounter [[Elf|elves]] riding them into battle in the event of a [[siege]].

Some dwarves [[Preferences|like]] giant lion tamarins for their ''small size'' and their ''manes''.

{{gamedata}}
{{Creatures}}

Milk

2023-01-01T16:32:30Z

Kaly2: Remove reference to short cuts that no longer work.

{{migrated article}}
{{Quality|Unrated}}
{{av}}

[[File:milk_bottles.jpg|thumb|282px|right|Got Dwarf?]]

{{buggy}}
'''Milk''' is a product [[extract]]ed from milkable [[creature]]s. Milk can be made into [[cheese]] or used in [[cook]]ing [[prepared meal]]s. It cannot be consumed "as is". Milk is found under "Liquid" in the Stocks screen {{k|k}}.

Female versions of certain animals are milkable. In order to perform milking, you must have a dwarf with the [[milking]] labor active, a [[farmer's workshop]], an empty [[bucket]] and a mature, non-[[pet]], milkable animal.

==Milkable creatures==

The following creatures can be milked:

*[[Alpaca]]
* Camels, both [[one-humped camel]]† and [[two-humped camel]]†, [[one-humped camel man|one-humped camel women]] and [[two-humped camel man|two-humped camel women]] and the [[giant one-humped camel]]† and [[giant two-humped camel]]†
*[[Cow]]
*[[Donkey]]
*[[Goat]]
*[[Horse]]
*[[Kangaroo]]†, [[kangaroo man|kangaroo women]] and [[giant kangaroo]]†
*[[Llama]]
*[[Pig]]
*[[Purring maggot]]‡
*[[Reindeer]]
*[[Sheep]]
*[[Tapir]]†, [[tapir man|tapir women]] and [[giant tapir]]†
*[[Water buffalo]]
*[[Yak]]

: † These animals are not domesticated and can't be brought on [[embark]]. Savage giant and animal man versions grant the same milk as the normal-sized species, though animal people are not domesticable. 
: ‡ Purring maggots are an unusual case in that they are [[vermin]] and not livestock. They are currently bugged and can't be milked if tamed. {{Bug|3670}}. 

==Milking creatures==
{{catbox|DF2014:Milkable}}Queue a "Milk Creature" job at a [[farmer's workshop]]. The milker will not necessarily pick the closest animal available. Caging, pasturing or restraining the milkable creatures near the workshop might be a good idea, but is not mandatory. The animal must also have milk available. Once milked, the creature will be free to roam. If the creature was previously caged, pastured or restrained, some dwarf will be assigned the job of taking it back. You can avoid these pasture animal jobs if the [[farmer's workshop]] is in the animal's pasture.

Milk should eventually be transferred from its bucket into a [[barrel]] or [[large pot]] for long-term storage. If you plan to make [[cheese]], it's a good idea to let the milk accumulate so that you get stacks of cheese (up to size 5) instead of single (size 1) cheeses.

The frequency with which animals are able to be milked is defined in the raw files with the tag {{token|MILKABLE|creature|LOCAL_CREATURE_MAT:MILK:20000}}. All milkable creatures currently have this tag set to 20000 [[Time|ticks]], which, at 1200 ticks per day, means they all can be milked every 17 in-game days. Due to this time-out, using repeating jobs to milk creatures is infeasible if only a few milkable animals are available. Alternating repeating "Milk Creature" and "Make Cheese" jobs tend to work poorly, since transfer of the milk to storage can interfere with continued work, so that sooner or later the cheesemaking job will be cancelled, eventually canceling the milking job as well.

An exploit to maximise embark point returns is to take 1 of each kind of milk - milk costs only 1 point at embark and comes with a separate barrel for each type, effectively giving you free barrels, and (after some work) stacks of 1 cheese from each unit of milk for your [[prepared meal]]s, worth 10 times what the milk is worth.

Milk from milkable animals domesticated by a [[civilization]] can be ordered in [[trade agreement]]s with that civilization. Each barrel of milk brought by a [[caravan]] contains 10 units of milk.

===Dwarven ice cream===

Milk has a [[temperature|freezing point]] of 10000 °U, the same as [[water]]. If milk is left in conditions below this temperature, even on a tile marked [[tile attributes|inside]], it will freeze, and become "frozen ''{animal}'''s milk". Frozen milk is treated as a cookable solid {{Bug|2787}}, and may show up as an ingredient in your roasts--at 1/10th of the value of cheese, if the roasts do not just melt entirely. There is no entry for frozen milk in stockpile menus, so dwarves will not haul a frozen milk barrel to any type of stockpile. {{Bug|3398}} Careless attempts to dump the barrel to an indoor [[garbage dump]] may result in dwarves hauling the frozen milk and the barrel separately, resulting in a puddle of milk when it thaws. Dwarves will not make cheese out of frozen milk. For these reasons, milking industries should be set up underground, as Armok intended.

If your [[trade depot]] is outdoors in freezing weather, any barrels of milk (or [[lye]]) brought by a caravan will be frozen and appear as empty barrels in the [[Trading]] screen. They can be distinguished from empty barrels by having a price 10☼ higher than the price of the barrel, or by viewing their contents.

To move frozen milk to an indoor garbage dump without spilling it, do not use the [[Designations Menu]]. Instead, just mark the barrel for dumping.

==Bugs==
* After finishing a milking job, the milker may generate a cancellation message if trying to take another job immediately: "Urist McMultitasking cancels job, handling dangerous animal". They will subsequently just leave the milked animal to wander away on its own and retask anyway.
* It is unclear why pets cannot be milked; this seems to be a bug because milking is a requirement for some animals and presumably the Animal Care dwarf would be aware of this and oversee their regular milking.
* Tamed purring maggots can't be milked. {{Bug|3670}}
* After being milked (or attempting to milk them?), purring maggots are left inside the workshop as an item. {{Bug|3668}}
* Cooks will only cook milk and other fluids as a last resort, instead preferring to cook solid foods with solid foods. {{Bug|2393}} For more information, see the [[Kitchen#Bugs|kitchen]] page.

{{D for Dwarf}}

Dwarven milk does not in fact come from dwarves. This is generally a relief to human caravans, until they find out where it really [[purring maggot|comes from]].

Because milk is not considered a drink, dwarves will not drink it, even if they are dying of [[thirst]]. Indeed, dwarves consider any drink that isn't alcoholic to be no better than water, and refuse to drink milk because it's of better use as cheese. Another theory is that dwarves refuse to imbibe milk because it would make them puny milk-drinkers. What is for certain, however, is that unlike in real life, dwarves have yet to discover how to make alcoholic fermented milk beverages, such as kumis or kefir.

{{gamedata|{{raw|DF2014:material_template_default.txt|MATERIAL_TEMPLATE|MILK_TEMPLATE}}}}
{{materials}}

{{Category|Food}}
{{Category|Extracts}}
{{Category|Creature attributes}}
[[ru:Milk]]

Building list

2023-01-01T16:28:09Z

Kaly2: Adding that this feature is no longer in Premiun and making reference to Places' menu.

{{migrated article}}
{{Quality|Unrated}}
{{av}}

The '''building list screen''' is a feature only available to DF Classic, accessed from the main view by pressing {{k|Shift}} - {{k|R}}. A list of the [[building]]s (along with their owners) is displayed, along with any differences in actual value and perceived value by the owner (due to material preferences). If a [[room]] in the list appears in red, then it is a room which overlaps with some other defined room-space, drastically reducing the quality value of these rooms.

On some buildings, specifically those that need the [[architecture]] [[skill]] to be built ([[trade depot]]s, [[bridge]]s, [[archery target]]s, [[furnace]]s, [[pump]]s, [[road]]s, etc.), the [[quality]] levels of both the design and the construction (as well as the names of the dwarves involved) can be viewed by pressing {{k|Enter}}. The building's material is determined by the ''oldest'' selected ''base'' item (that is, the chosen bar/log/stone that has existed in your fort the longest).{{cite forum|134816/4867108}}

For Steam/Premiun version, the '''Places''' menu is similar.

{{Category|Interface}}
[[ru:Building list]]