Dwarf Fortress Wiki - User contributions [en]

User talk:Niggy

2010-07-13T03:26:56Z

Njero:

Please give feedback on anything I do. Just do it!
:Did you notice that [[User:Njero|Njero]] works on a similar project as you do? --[[User:Doub|Doub]] 16:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
::On that page has been done no work since semptember last year :3 --[[User:Niggy|Niggy]] 17:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
:::Yes, I'm afraid I have been cursed with an ambition far greater than the scope of my patience. If you don't get to it first (and you will if you try), I'll see about folding your data into my pretty. Odds of that happening are very close to the odds of killing a bronze colossus in v0.31.02. :) aaaaand I always forget to sign my edits... --[[User:Njero|Njero]] 03:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Niggy

2010-07-13T03:26:27Z

Njero:

v0.31 Talk:Squad

2010-04-18T19:53:17Z

Njero: /* Naming Squads? */

==Doing Stuff==
Since the major edits are now in, and the redirect is closed, I think it's probably safe to go ahead and clean this discussion page back up. I'll wait for now however. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 03:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
:(agreed, and cleaned up as per suggested) --[[User:Retro|Retro]] 05:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
:: I'm shifting my attention back towards the various pages on fluid mechanics (water, flow, rivers, brooks, etc...). I've looked through the {{l|river}} and {{l|brook}} pages and pulled them forward into 2010 with minor editing.
::Meanwhile I am always keeping a close eye on the bug tracker for current news. If any new bugs are discovered that are relevant here, or if anything gets patched, I'll be sure to drop by over here and do updates. As for the rest of the content here, I'll let someone else worry about that for a while. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 20:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

==Priority Assignments and Supplies==

We still have nothing on Pri/Assignments (m-e-P) and Supplies (m-u). Dunno much about them myself yet, just saying. --[[User:Retro|Retro]] 06:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
: Agreed, but I'm afraid they are still quite impenetrable to me. Pretty hard to write about it when we don't understand it ourselves yet. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 15:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
::Yeah, ditto. I'll investigate later I guess. I suspect Priority Assignments allows you to re-prioritize what your dwarves are doing judging by its name, but can't tell how it works yet. The latter just seems to be for food/flask/water orders and the like but still going to put aside some time later to look into it --[[User:Retro|Retro]] 18:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
:::As far as I can tell Supplies is just to set up how much food and what drinks your military dwarves carry, meaning, (0/1/2/3) rations of food and (alcoholic/non-alcoholic/no) drinks. I assume it works much like the food or water for military squads used to in 40d, except that you can tell your dwarves to carry drinks in their waterskins instead of just water, so it's nothing fancy --[[User:Ramperkash|Ramperkash]]
::::I think priority assignment might determine which dwarf gets to choose equipment first, so dwarf #1 gets the best stuff, #2 get the best remaining stuff and so on. Maybe re arranging items is what the constant Equipment Manifest jobs are for? -- [o_O]WTFace
:::::Looking over the screen I can see that you can rearrange dwarf order in the squads as well as squad order, but wasn't able to do anything with the rightmost pane. So I've figured out prioritizing squads/dwarves but not assignments thus far. --[[User:Retro|Retro]] 23:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

==Another Buggy behavior==
I'm dumping this here for now because it's debatable, and it's a bit of a mess. Here's the issue. soldiers still get unhappy thoughts from leaving their duties if they have no civilian skills. At just hearing that, it doesn't sound like a bug, it's how it was in 40d, expected behavior right? Here's what it really means in the present environment.

The thoughts in question are "upset about being relieved from duty" and "complained about the draft" and likely minor variations of the same two thoughts depending on how recent the thought was. These would apply to civilians who have no military skills, or to soldiers that have no civilian skills. The times these thoughts are believed to occur are.

:at the end of every month in the militia{{verify}}
:every time they eat or drink{{verify}}
:when joining/leaving the militia{{verify}}
:after a squad cancel command{{verify}}

If this is accurate, it basically means drafting an unskilled peasant into a squad is a very fast recipe for insanity. I saw this in the bug tracker, I haven't personally verified this yet nor have I seen what the official word is on the subject yet. I just thought I would go ahead and list it here. Do with this information what you will. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 15:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
:Ooh, that sounds like a big one. I don't have time until tonight to add it but I'll make note of it within the article as a word of warning when I can. --[[User:Retro|Retro]] 17:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
:: I just tried to verify this one myself with a brand new batch of 7 peasants, and then again with one axedwarf and 6 peasants. In hopes of a bit of '''fun''' I also brought along one good axe for each test which I assigned to my test subject. In both case I issued a brutal series of move, kill, and cancel commands to the dwarf in an attempt to drive him into a mad killing frenzy.
::I was unsuccessful. Despite my best efforts to be the most irritating squad commander in the history of dwarf-kind I could not seem to induce even so much as one unhappy thought with active squad commands of any kind. Admittedly, I made no effort to test for the other passive behaviors. That little test will be a lot more tedious so I think I'll leave that one alone and see if more people jump on the report or not. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 18:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
::: Several more updates on the ticket, and a breakthrough. On careful inspection of the thoughts page I find the thought "Complained about the draft lately." This bears more investigation. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 20:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
:::: Wasn't that specific unhappy thought in 40d as well? Or do you think it might've changed since then to include these thoughts, being bugs or not? --[[User:Ramperkash|Ramperkash]]
::::: Yes, as I have already said at first glance these appear to be the expected behaviors consistent with 40d. However with the new military system, they occur much more frequently than you might expect which can potentially be quite dangerous. I've just updated the details above to reflect my better understanding of this issue as the reports come in on the bug tracker. I'm watching the bug tracker on the issue and attempting to verify this through experimentation as well. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 21:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
:::::: Done some testing on this, at first I couldn't seem to reproduce it, but now I have found something. apparently a key element of this behavior is that you must have your orders set to have less than all dwarves on duty at a given time. With this setup they will periodically go off-duty and other dwarves will take their place. it is at this off-duty change that bad thoughts occur. With a rotation schedule like this you will also see a message in the announcements every time a dwarf switches duties. The workaround to avoid this bad thought problem would be to cross train all your military to have at least one level in a civilian skill which is probably not a bad plan in any event. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 03:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
::::::: I don't understand this issue quite as well as I like yet but I have confirmed enough to feel comfortable adding a short warning about the matter, which I have already place up in the military page. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 04:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

==Equipment==

Gave '''[[DF2010:Equipment|Equipment]]''' its own page, to be used for info on equipping soldiers, making/applying uniform templates, and will also serve as a good spot to store related summaries on weapons/armour much like '''[[40d:Equipment_and_encumbrance|this]]''' 40d page. Nothing there yet but we can move the stuff here into there and replace the current stuff with a summary, then expand within that page from there.

On a side note, I'm working on a Category thing for Military v0.31 that we can apply instead of this See Also nonsense every time. I'll go add it when I'm done; getting there. --[[User:Retro|Retro]] 22:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

==Squad or Squads?==
It occurs to me that this maybe should be the squad page instead of the squads page. I notice that the backwards link to 40d is non-functional as things are right now although that may be because there was no need for a squad page before. Anyhow, if this needs to be changed, I'm sure someone will take care of it sooner or later. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 04:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
:Just checked; 40d's Squad redirected to the military. So it's a new page and we can basically do what we want with it. Personally I feel the plural is more appropriate as I say things like "rally your squads," "open the squads menu," "do this when scheduling your squads" more often than I use the singular. --[[User:Retro|Retro]] 04:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
:: well, it's not a big deal, I'm just wondering if there's a consistency issue. Most pages are in the single form, not the plural form. But I guess it's a question for the admins to decide on, I won't worry about it. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 14:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

==How to Activate a Squad==
Love the changes. I think. I am unable to use them, however, likely because I am dense and not due to any bug. This article seems to go over everything except how to actually activate your squads in order to give them direct (active) commands. I have created a squad because a cougar is approaching my undefended fort. (just a bunch of civies with picks and axes). However, all of the active commands (move, attack, active, etc) are all grey'd out and unusable. I can't see anything in this article on how to actually activate a squad. Am I missing something or is something missing from the article? --[[User:Frewfrux|Frewfrux]] 19:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
:Sorry, I suppose I should've emphasized - you need to select a squad before you can use it, even if there's only one. In the squads screen you can do this with a / b / c (it'll list which squad = which key) or hold shift to select multiple at once. Should fix your problem; lemme know if it doesn't. --[[User:Retro|Retro]] 20:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
:: Read the section on selecting a squad, it's there. There's just a ton of information to swallow so it's a bit overwhelming still. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 23:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
:::AH HA!!! That did the trick. (Thank you thank you thank you) One mutilated cougar. That was a little too easy. I was assuming that because the squad was showing up on the screen that it was activated. This does not appear to be the case. As a side note, shouldn't a cougar run faster then a group of untrained dwarves? Just a thought. --[[User:Frewfrux|Frewfrux]] 11:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
:::: the current speed system is a placeholder. I opened a ticket about it but they closed it for now. I had an alligator that led my dwarves on a merry chase all around the map for days. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 13:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

== Naming Squads? ==
The change list says you can name squads, but I can't find the option, how do I do it? [[Special:Contributions/24.255.86.193|24.255.86.193]]
:I don't believe you can - the squad leader seems to still use the RNG to name themselves. You can name alerts, scheduling, and uniforms though. --[[User:Retro|Retro]]
::You can, however, abuse the RNG until it gives you something you like. Unlike 40d where each dwarf had a permanent group name that became the name of a squad they lead (that's how I recall it working anyhow), names are now assigned at the squad level and a new name is rolled every time you disband/re-create a squad. --[[User:Njero|Njero]] 19:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

== Expedition Leader as Militia Commander ==

I can do this, no problem. Wondering what the deal is.--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 06:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

:The militia commander position is simply squad 1 unit 1. Any dwarf you stick in that position is the militia commander. If you try assigning the expedition leader to squad 1 unit 1, he simply doesn't show up on the list. Once a commander is assigned, you can assign the expedition leader to positions 2 to 10 with no hassle.
:Just to further verify, I cleared everyone from the squad and went back to the nobles screen. Strangely enough here it does allow me to assign the expedition leader to be the militia commander. Very strange. And now I unpause and let a few frames pass, I recheck the nobles and squad screen and see that my expedition leader has quit his job as the militia commander. This verifies Retros claim of difficulties with appointing the militia commander.
:I think this behavior is a minor bug, but it's consistent. If you can persuade the expedition leader to accept and keep the militia commander position, please provide a verifiable STR. Thanks. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 17:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

v0.31 Talk:Squad

2010-04-18T19:52:41Z

Njero: /* Expedition Leader as Militia Commander */ whups

==Doing Stuff==
Since the major edits are now in, and the redirect is closed, I think it's probably safe to go ahead and clean this discussion page back up. I'll wait for now however. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 03:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
:(agreed, and cleaned up as per suggested) --[[User:Retro|Retro]] 05:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
:: I'm shifting my attention back towards the various pages on fluid mechanics (water, flow, rivers, brooks, etc...). I've looked through the {{l|river}} and {{l|brook}} pages and pulled them forward into 2010 with minor editing.
::Meanwhile I am always keeping a close eye on the bug tracker for current news. If any new bugs are discovered that are relevant here, or if anything gets patched, I'll be sure to drop by over here and do updates. As for the rest of the content here, I'll let someone else worry about that for a while. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 20:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

==Priority Assignments and Supplies==

We still have nothing on Pri/Assignments (m-e-P) and Supplies (m-u). Dunno much about them myself yet, just saying. --[[User:Retro|Retro]] 06:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
: Agreed, but I'm afraid they are still quite impenetrable to me. Pretty hard to write about it when we don't understand it ourselves yet. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 15:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
::Yeah, ditto. I'll investigate later I guess. I suspect Priority Assignments allows you to re-prioritize what your dwarves are doing judging by its name, but can't tell how it works yet. The latter just seems to be for food/flask/water orders and the like but still going to put aside some time later to look into it --[[User:Retro|Retro]] 18:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
:::As far as I can tell Supplies is just to set up how much food and what drinks your military dwarves carry, meaning, (0/1/2/3) rations of food and (alcoholic/non-alcoholic/no) drinks. I assume it works much like the food or water for military squads used to in 40d, except that you can tell your dwarves to carry drinks in their waterskins instead of just water, so it's nothing fancy --[[User:Ramperkash|Ramperkash]]
::::I think priority assignment might determine which dwarf gets to choose equipment first, so dwarf #1 gets the best stuff, #2 get the best remaining stuff and so on. Maybe re arranging items is what the constant Equipment Manifest jobs are for? -- [o_O]WTFace
:::::Looking over the screen I can see that you can rearrange dwarf order in the squads as well as squad order, but wasn't able to do anything with the rightmost pane. So I've figured out prioritizing squads/dwarves but not assignments thus far. --[[User:Retro|Retro]] 23:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

==Another Buggy behavior==
I'm dumping this here for now because it's debatable, and it's a bit of a mess. Here's the issue. soldiers still get unhappy thoughts from leaving their duties if they have no civilian skills. At just hearing that, it doesn't sound like a bug, it's how it was in 40d, expected behavior right? Here's what it really means in the present environment.

The thoughts in question are "upset about being relieved from duty" and "complained about the draft" and likely minor variations of the same two thoughts depending on how recent the thought was. These would apply to civilians who have no military skills, or to soldiers that have no civilian skills. The times these thoughts are believed to occur are.

:at the end of every month in the militia{{verify}}
:every time they eat or drink{{verify}}
:when joining/leaving the militia{{verify}}
:after a squad cancel command{{verify}}

If this is accurate, it basically means drafting an unskilled peasant into a squad is a very fast recipe for insanity. I saw this in the bug tracker, I haven't personally verified this yet nor have I seen what the official word is on the subject yet. I just thought I would go ahead and list it here. Do with this information what you will. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 15:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
:Ooh, that sounds like a big one. I don't have time until tonight to add it but I'll make note of it within the article as a word of warning when I can. --[[User:Retro|Retro]] 17:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
:: I just tried to verify this one myself with a brand new batch of 7 peasants, and then again with one axedwarf and 6 peasants. In hopes of a bit of '''fun''' I also brought along one good axe for each test which I assigned to my test subject. In both case I issued a brutal series of move, kill, and cancel commands to the dwarf in an attempt to drive him into a mad killing frenzy.
::I was unsuccessful. Despite my best efforts to be the most irritating squad commander in the history of dwarf-kind I could not seem to induce even so much as one unhappy thought with active squad commands of any kind. Admittedly, I made no effort to test for the other passive behaviors. That little test will be a lot more tedious so I think I'll leave that one alone and see if more people jump on the report or not. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 18:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
::: Several more updates on the ticket, and a breakthrough. On careful inspection of the thoughts page I find the thought "Complained about the draft lately." This bears more investigation. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 20:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
:::: Wasn't that specific unhappy thought in 40d as well? Or do you think it might've changed since then to include these thoughts, being bugs or not? --[[User:Ramperkash|Ramperkash]]
::::: Yes, as I have already said at first glance these appear to be the expected behaviors consistent with 40d. However with the new military system, they occur much more frequently than you might expect which can potentially be quite dangerous. I've just updated the details above to reflect my better understanding of this issue as the reports come in on the bug tracker. I'm watching the bug tracker on the issue and attempting to verify this through experimentation as well. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 21:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
:::::: Done some testing on this, at first I couldn't seem to reproduce it, but now I have found something. apparently a key element of this behavior is that you must have your orders set to have less than all dwarves on duty at a given time. With this setup they will periodically go off-duty and other dwarves will take their place. it is at this off-duty change that bad thoughts occur. With a rotation schedule like this you will also see a message in the announcements every time a dwarf switches duties. The workaround to avoid this bad thought problem would be to cross train all your military to have at least one level in a civilian skill which is probably not a bad plan in any event. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 03:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
::::::: I don't understand this issue quite as well as I like yet but I have confirmed enough to feel comfortable adding a short warning about the matter, which I have already place up in the military page. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 04:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

==Equipment==

Gave '''[[DF2010:Equipment|Equipment]]''' its own page, to be used for info on equipping soldiers, making/applying uniform templates, and will also serve as a good spot to store related summaries on weapons/armour much like '''[[40d:Equipment_and_encumbrance|this]]''' 40d page. Nothing there yet but we can move the stuff here into there and replace the current stuff with a summary, then expand within that page from there.

On a side note, I'm working on a Category thing for Military v0.31 that we can apply instead of this See Also nonsense every time. I'll go add it when I'm done; getting there. --[[User:Retro|Retro]] 22:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

==Squad or Squads?==
It occurs to me that this maybe should be the squad page instead of the squads page. I notice that the backwards link to 40d is non-functional as things are right now although that may be because there was no need for a squad page before. Anyhow, if this needs to be changed, I'm sure someone will take care of it sooner or later. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 04:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
:Just checked; 40d's Squad redirected to the military. So it's a new page and we can basically do what we want with it. Personally I feel the plural is more appropriate as I say things like "rally your squads," "open the squads menu," "do this when scheduling your squads" more often than I use the singular. --[[User:Retro|Retro]] 04:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
:: well, it's not a big deal, I'm just wondering if there's a consistency issue. Most pages are in the single form, not the plural form. But I guess it's a question for the admins to decide on, I won't worry about it. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 14:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

==How to Activate a Squad==
Love the changes. I think. I am unable to use them, however, likely because I am dense and not due to any bug. This article seems to go over everything except how to actually activate your squads in order to give them direct (active) commands. I have created a squad because a cougar is approaching my undefended fort. (just a bunch of civies with picks and axes). However, all of the active commands (move, attack, active, etc) are all grey'd out and unusable. I can't see anything in this article on how to actually activate a squad. Am I missing something or is something missing from the article? --[[User:Frewfrux|Frewfrux]] 19:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
:Sorry, I suppose I should've emphasized - you need to select a squad before you can use it, even if there's only one. In the squads screen you can do this with a / b / c (it'll list which squad = which key) or hold shift to select multiple at once. Should fix your problem; lemme know if it doesn't. --[[User:Retro|Retro]] 20:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
:: Read the section on selecting a squad, it's there. There's just a ton of information to swallow so it's a bit overwhelming still. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 23:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
:::AH HA!!! That did the trick. (Thank you thank you thank you) One mutilated cougar. That was a little too easy. I was assuming that because the squad was showing up on the screen that it was activated. This does not appear to be the case. As a side note, shouldn't a cougar run faster then a group of untrained dwarves? Just a thought. --[[User:Frewfrux|Frewfrux]] 11:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
:::: the current speed system is a placeholder. I opened a ticket about it but they closed it for now. I had an alligator that led my dwarves on a merry chase all around the map for days. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 13:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

== Naming Squads? ==
The change list says you can name squads, but I can't find the option, how do I do it? [[Special:Contributions/24.255.86.193|24.255.86.193]]
:I don't believe you can - the squad leader seems to still use the RNG to name themselves. You can name alerts, scheduling, and uniforms though. --[[User:Retro|Retro]]

== Expedition Leader as Militia Commander ==

I can do this, no problem. Wondering what the deal is.--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 06:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

:The militia commander position is simply squad 1 unit 1. Any dwarf you stick in that position is the militia commander. If you try assigning the expedition leader to squad 1 unit 1, he simply doesn't show up on the list. Once a commander is assigned, you can assign the expedition leader to positions 2 to 10 with no hassle.
:Just to further verify, I cleared everyone from the squad and went back to the nobles screen. Strangely enough here it does allow me to assign the expedition leader to be the militia commander. Very strange. And now I unpause and let a few frames pass, I recheck the nobles and squad screen and see that my expedition leader has quit his job as the militia commander. This verifies Retros claim of difficulties with appointing the militia commander.
:I think this behavior is a minor bug, but it's consistent. If you can persuade the expedition leader to accept and keep the militia commander position, please provide a verifiable STR. Thanks. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 17:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

v0.31 Talk:Squad

2010-04-18T19:52:11Z

Njero: /* Expedition Leader as Militia Commander */

==Doing Stuff==
Since the major edits are now in, and the redirect is closed, I think it's probably safe to go ahead and clean this discussion page back up. I'll wait for now however. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 03:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
:(agreed, and cleaned up as per suggested) --[[User:Retro|Retro]] 05:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
:: I'm shifting my attention back towards the various pages on fluid mechanics (water, flow, rivers, brooks, etc...). I've looked through the {{l|river}} and {{l|brook}} pages and pulled them forward into 2010 with minor editing.
::Meanwhile I am always keeping a close eye on the bug tracker for current news. If any new bugs are discovered that are relevant here, or if anything gets patched, I'll be sure to drop by over here and do updates. As for the rest of the content here, I'll let someone else worry about that for a while. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 20:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

==Priority Assignments and Supplies==

We still have nothing on Pri/Assignments (m-e-P) and Supplies (m-u). Dunno much about them myself yet, just saying. --[[User:Retro|Retro]] 06:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
: Agreed, but I'm afraid they are still quite impenetrable to me. Pretty hard to write about it when we don't understand it ourselves yet. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 15:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
::Yeah, ditto. I'll investigate later I guess. I suspect Priority Assignments allows you to re-prioritize what your dwarves are doing judging by its name, but can't tell how it works yet. The latter just seems to be for food/flask/water orders and the like but still going to put aside some time later to look into it --[[User:Retro|Retro]] 18:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
:::As far as I can tell Supplies is just to set up how much food and what drinks your military dwarves carry, meaning, (0/1/2/3) rations of food and (alcoholic/non-alcoholic/no) drinks. I assume it works much like the food or water for military squads used to in 40d, except that you can tell your dwarves to carry drinks in their waterskins instead of just water, so it's nothing fancy --[[User:Ramperkash|Ramperkash]]
::::I think priority assignment might determine which dwarf gets to choose equipment first, so dwarf #1 gets the best stuff, #2 get the best remaining stuff and so on. Maybe re arranging items is what the constant Equipment Manifest jobs are for? -- [o_O]WTFace
:::::Looking over the screen I can see that you can rearrange dwarf order in the squads as well as squad order, but wasn't able to do anything with the rightmost pane. So I've figured out prioritizing squads/dwarves but not assignments thus far. --[[User:Retro|Retro]] 23:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

==Another Buggy behavior==
I'm dumping this here for now because it's debatable, and it's a bit of a mess. Here's the issue. soldiers still get unhappy thoughts from leaving their duties if they have no civilian skills. At just hearing that, it doesn't sound like a bug, it's how it was in 40d, expected behavior right? Here's what it really means in the present environment.

The thoughts in question are "upset about being relieved from duty" and "complained about the draft" and likely minor variations of the same two thoughts depending on how recent the thought was. These would apply to civilians who have no military skills, or to soldiers that have no civilian skills. The times these thoughts are believed to occur are.

:at the end of every month in the militia{{verify}}
:every time they eat or drink{{verify}}
:when joining/leaving the militia{{verify}}
:after a squad cancel command{{verify}}

If this is accurate, it basically means drafting an unskilled peasant into a squad is a very fast recipe for insanity. I saw this in the bug tracker, I haven't personally verified this yet nor have I seen what the official word is on the subject yet. I just thought I would go ahead and list it here. Do with this information what you will. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 15:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
:Ooh, that sounds like a big one. I don't have time until tonight to add it but I'll make note of it within the article as a word of warning when I can. --[[User:Retro|Retro]] 17:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
:: I just tried to verify this one myself with a brand new batch of 7 peasants, and then again with one axedwarf and 6 peasants. In hopes of a bit of '''fun''' I also brought along one good axe for each test which I assigned to my test subject. In both case I issued a brutal series of move, kill, and cancel commands to the dwarf in an attempt to drive him into a mad killing frenzy.
::I was unsuccessful. Despite my best efforts to be the most irritating squad commander in the history of dwarf-kind I could not seem to induce even so much as one unhappy thought with active squad commands of any kind. Admittedly, I made no effort to test for the other passive behaviors. That little test will be a lot more tedious so I think I'll leave that one alone and see if more people jump on the report or not. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 18:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
::: Several more updates on the ticket, and a breakthrough. On careful inspection of the thoughts page I find the thought "Complained about the draft lately." This bears more investigation. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 20:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
:::: Wasn't that specific unhappy thought in 40d as well? Or do you think it might've changed since then to include these thoughts, being bugs or not? --[[User:Ramperkash|Ramperkash]]
::::: Yes, as I have already said at first glance these appear to be the expected behaviors consistent with 40d. However with the new military system, they occur much more frequently than you might expect which can potentially be quite dangerous. I've just updated the details above to reflect my better understanding of this issue as the reports come in on the bug tracker. I'm watching the bug tracker on the issue and attempting to verify this through experimentation as well. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 21:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
:::::: Done some testing on this, at first I couldn't seem to reproduce it, but now I have found something. apparently a key element of this behavior is that you must have your orders set to have less than all dwarves on duty at a given time. With this setup they will periodically go off-duty and other dwarves will take their place. it is at this off-duty change that bad thoughts occur. With a rotation schedule like this you will also see a message in the announcements every time a dwarf switches duties. The workaround to avoid this bad thought problem would be to cross train all your military to have at least one level in a civilian skill which is probably not a bad plan in any event. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 03:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
::::::: I don't understand this issue quite as well as I like yet but I have confirmed enough to feel comfortable adding a short warning about the matter, which I have already place up in the military page. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 04:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

==Equipment==

Gave '''[[DF2010:Equipment|Equipment]]''' its own page, to be used for info on equipping soldiers, making/applying uniform templates, and will also serve as a good spot to store related summaries on weapons/armour much like '''[[40d:Equipment_and_encumbrance|this]]''' 40d page. Nothing there yet but we can move the stuff here into there and replace the current stuff with a summary, then expand within that page from there.

On a side note, I'm working on a Category thing for Military v0.31 that we can apply instead of this See Also nonsense every time. I'll go add it when I'm done; getting there. --[[User:Retro|Retro]] 22:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

==Squad or Squads?==
It occurs to me that this maybe should be the squad page instead of the squads page. I notice that the backwards link to 40d is non-functional as things are right now although that may be because there was no need for a squad page before. Anyhow, if this needs to be changed, I'm sure someone will take care of it sooner or later. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 04:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
:Just checked; 40d's Squad redirected to the military. So it's a new page and we can basically do what we want with it. Personally I feel the plural is more appropriate as I say things like "rally your squads," "open the squads menu," "do this when scheduling your squads" more often than I use the singular. --[[User:Retro|Retro]] 04:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
:: well, it's not a big deal, I'm just wondering if there's a consistency issue. Most pages are in the single form, not the plural form. But I guess it's a question for the admins to decide on, I won't worry about it. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 14:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

==How to Activate a Squad==
Love the changes. I think. I am unable to use them, however, likely because I am dense and not due to any bug. This article seems to go over everything except how to actually activate your squads in order to give them direct (active) commands. I have created a squad because a cougar is approaching my undefended fort. (just a bunch of civies with picks and axes). However, all of the active commands (move, attack, active, etc) are all grey'd out and unusable. I can't see anything in this article on how to actually activate a squad. Am I missing something or is something missing from the article? --[[User:Frewfrux|Frewfrux]] 19:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
:Sorry, I suppose I should've emphasized - you need to select a squad before you can use it, even if there's only one. In the squads screen you can do this with a / b / c (it'll list which squad = which key) or hold shift to select multiple at once. Should fix your problem; lemme know if it doesn't. --[[User:Retro|Retro]] 20:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
:: Read the section on selecting a squad, it's there. There's just a ton of information to swallow so it's a bit overwhelming still. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 23:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
:::AH HA!!! That did the trick. (Thank you thank you thank you) One mutilated cougar. That was a little too easy. I was assuming that because the squad was showing up on the screen that it was activated. This does not appear to be the case. As a side note, shouldn't a cougar run faster then a group of untrained dwarves? Just a thought. --[[User:Frewfrux|Frewfrux]] 11:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
:::: the current speed system is a placeholder. I opened a ticket about it but they closed it for now. I had an alligator that led my dwarves on a merry chase all around the map for days. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 13:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

== Naming Squads? ==
The change list says you can name squads, but I can't find the option, how do I do it? [[Special:Contributions/24.255.86.193|24.255.86.193]]
:I don't believe you can - the squad leader seems to still use the RNG to name themselves. You can name alerts, scheduling, and uniforms though. --[[User:Retro|Retro]]

== Expedition Leader as Militia Commander ==

I can do this, no problem. Wondering what the deal is.--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 06:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

:The militia commander position is simply squad 1 unit 1. Any dwarf you stick in that position is the militia commander. If you try assigning the expedition leader to squad 1 unit 1, he simply doesn't show up on the list. Once a commander is assigned, you can assign the expedition leader to positions 2 to 10 with no hassle.
:Just to further verify, I cleared everyone from the squad and went back to the nobles screen. Strangely enough here it does allow me to assign the expedition leader to be the militia commander. Very strange. And now I unpause and let a few frames pass, I recheck the nobles and squad screen and see that my expedition leader has quit his job as the militia commander. This verifies Retros claim of difficulties with appointing the militia commander.
:I think this behavior is a minor bug, but it's consistent. If you can persuade the expedition leader to accept and keep the militia commander position, please provide a verifiable STR. Thanks. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 17:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
::You can, however, abuse the RNG until it gives you something you like. Unlike 40d where each dwarf had a permanent group name that became the name of a squad they lead (that's how I recall it working anyhow), names are now assigned at the squad level and a new name is rolled every time you disband/re-create a squad. --[[User:Njero|Njero]] 19:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

v0.31 Talk:Aquifer

2010-04-09T05:58:53Z

Njero: draining aquifers into canyon rivers

Just used cave-in method to pierce a single deep aquifer. I assume that constructed layers still don't work, but haven't tested them (otherwise I would have specifically mentioned not to try using constructed walls.)

A weird glitch: the fallen rock morphs to the rock type of the layer it lands to.

Of the methods on the old page: looks like the speed and pump methods are still possible, though I was not able to pull them off. I was getting path finding issues where a dwarf thought it was stuck even though there was a clear path, and so was more fun than necessary.
--[[User:Droid|Droid]] 04:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

== Draining Method ==

I just embarked on a site where a surface river drops several z-levels into a canyon, ending up one z-level below an aquifer level. I decided to try punching through the aquifer by draining a large area into the lake and walling off a stairwell in the drained area. Unfortunately, due to the new channelling designation, I now have six soggy dwarf corpses in the canyon, and a melancholy dwarf trading baleful glares with a couple local harpies. The miners basically just dig a down ramp and then jump down into the flow, they seem to even do this if you play with their digging sides so that they have no reason to path through the channelled square.

I might have had more success if I had dug out a larger area unconnected to the river at first, and then breached the canyon wall with a single dwarven sacrifice, but it really seems as though there's no safe way to alter flows with the new channelling system.

Apologies in advance if I didn't set up this talk discussion edit correctly, I don't really understand witiquette.
--[[User:Njero|Njero]] 05:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page/archive2

2010-04-08T01:03:03Z

Njero: /* What happened to the link to the dev changelog? */

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

== DF2010 Title needs changing ==

The new version is now df_31_01 and each article beginning with "DF2010" seems tacky. Any others agree it should be changed to df31 or something around like that? [[User:Richards|Richards]] 19:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
:The problem is that we version the wiki for each game-save compatibility change. Simply changing it to 31.01 would fix it now, but when 31.02 - 39.07 come out, and then finally 40.01 comes out that breaks save compatibility, we have much more work to do. Until we know the final version number in the series, it's not easy for us to just say "oh, this is it." --[[User:Briess|Briess]] 20:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
::And wtf is the precedent? In all the versions of the wiki I've seen, versions are always specified as the actual number. How is it more clear to use DF2010 instead of v0.31.01? --Peewee 09:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

:If you aren't planning to make more special version namespaces for a while, let's use the main namespace. Also, you guys really need to talk things out more before implementing giant sweeping changes. The more I see you describe your respective visions for the wiki, the more different they seem from each other. [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 11:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

::Well. A solution would be to make every article title for the current version just say the article name, ex/ instead of "DF2010:Armor", make it "Armor", like last time. If a new version is released that is different, then archive it as whatever version it last applied to, like "40d:Armor, or 31.01:Armor". Is there any problem with this idea? [[User:Richards|Richards]] 14:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is. (Namely, the amount of labor you're talking about if pages are not set-up for that.)

Here's "The Plan", which was set up a couple months ago (and which has been discussed elsewhere, but we'll do it one more time)...
:* Old versions are clearly labeled and consistently linked internally. All 40d links bounce around only to 40d articles, so if a player is researching that version, it's all one package. ''(Same w/ 23a, the "2-D" version previous to that, but an ongoing and lower-priority project.)''
:* "New" versions are, likewise, consistent within themselves. Versionless search terms (like "[[stone]]" automatically default to "current version".
:* Future versions get their own version names, "current" becomes one-older, and the pattern continues.
The current PROBLEM is three-fold - the first is the changeover itself, when first time Editors start firing away at articles without the correct names or understanding The Plan. That is understandable, but compounded by the fact that we don't currently ''know'' the "proper" version number to use - is it 0.31.01, or 0.31, or 31.01 - when the first bugfix comes out, what will be changed and what kept? What part of that number constitutes/defines this as a "version"? There is no equiv of 23.a or 40.d - it's a new code, and we weren't given the codebook. (We're waiting on Three-toe/Toady for a response on that.) The 3rd problem is "DF2010" - which is wrong, but while popular and everyone is using it, it won't be very friendly later down the road.

So... we've got something that works now but won't in the future, and needs to be changed to be consistent so we don't bequeath future Admin and users the big bone. A diff between more work now and the sort of complete cluster that has gone on behind the scenes for the last 2 months preparing for this change - which is going SO MUCH SMOOTHER NOW (believe it or not!) because of that (thankless, ahem) preparation.

Once we know the correct version, all current articles will appear as that. Search terms will default to current version. Older articles will be consistent within their own namespace. AND we'll be setup for future version changes without quite so much trauma (which is ''why'' some of the more obscure of these changes are being implemented). Clear as mud?--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 19:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

:Are you basically trying to say that DF2010 is a convenient placeholder string that can be used to identify and move articles by bot when we get a stable version number from Toady? --[[User:Squirrelloid|Squirrelloid]] 19:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

::Dammit, if I could express myself in anything less than 500 words at a time, I would have! (Yes, that's basically what I'm saying.)--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 19:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure who wins the eloquence award here. Anyways, we're still waiting on information from ToadyOne before we rename DF2010 to something else more appropriate. --[[User:Briess|Briess]] 19:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

:::: Toady has already said that he plans to aim for possibly as often as a weekly bugfix release while the early issues of this release get ironed out. Trying to keep up with release number changes weekly would be an absolute nightmare. Until things calm down a bit I don't blame anyone here in the least for using DF2010 as a more general version name. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 15:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::It ''is'' understood that Toady intends (ideally) for this to be both the last save-compat breaking version and the last major long-delay version... correct? Putting the entire Wiki in a namespace forever seems to me like a fairly terrible idea in any case, but it is intended for future versions to change much less of existing stuff as things go on (that is why this version took so long, in part, to get all the sweeping structural changes out of the way.) It is unlikely that there will ever be another version that would require reversioning the entire wiki, if, indeed, you think that even this one reached that level. While I'm not sure I'd agree that it was necessary to reversion the wiki for this version, the DF development plan is certainly intended to be such that revisioning the Wiki like this will never be necessary again. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] 03:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
:::::: All I'm saying is that for the immediate near future a large number of incremental bug fix releases are to be expected. To avoid driving people completely nuts trying to keep up with frequent version changes it makes sense to use the DF2010 title in the short term. After we see things settle down a bit I agree we should probably go ahead and return to an actual version number. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 17:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
:::::::With the new version numbering system being so much simpler, could we simply refer to the version as 31a? Then changing letters to account for bugfixes. I'm using 0.31 enough myself but the decimal point is awful. --[[User:Retro|Retro]] 17:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Not really. We're mainly talking about the namespace's name. Changing a namespaces's name is a BIG headache (though it is the reason we're using the <nowiki>{{l|link}}</nowiki> stuff) because we did know that we'd be doing at least one change, and that gets rid of a decent portion of the headache. [[user:Emi|Emi]] [[user_talk:Emi|[T]]] 18:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm still waiting on ToadyOne to provide an official tagname for this series of releases. If we receive one, we will use it in the wiki. --[[User:Briess|Briess]] 19:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

== 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)

Lumping all the generic stones into one page is pretty much a labor saving device. There are a lot of different stones in DF most of which have no real differences other than color. So in one respect, I do see reasoning for saving some effort and dumping them in one place. On the other hand, it would be useful to me to see slightly more detailed information about each of the colored stones, for example, I know alunite looks a certain way before it is mined out, it's general color is bright white, when used to build trap components it is bright white in both the on and off position (many stones go to dark in the off position). In the same vein, when used to build tables and chairs, both will be bright white (many stones go to dark for chairs). If you're looking for a "certain look" and want to know a tiny bit more about the stone colors at present, that information simply isn't here as things are now. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 16:21, 5 April 2010 (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)

What makes a rogue-like? too classic a question to pass up . ahem IMHO there three major elements, A dungeon crawl/ fantasy setting, ASCII and random as hell. That makes dwarf fortress three outta three hits for me. Close enough, i'd say, if it's not a rogue-like what other category could it go in? sure its not a great fit but a unique game has to go somewhere. Diablo is a dungeon crawl like rogue sure, but it lacks the depth and randomness of any of the other recognised roguelikes, ADOM, moria etc. So one outta three? The depth, randomness and spontaneity really make it, ever had a character eaten by a bear on the way to the village in ADOM? classic. --[[User:Pedantictype|Pedantictype]] 05:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
:I'm afraid I have to disagree with you, Pedantictype. A Rogue-like is defined by the original: Rogue. Rogue was, first and foremost, a dungeon-crawl with control of a single character, yes? I would postulate that that is one of the elements that is required to be defined as a rogue-like, which qualifies Adventure mode but not Fortress mode. --[[User:Eagle0600|Eagle0600]] 05:04, 5 April 2010 (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)
::::I don't see how that could even remotely hurt at all.--[[User:Ar-Pharazon|Ar-Pharazon]] 15:21, 12 March 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)
:::Whoever you are, that is why i don't use a tileset.[[User:GarrieIrons|Gar]][[User Talk:GarrieIrons|rie]] 06:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
:As a rule of thumb, "graphics" are good things - eye candy, if nothing else. Purty. Use common sense and discretion when choosing (or creating) the image - avoid genre-specific images or anything that is copyrighted (like from an identifiable RPG, for instance), and perhaps add "artist's interpretation" under it, or a selection of (smaller) different images for something like a dragon (tho' I, personally, don't see dwarves with oriental dragons - ymmv.) --[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 08:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
::Seeing as how this is a wiki and what not, why not simple add a western dragon, and if anyone objects to the bias they can add an oriental dragon, so we have two pictures and not only both sides are happy but everyone gets more pictures to look at?--[[User:Ar-Pharazon|Ar-Pharazon]] 15:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
:(Also, if you're interested enough to post in the Main Page Discussion, you might want to get an account. Meh.)--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 08:49, 6 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)

== Namespaces ==

As the subject has been mentioned on the forum:
some articles have been moved to a new 40d namespace. This is intended to make way for the "main" namespace to be reserved for the "current version", which ''real soon now'' will be DF2010.
For the full discussion see [[Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Versions]] and the talk page.
[[User:GarrieIrons|Gar]][[User Talk:GarrieIrons|rie]] 10:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Then bloody well move them. These blank 40d pages are making finding information that is supposed to be there very hard to find.

:Agreed..Plus I dont understand the site announcements so i pretty much can't contribute to the wiki right now. Hope you got a stable team to help and are done with it soon. Oh, and a better explanation would be great of course. --[[Special:Contributions/92.202.120.234|92.202.120.234]] 00:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
::When is the moving of things to the main namespace going to be complete? Having everything in DF2010 namespace is horribly annoying, and the 40d namespace screws up searches and makes it harder to find stuff via google searches and such. How long is it going to take to get the wiki fixed to the current version, delete all the old d40 stuff, and get rid of the namespaces? --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] 03:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

== Tutorials clutter ==

Currently we have in the first box:
*About Dwarf Fortress
*'''Tutorials and guides'''
*'''Quickstart guide (recent)'''
*'''Frequently Asked Questions'''
*'''Your first fortress'''
*'''Video tutorials'''
*'''Important advice'''
*'''Indecisive's Illustrated Tutorial'''
*'''Get help from online chat'''
*Game development
*'''Non-Dwarf's Guide to Rock'''
*'''Starting builds'''

Bolded are the ones I think are redundant. Basically, we have the following categories of stuff:
*Tutorials for newbies: Step by step instructions where you follow what the guide says, without necessarily understanding why right away.
*Guides for newbies: General explanations of game concepts, such as z-level, how to set labors, how to farm, how to work the interface and install a graphical tileset, what the aim of the game is, etc.
*Guides for advanced players: These assume you know how to play the game, and are concerned with optimizing/pushing strategy. Embark build discussions which go beyond explaining the bare minimums you should take (such as "don't embark without a pick!", intended for newbies who may not know what they are doing), megaprojects, combat mechanics, computing, farming strategies, defense strategies, design strategies, macros, world generation parameter discussion and the like.
*FAQ, bugs and troubleshooting: The index of known problems and what to do about them, for when you have a clear question you want to figure out. This includes the FAQ, IRC channels and bugs to watch out for.
That makes 4 categories. Currently, we have 10 categories dealing with the same things. Moreover, the current break down makes no sense, and is obviously not maintained (I think that quickstart guide has been "recent" since early last summer). It's becoming confusing for the clueless first time player who was just linked to Bay12 and the wiki on a forum, and left to fend for itself. In fact, ideally, the tutorials and newbie guides should also be sorted from short to long, with datestamps.

I would rearrange the box myself, but I thought I'd ask what everyone else is thinking first. By the way, are there any tutorials for DF2010, or plans to write any? --[[User:Ar-Pharazon|Ar-Pharazon]] 02:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
::By the way, my proposal is to have the box look like this:
::'''Help with Dwarf Fortress'''
::*About Dwarf Fortress
::*How to set up and play Dwarf Fortress (Tutorials)
::*General game information (explanation of basics)
::*Advanced strategies (for experienced players)
::*Troubleshooting: FAQ, where to ask for help, known bugs and issues
::*Game development
::--[[User:Ar-Pharazon|Ar-Pharazon]] 02:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

== New modding guide ==
I'm not really sure what the process is for new guides and tutorials. I figured it would be of general community interest, so I'm posting this here; [[User:Tfaal/The Complete Dorf's Guide to Bodies]] --[[User:Tfaal|Tfaal]] 16:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

==Bug listings on the Wiki==
Given that the version number is expected to be changing quite rapidly in the near future as bugs are caught and killed, I think it's a good idea to always keep a version number associated with any bug reports we migrate into the wiki pages. This will hopefully minimize confusion as updates gradually remove these. If we could get one of those mini-version tags to use for this purpose or if someone can explain to me how to use that half-sized font for this purpose that would be helpful. Thanks. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 16:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
:There is already a template for this: [[Template:Version]]. You use it as follows.
:<nowiki>Example.{{version|0.23.130.23a}}</nowiki>
:results in:
:Example.{{version|0.23.130.23a}} --[[User:Soy|Soy]] 16:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
:: Thank you, that is all I needed. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 17:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

== What happened to the link to the dev changelog? ==

There used to be a link to the changelog and a link to the 31_01 release information, but now there's just a link to the release information labeled "changelog." Also the main page appears to use a funny template or something so the link's messed up throughout all of the mainpage history.
:-That's a link I used almost daily. While I realize I'm an idiot for not just bookmarking it, it is a little disconcerting for it to :be gone. Either way, I've always thought it was one of the most relevant links on the main page—it let's you know where the game :project is at ''right now''.
:Wow, forgot sig and indent. I'm amazing. :P ----[[User:Njero|Njero]] 01:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page/archive2

2010-04-08T01:02:20Z

Njero: /* What happened to the link to the dev changelog? */

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

== DF2010 Title needs changing ==

The new version is now df_31_01 and each article beginning with "DF2010" seems tacky. Any others agree it should be changed to df31 or something around like that? [[User:Richards|Richards]] 19:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
:The problem is that we version the wiki for each game-save compatibility change. Simply changing it to 31.01 would fix it now, but when 31.02 - 39.07 come out, and then finally 40.01 comes out that breaks save compatibility, we have much more work to do. Until we know the final version number in the series, it's not easy for us to just say "oh, this is it." --[[User:Briess|Briess]] 20:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
::And wtf is the precedent? In all the versions of the wiki I've seen, versions are always specified as the actual number. How is it more clear to use DF2010 instead of v0.31.01? --Peewee 09:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

:If you aren't planning to make more special version namespaces for a while, let's use the main namespace. Also, you guys really need to talk things out more before implementing giant sweeping changes. The more I see you describe your respective visions for the wiki, the more different they seem from each other. [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 11:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

::Well. A solution would be to make every article title for the current version just say the article name, ex/ instead of "DF2010:Armor", make it "Armor", like last time. If a new version is released that is different, then archive it as whatever version it last applied to, like "40d:Armor, or 31.01:Armor". Is there any problem with this idea? [[User:Richards|Richards]] 14:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is. (Namely, the amount of labor you're talking about if pages are not set-up for that.)

Here's "The Plan", which was set up a couple months ago (and which has been discussed elsewhere, but we'll do it one more time)...
:* Old versions are clearly labeled and consistently linked internally. All 40d links bounce around only to 40d articles, so if a player is researching that version, it's all one package. ''(Same w/ 23a, the "2-D" version previous to that, but an ongoing and lower-priority project.)''
:* "New" versions are, likewise, consistent within themselves. Versionless search terms (like "[[stone]]" automatically default to "current version".
:* Future versions get their own version names, "current" becomes one-older, and the pattern continues.
The current PROBLEM is three-fold - the first is the changeover itself, when first time Editors start firing away at articles without the correct names or understanding The Plan. That is understandable, but compounded by the fact that we don't currently ''know'' the "proper" version number to use - is it 0.31.01, or 0.31, or 31.01 - when the first bugfix comes out, what will be changed and what kept? What part of that number constitutes/defines this as a "version"? There is no equiv of 23.a or 40.d - it's a new code, and we weren't given the codebook. (We're waiting on Three-toe/Toady for a response on that.) The 3rd problem is "DF2010" - which is wrong, but while popular and everyone is using it, it won't be very friendly later down the road.

So... we've got something that works now but won't in the future, and needs to be changed to be consistent so we don't bequeath future Admin and users the big bone. A diff between more work now and the sort of complete cluster that has gone on behind the scenes for the last 2 months preparing for this change - which is going SO MUCH SMOOTHER NOW (believe it or not!) because of that (thankless, ahem) preparation.

Once we know the correct version, all current articles will appear as that. Search terms will default to current version. Older articles will be consistent within their own namespace. AND we'll be setup for future version changes without quite so much trauma (which is ''why'' some of the more obscure of these changes are being implemented). Clear as mud?--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 19:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

:Are you basically trying to say that DF2010 is a convenient placeholder string that can be used to identify and move articles by bot when we get a stable version number from Toady? --[[User:Squirrelloid|Squirrelloid]] 19:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

::Dammit, if I could express myself in anything less than 500 words at a time, I would have! (Yes, that's basically what I'm saying.)--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 19:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure who wins the eloquence award here. Anyways, we're still waiting on information from ToadyOne before we rename DF2010 to something else more appropriate. --[[User:Briess|Briess]] 19:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

:::: Toady has already said that he plans to aim for possibly as often as a weekly bugfix release while the early issues of this release get ironed out. Trying to keep up with release number changes weekly would be an absolute nightmare. Until things calm down a bit I don't blame anyone here in the least for using DF2010 as a more general version name. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 15:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

:::::It ''is'' understood that Toady intends (ideally) for this to be both the last save-compat breaking version and the last major long-delay version... correct? Putting the entire Wiki in a namespace forever seems to me like a fairly terrible idea in any case, but it is intended for future versions to change much less of existing stuff as things go on (that is why this version took so long, in part, to get all the sweeping structural changes out of the way.) It is unlikely that there will ever be another version that would require reversioning the entire wiki, if, indeed, you think that even this one reached that level. While I'm not sure I'd agree that it was necessary to reversion the wiki for this version, the DF development plan is certainly intended to be such that revisioning the Wiki like this will never be necessary again. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] 03:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
:::::: All I'm saying is that for the immediate near future a large number of incremental bug fix releases are to be expected. To avoid driving people completely nuts trying to keep up with frequent version changes it makes sense to use the DF2010 title in the short term. After we see things settle down a bit I agree we should probably go ahead and return to an actual version number. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 17:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
:::::::With the new version numbering system being so much simpler, could we simply refer to the version as 31a? Then changing letters to account for bugfixes. I'm using 0.31 enough myself but the decimal point is awful. --[[User:Retro|Retro]] 17:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
::::::::Not really. We're mainly talking about the namespace's name. Changing a namespaces's name is a BIG headache (though it is the reason we're using the <nowiki>{{l|link}}</nowiki> stuff) because we did know that we'd be doing at least one change, and that gets rid of a decent portion of the headache. [[user:Emi|Emi]] [[user_talk:Emi|[T]]] 18:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm still waiting on ToadyOne to provide an official tagname for this series of releases. If we receive one, we will use it in the wiki. --[[User:Briess|Briess]] 19:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

== 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)

Lumping all the generic stones into one page is pretty much a labor saving device. There are a lot of different stones in DF most of which have no real differences other than color. So in one respect, I do see reasoning for saving some effort and dumping them in one place. On the other hand, it would be useful to me to see slightly more detailed information about each of the colored stones, for example, I know alunite looks a certain way before it is mined out, it's general color is bright white, when used to build trap components it is bright white in both the on and off position (many stones go to dark in the off position). In the same vein, when used to build tables and chairs, both will be bright white (many stones go to dark for chairs). If you're looking for a "certain look" and want to know a tiny bit more about the stone colors at present, that information simply isn't here as things are now. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 16:21, 5 April 2010 (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)

What makes a rogue-like? too classic a question to pass up . ahem IMHO there three major elements, A dungeon crawl/ fantasy setting, ASCII and random as hell. That makes dwarf fortress three outta three hits for me. Close enough, i'd say, if it's not a rogue-like what other category could it go in? sure its not a great fit but a unique game has to go somewhere. Diablo is a dungeon crawl like rogue sure, but it lacks the depth and randomness of any of the other recognised roguelikes, ADOM, moria etc. So one outta three? The depth, randomness and spontaneity really make it, ever had a character eaten by a bear on the way to the village in ADOM? classic. --[[User:Pedantictype|Pedantictype]] 05:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
:I'm afraid I have to disagree with you, Pedantictype. A Rogue-like is defined by the original: Rogue. Rogue was, first and foremost, a dungeon-crawl with control of a single character, yes? I would postulate that that is one of the elements that is required to be defined as a rogue-like, which qualifies Adventure mode but not Fortress mode. --[[User:Eagle0600|Eagle0600]] 05:04, 5 April 2010 (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)
::::I don't see how that could even remotely hurt at all.--[[User:Ar-Pharazon|Ar-Pharazon]] 15:21, 12 March 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)
:::Whoever you are, that is why i don't use a tileset.[[User:GarrieIrons|Gar]][[User Talk:GarrieIrons|rie]] 06:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
:As a rule of thumb, "graphics" are good things - eye candy, if nothing else. Purty. Use common sense and discretion when choosing (or creating) the image - avoid genre-specific images or anything that is copyrighted (like from an identifiable RPG, for instance), and perhaps add "artist's interpretation" under it, or a selection of (smaller) different images for something like a dragon (tho' I, personally, don't see dwarves with oriental dragons - ymmv.) --[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 08:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
::Seeing as how this is a wiki and what not, why not simple add a western dragon, and if anyone objects to the bias they can add an oriental dragon, so we have two pictures and not only both sides are happy but everyone gets more pictures to look at?--[[User:Ar-Pharazon|Ar-Pharazon]] 15:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
:(Also, if you're interested enough to post in the Main Page Discussion, you might want to get an account. Meh.)--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 08:49, 6 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)

== Namespaces ==

As the subject has been mentioned on the forum:
some articles have been moved to a new 40d namespace. This is intended to make way for the "main" namespace to be reserved for the "current version", which ''real soon now'' will be DF2010.
For the full discussion see [[Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Versions]] and the talk page.
[[User:GarrieIrons|Gar]][[User Talk:GarrieIrons|rie]] 10:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Then bloody well move them. These blank 40d pages are making finding information that is supposed to be there very hard to find.

:Agreed..Plus I dont understand the site announcements so i pretty much can't contribute to the wiki right now. Hope you got a stable team to help and are done with it soon. Oh, and a better explanation would be great of course. --[[Special:Contributions/92.202.120.234|92.202.120.234]] 00:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
::When is the moving of things to the main namespace going to be complete? Having everything in DF2010 namespace is horribly annoying, and the 40d namespace screws up searches and makes it harder to find stuff via google searches and such. How long is it going to take to get the wiki fixed to the current version, delete all the old d40 stuff, and get rid of the namespaces? --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] 03:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

== Tutorials clutter ==

Currently we have in the first box:
*About Dwarf Fortress
*'''Tutorials and guides'''
*'''Quickstart guide (recent)'''
*'''Frequently Asked Questions'''
*'''Your first fortress'''
*'''Video tutorials'''
*'''Important advice'''
*'''Indecisive's Illustrated Tutorial'''
*'''Get help from online chat'''
*Game development
*'''Non-Dwarf's Guide to Rock'''
*'''Starting builds'''

Bolded are the ones I think are redundant. Basically, we have the following categories of stuff:
*Tutorials for newbies: Step by step instructions where you follow what the guide says, without necessarily understanding why right away.
*Guides for newbies: General explanations of game concepts, such as z-level, how to set labors, how to farm, how to work the interface and install a graphical tileset, what the aim of the game is, etc.
*Guides for advanced players: These assume you know how to play the game, and are concerned with optimizing/pushing strategy. Embark build discussions which go beyond explaining the bare minimums you should take (such as "don't embark without a pick!", intended for newbies who may not know what they are doing), megaprojects, combat mechanics, computing, farming strategies, defense strategies, design strategies, macros, world generation parameter discussion and the like.
*FAQ, bugs and troubleshooting: The index of known problems and what to do about them, for when you have a clear question you want to figure out. This includes the FAQ, IRC channels and bugs to watch out for.
That makes 4 categories. Currently, we have 10 categories dealing with the same things. Moreover, the current break down makes no sense, and is obviously not maintained (I think that quickstart guide has been "recent" since early last summer). It's becoming confusing for the clueless first time player who was just linked to Bay12 and the wiki on a forum, and left to fend for itself. In fact, ideally, the tutorials and newbie guides should also be sorted from short to long, with datestamps.

I would rearrange the box myself, but I thought I'd ask what everyone else is thinking first. By the way, are there any tutorials for DF2010, or plans to write any? --[[User:Ar-Pharazon|Ar-Pharazon]] 02:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
::By the way, my proposal is to have the box look like this:
::'''Help with Dwarf Fortress'''
::*About Dwarf Fortress
::*How to set up and play Dwarf Fortress (Tutorials)
::*General game information (explanation of basics)
::*Advanced strategies (for experienced players)
::*Troubleshooting: FAQ, where to ask for help, known bugs and issues
::*Game development
::--[[User:Ar-Pharazon|Ar-Pharazon]] 02:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

== New modding guide ==
I'm not really sure what the process is for new guides and tutorials. I figured it would be of general community interest, so I'm posting this here; [[User:Tfaal/The Complete Dorf's Guide to Bodies]] --[[User:Tfaal|Tfaal]] 16:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

==Bug listings on the Wiki==
Given that the version number is expected to be changing quite rapidly in the near future as bugs are caught and killed, I think it's a good idea to always keep a version number associated with any bug reports we migrate into the wiki pages. This will hopefully minimize confusion as updates gradually remove these. If we could get one of those mini-version tags to use for this purpose or if someone can explain to me how to use that half-sized font for this purpose that would be helpful. Thanks. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 16:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
:There is already a template for this: [[Template:Version]]. You use it as follows.
:<nowiki>Example.{{version|0.23.130.23a}}</nowiki>
:results in:
:Example.{{version|0.23.130.23a}} --[[User:Soy|Soy]] 16:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
:: Thank you, that is all I needed. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 17:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

== What happened to the link to the dev changelog? ==

There used to be a link to the changelog and a link to the 31_01 release information, but now there's just a link to the release information labeled "changelog." Also the main page appears to use a funny template or something so the link's messed up throughout all of the mainpage history.
-That's a link I used almost daily. While I realize I'm an idiot for not just bookmarking it, it is a little disconcerting for it to be gone. Either way, I've always thought it was one of the most relevant links on the main page—it let's you know where the game project is at ''right now''.

v0.31 Talk:Blood

2010-04-06T00:49:59Z

Njero:

Why do the caravans bring barrels of blood? What do they expect us to do with it?
--[[User:Droid|Droid]] 00:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
:I'm sure Queen Urist of [http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=28365.0 Blockedlance] could enlighten you. Though in practical game terms, I have no idea. --[[User:Njero|Njero]] 00:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

v0.31 Talk:Channel

2010-04-05T00:32:13Z

Njero:

channeling creates ramps now. Is this intentional? [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 22:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
:Think about it, nobody can dig a perfect block from on top ;). --[[User:Tarran|Tarran]] 03:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
::I always assumed the dwarves different anatomy allowed them to dig like that. --Guest
:::This changes defence construction significantly. Unless I'm missing something, you can no longer dig moats and pits without sending someone down and leaving an exit. This makes bridge pits in corridors virtually useless, no? --[[User:Njero|Njero]] 00:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

v0.31 Talk:Channel

2010-04-05T00:31:39Z

Njero:

40d Talk:Ramp

2009-10-14T18:15:51Z

Njero: /* only straight paths? */

redirect slope to this place?
took a while for me to find this.
helps in making traps and controlling movements.
thank god things can't fly...i think.
oh right and i don't know how to do whatever. redirect.--[[User:Seaneat|Seaneat]] 17:22, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

:Yeah, things can totally fly. Angrystalk the Giant Bat, I know you're out there, come join your brothers in my cages! ---[[User:Zombiejustice|Zombiejustice]] 20:02, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

====Downward Ramp====
I am in my digging designation menu and I don't see an option to dig a ramp down? If I want to do that do I need to use stairs to get down, then construct ramps up? Then replace the stairs with ramps? --[[User:Ehertlein|Ehertlein]] 12:21, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:One thing you can do is to dig one tile further than the ramp shall be, and dig a channel there.
:Then, your miners are able to dig from there an upward ramp on the level below:
:(side view)
<pre>
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
cXXXXXXXXX Level Z c (c)hannel here at first
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX>______XXXX Level Z-1 > then place an upward ramp here
</pre>
:If anyone is able to explain this better, fell free to edit.--[[User:Doub|Doub]]
::I am going to load up a different game and try this out. :) I don't have anything built at Z-1 yet so I hope I can dig the ramp from higher up.
::Ok so this was simpler then I thought I simply changed the Z level one lower and designated ups. No channels, no stairs, just go one lower and designate the up. --[[User:Ehertlein|Ehertlein]] 13:57, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Forget that complicated process - to dig a downward ramp, simply move the screen down one z-level and designate an upward ramp. --[[User:Juckto|Juckto]] 20:56, 3 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Indeed, you are right. How simple! Thx. --[[User:Doub|Doub]] 10:44, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:: Quirk: if you designate a downward stairway, then a ramp instead of an upward stairway on the level below, the finished product will be a ramp. A bit of strangeness, I saw it on the forums, tried it myself, it worked and a stuck miner rescued himself, leaving only a ramp behind. Version 40d. --[[User:Jellyfishgreen|Jellyfishgreen]] 18:39, 9 January 2009 (EST)

== Current Oddities caused by ramp? ==

I'm gonna upload a new map on DFMA, Tongsgate. The savefile will be available. I'm having an oddity with a sealed artificial lake with a ramp in it (for transportation. It has a current just like a river. – [[template:unsigned|unsigned]] comment by [[User:Erathoniel|Erathoniel]]

:Speaking of ramp oddities, mine saved my dwarves life. I had a proficient swimmer dwarf fall into a river building a channel, and he just sat there being pushed with the current. With a little clever manipulation, I shoved him into 1/7 water quickly and had him build a ramp to the surface. He lived. Woo! – [[template:unsigned|unsigned]] comment by [[User:Milskidasith|Milskidasith]]

Currently, I have on one level ramps leading down, and the level underneath it is open space. Is there any way to fix this? It may have been caused by me clearing a lot of ground by using a controlled cave-in.--[[User:Sphexx|Sphexx]] 09:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

:Construction of upward ramps underneath the already present downward ramps should make them usable again, if that is what you want. --[[User:Elvang|Elvang]] 14:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

::I currently want to remove them. Right now they are submerged in magma, and cave-ins are not working. I might end up cooling it and just re-mine all of it, but if there is an easier way, I'd like to know. --[[User:Sphexx|Sphexx]] 20:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

== People don't use ramps? ==

I've put my trade depot a floor aboveground, with ramps then a bridge leading to it. Wagons get there fine, but people never take the ramps -- they always get there through the auxilliary tunnels. In fact if I bar the gates traders just sit in place, unable to find a path. --[[User:Corona688|Corona688]] 16:16, 11 November 2008 (EST)

:Do you have traffic designations making the people want to go through the tunnels? Are the tunnels simply more direct routes to the depot? --[[User:Savok|Savok]] 00:32, 25 November 2008 (EST)
::I don't have traffic designations making them want to go through the tunnels instead, no. Not that merchants would obey such things anyway. --[[User:Corona688|Corona688]] 18:45, 29 November 2008 (EST)

On a related note, I've never seen nor can I get goblins to use ramps. The entrance to my fort is usually a long hallway with ramps at the end and a second long hallway a z-level down with a depot at the end. To save time when hauling stuff from the surface there's a stairway with a door I can lock during sieges. Siege comes, I lock the door(only door to be locked during siege), and the goblins will move halfway down the first hallway and then just sit there, never approaching the ramps even if I station a dwarf on them. --[[User:Elvang|Elvang]] 22:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

== Picture is wrong ==
Just a bit: the upper ramp is valid, since it has supporting wall (diagonal one (even two of them)). Need to repaint it as floor also. --[[User:Dorten|Dorten]] 23:06, 24 November 2008 (EST)

== Wagon torque / horsepower? ==

Is there any limit to how many adjacent ramp squares a wagon can traverse? Aesthetically, I had always placed 3 or more tiles of flat space between two ramps, on the assumption that the wagon needed to "level out" before negotiating another hill... but I've seen them do some crazy off-roading on their way to my fortress. Can I have an underground depot at Z-6 that is served by a single continuous down-ramp? --[[User:Jurph|Jurph]] 16:54, 4 December 2008 (EST)

:Yep.--[[User:Maximus|Maximus]] 17:33, 4 December 2008 (EST)
:...or a floodable pit through which everything coming in must pass, if you're not a bridge person. [[User:Sharp|Sharp]] 09:18, 26 January 2009 (EST)

== Downward only ramp ==

The following text has been removed for innacuracy: Dwarfs on the upper floor will be able to descend to the lower, by walking onto the ramp and then off of the ramp, but dwarfs from the lower floor will not be able to go up.
see [http://mkv25.net/dfma/movie-1649-ramptest ramp test video] --[[User:Kaypy|Kaypy]] 15:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

== Short Version ==

I wanted to add a simply summary because most of the examples and illustrations don't do anything for me, and I fear they may make it look more complicated than it really is. I originally posted this:
# The ramp must have a wall next to it.
# The space above the ramp must be open.
# The space above one of the walls next to the ramp must be open.
Someone added the following to it:
: The space above one of the walls next to ''and forward of'' the ramp must be open.
I took it back out because I have no idea what it was supposed to mean. If there's really some significant aspect I'm overlooking, it needs to be explained better, preferably as a separate rule. If not, can we please keep the "short version" as simple as possible?
:In a word, "No". Because, unfortunately, ramps are not simple. That was my edit you deleted, and what it meant was that if the "space above the wall next to the ramp is open", the ramp may still (sometimes) fail - if that space is ''next to'' the ramp, and not in the direction of travel when going up the ramp. A wall to the side is not adequate - therefore (unfortunately), "as simple as possible" cannot be as simple as your edit and still be accurate. But your goal is shared - will try again.--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 20:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
::Just to clarify Albedo, are you saying that a creature may only move up a ramp by crossing it in a straight line? That's what I'm understanding when you say there must be a space above a wall "in the direction of travel." [[User:Njero|Njero]] 18:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Njero

2009-09-19T04:06:53Z

Njero:

== Material Colour Guide ==

I'm not sure if I have the colours right for my first stone entry (the 7:0:1s). Mostly because I've never built a statue from white stone before, and that just looks really bright! I'm just assuming for now that the construction colour carries over from the stone/block colour. If that's the case, then it should be right. --[[User:Njero|Njero]] 04:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Njero

2009-09-16T04:14:24Z

Njero: /* Material Colour Guide */ new section

Welcome to this wiki! Dwarf Fortress rapidly becomes more complicated, and we're always glad to have new writers. 
Since you should try to follow wiki standards, and you probably don't know our ones yet, we've made a list of basic guidelines. Note that this is a template, not a customized message for you.
* To tell us who you are when you talk, please sign your posts on discussion pages by typing <code><nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki></code> after your posts. This can also be inserted with the [[Image:Button sig756222.png]] button if JavaScript is enabled.
* Don't put a question mark in the title of a page. Question marks mess things up, and your page will be moved to a different name.
* When making comments on a talk page, use one more colon before each line in your comment than was used in the comment you reply to. In general, put exactly one empty line between comments by different users but do not use blank lines inside of a comment.
* Avoid making many small edits to a page. Instead, try to make one large edit. This makes the history of the page a lot easier to read.
* Don't edit the user page of another user. If you want to tell them something, add the comment to their talk page.
* If you put a comment at the bottom of a talk page with section headers, you've probably put it in a section. Putting things in the wrong sections is confusing. You can create a section!
* Generally, [[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Community_Portal#We_are_doing_this.21_Let_us_do_it_right.|read and follow the rules.]] They're like a little constitution, except not boring! Really, read them.
<div align=center><div style="width: 28em; padding: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-top: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #ccc; background: #eee; text-align: center">''"You have been processed! Go forth, now, and edit!" --[[User:Savok|Savok]]''</div></div>

== Material Colour Guide ==

I'm not sure if I have the colours right for my first stone entry (the 7:0:1s). Mostly because I've never built a statue from white stone before, and that just looks really bright! I'm just assuming for now that the construction colour carries over from the stone/block colour. If that's the case, then it should be right. --[[User:Njero|Njero]] 04:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Njero

2009-09-16T04:10:50Z

Njero: Material Color Guide

== Material Colour Guide ==
None of the various material and colour tables I've found on the wiki have managed to provide the precise construction design reference I've been looking for. I wanted something where I could group by colour and material, and still have quick access to the material values. Lacking the desired resource, I've made my own.

I'm not sure yet that it's the best it could be, and I may end up just omitting the values and lumping all like-coloured materials under the same row, but this is what I've come up with so far.

I have no issues whatsoever with others adding the stone table to this page. If you don't follow the format exactly, just put it in my talk page and tell me how you've improved it! :D

If it turns out that this is something other people were looking for, go ahead and give it, or something like it, its own page in the wiki.

{| style="margin:1em 1em 1em 0;background:#F9F9F9;border:1px #AAA solid;border-collapse:collapse;" class="wikitable sortable"
|- style="background:#F2F2F2;text-align:center;"
|+Metals
!style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Colour
!style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Name
!style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Value
!style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;" class="unsortable" |Example

|-
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|0:7:1|#888|#CCC}}
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Iron
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|10
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|╒═╪═O|#888|#CCC}}{{Raw Tile|Ω++|#888|#000}}

|-
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|0:7:1|#888|#CCC}}
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Lead
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|2
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|╒═╪═O|#888|#CCC}}{{Raw Tile|Ω++|#888|#000}}

|-
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|0:7:1|#888|#CCC}}
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Pig iron
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|10
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|╒═╪═O|#888|#CCC}}{{Raw Tile|Ω++|#888|#000}}

|-
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|0:7:1|#888|#CCC}}
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Steel
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|30
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|╒═╪═O|#888|#CCC}}{{Raw Tile|Ω++|#888|#000}}

|-
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|3:3:1|#0FF|#088}}
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Adamantine
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|300
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|╒═╪═O|#0FF|#088}}{{Raw Tile|Ω++|#0FF|#000}}

|-
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|3:7:0|#088|#CCC}}
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Lay pewter
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|3
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|╒═╪═O|#088|#CCC}}{{Raw Tile|Ω++|#088|#000}}

|-
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|5:5:1|#F0F|#808}}
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Bismuthinite
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|2
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|╒═╪═O|#F0F|#808}}{{Raw Tile|Ω++|#F0F|#000}}

|-
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|5:5:1|#FF00FF|#800080}}
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Rose gold
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|23
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|╒═╪═O|#F0F|#808}}{{Raw Tile|Ω++|#F0F|#000}}

|-
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|5:6:0|#808|#880}}
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Black bronze
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|11
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|╒═╪═O|#808|#880}}{{Raw Tile|Ω++|#808|#000}}

|-
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|6:4:0|#880|#800}}
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Bronze
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|5
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|╒═╪═O|#880|#800}}{{Raw Tile|Ω++|#880|#000}}

|-
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|6:4:0|#880|#800}}
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Copper
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|2
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|╒═╪═O|#880|#800}}{{Raw Tile|Ω++|#880|#000}}

|-
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|6:6:1|#FF0|#880}}
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Bizmuth bronze
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|6
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|╒═╪═O|#FF0|#880}}{{Raw Tile|Ω++|#FF0|#000}}

|-
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|6:6:1|#FF0|#880}}
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Brass
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|7
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|╒═╪═O|#FF0|#880}}{{Raw Tile|Ω++|#FF0|#000}}

|-
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|6:6:1|#FF0|#880}}
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Electrum
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|20
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|╒═╪═O|#FF0|#880}}{{Raw Tile|Ω++|#FF0|#000}}

|-
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|6:6:1|#FF0|#880}}
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Gold
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|30
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|╒═╪═O|#FF0|#880}}{{Raw Tile|Ω++|#FF0|#000}}

|-
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|7:3:0|#CCC|#088}}
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Billon
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|6
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|╒═╪═O|#CCC|#088}}{{Raw Tile|Ω++|#CCC|#000}}

|-
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|7:3:0|#CCC|#088}}
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Nickel
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|2
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|╒═╪═O|#CCC|#088}}{{Raw Tile|Ω++|#CCC|#000}}

|-
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|7:3:0|#CCC|#088}}
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Tin
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|2
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|╒═╪═O|#CCC|#088}}{{Raw Tile|Ω++|#CCC|#000}}

|-
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|7:3:0|#CCC|#088}}
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Trifle Pewter
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|4
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|╒═╪═O|#CCC|#088}}{{Raw Tile|Ω++|#CCC|#000}}

|-
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|7:3:0|#CCC|#088}}
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Zinc
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|2
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|╒═╪═O|#CCC|#088}}{{Raw Tile|Ω++|#CCC|#000}}

|-
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|7:7:1|#FFF|#CCC}}
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Aluminum
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|40
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|╒═╪═O|#FFF|#CCC}}{{Raw Tile|Ω++|#FFF|#CCC}}

|-
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|7:7:1|#FFF|#CCC}}
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Fine pewter
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|5
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|╒═╪═O|#FFF|#CCC}}{{Raw Tile|Ω++|#FFF|#CCC}}

|-
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|7:7:1|#FFF|#CCC}}
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Nickel silver
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|3
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|╒═╪═O|#FFF|#CCC}}{{Raw Tile|Ω++|#FFF|#CCC}}

|-
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|7:7:1|#FFF|#CCC}}
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Platinum
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|40
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|╒═╪═O|#FFF|#CCC}}{{Raw Tile|Ω++|#FFF|#CCC}}

|-
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|7:7:1|#FFF|#CCC}}
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Silver
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|10
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|╒═╪═O|#FFF|#CCC}}{{Raw Tile|Ω++|#FFF|#CCC}}

|-
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|7:7:1|#FFF|#CCC}}
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Sterling silver
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|8
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|╒═╪═O|#FFF|#CCC}}{{Raw Tile|Ω++|#FFF|#CCC}}

|}

{| style="margin:1em 1em 1em 0;background:#F9F9F9;border:1px #AAA solid;border-collapse:collapse;" class="wikitable sortable"
|- style="background:#F2F2F2;text-align:center;"
|+Common Stone
!style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Colour
!style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Value
!style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Names
!style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;" class="unsortable" |Example

|-
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|7:0:1|#FFF|#000}}
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|1
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|Alabaster, alunite, borax, cyrolite, marcasite, periclase, satinspar, selenite
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|╒═╪═O|#FFF|#000}}{{Raw Tile|Ω++|#FFF|#000}}

|-
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|0:0:0|#000|#000}}
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|1
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|...
|style="border:1px #AAA solid;padding:0.2em;"|{{Raw Tile|╒═╪═O|#000|#000}}{{Raw Tile|Ω++|#000|#000}}

|}

40d Talk:Well

2009-09-15T03:07:39Z

Njero: /* a deep well shaft contributes to the building quality */

==construction questions==
Where can these be constructed? only near an aquifer?--[[User:Alc|Alc]] 14:16, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Open space probably refers to just that - a dug-out space below it that leads to water. Will have to test, though. --[[User:Tracker|Tracker]] 15:54, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Does it need to be a channel all the way down, on all levels below the well, or can you have normal floor below it all the way down to water? Can you put one well directly above another well, and have them both work (if there's water below)? --[[User:Sowelu|Sowelu]] 15:56, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
: yes.no.no.--[[User:Koltom|Koltom]] 12:27, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:: I've built a well directly above another one, both are stated as "Active" --[[User:ConstantA|ConstantA]] 01:36, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Has it been verified that you need water down there? --[[User:Mitchy|Mitchy]] 11:22, 8 November 2007 (EST)
:yes.--[[User:Koltom|Koltom]] 12:27, 1 March 2008 (EST)

Does anyone know if it is okay to have a well like this? 
(side view)
<pre>
_W_
| | <-- Empty space between water and well
|~| <-- Water down here
---
</pre>
--[[User:Delton|Delton]] 16:07, 14 November 2007 (EST)

Confirmed that the above is a functional well.
--[[User:Delton|Delton]] 07:52, 19 November 2007 (EST)

==Potential Problem==
As of v0.27.176.38a, when using an artificaly created well (by designating a 'Pond' zone and having dwarves fill it), it is posible that dwarves will take water from the well in order to fill the pond which feeds the well, acomplishing nothing. To correct this, examine the items contained in the well by pressing 't', then forbid the bucket and rope contained in the well. This will stop dwarves from taking water from the well and allow you to fill it. You can then reclaim the bucket and rope to make the well usable again.

Should this be in the article?

[[User:Duo|Duo]] March 11th 2008

== Flooding? ==

Gah! Why do my wells keep flooding? How can I prevent this? [[User:Runspotrun|Runspotrun]] 06:08, 26 November 2007 (EST)

-- Well ... if you did it like I did [http://www.vaevictus.net/images/bucket_full.png (lol)], you lost to backpressure. i filled from a reservoir that was taller than my well floor. (and it was attached to a brook. :) I'm working on using a floodgate and pressure plate to regulate water levels. [[User:Vaevictus|Vaevictus]] 11:30, 20 December 2007 (EST)

== Fair Warning ==

Whatever you do, don't let a barracks area overlap any of your wells. Military dwarves can and will fall in if they're sparring next to it. Ah well, I didn't want that full set of bismuth bronze armor anyway. -- [[User:Vanst|Vanst]] 08:39, 26 December 2007 (EST)

== Grates and Buckets ==

Buckets don't pass through grates, in the well construct. That means a well with a grate halfway will become dry. I had 2/7 water above the grate (and 5 levels of 7/7 water under it), but it was not enough. [[User:Wlievens|Wlievens]] 07:24, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== flood? ==

I have a <s>lake</s> murky pool outside(reaching down one more z level). On the same level i want to construct a well inside. can i just build a channel, thus tap the lake on the lower z level and then build a well on top of the end of the channel? or do i need one more level free space? If i can, will the water flood my outpost or will it stop on floor level? would it help if i tapped the lake one more level down? --[[User:Koltom|Koltom]] 17:12, 8 February 2008 (EST)
:So long as the well is at or above the level of the pond you will have no problem. --[[User:Ikkonoishi|Ikkonoishi]] 23:11, 11 February 2008 (EST)
:: It worked fine. Now however the murky pool is dry, so i built a new one tapping the river. ;) --[[User:Koltom|Koltom]] 13:53, 22 February 2008 (EST)

== Using Buckets? ==
I'm having a hard time getting my dwarfs to use their new well. I...
* Dug a Channel with water beneath it.
* Designated a drinking zone beside it.
** The dwarfs now drink from the channel.
** Loo{{k|k}}ing at the space they're drinking from says Open Space
* Created Blocks, Bucket, Rope
* {{k|b}}uild we{{k|l}}l over the water beside the drinking designation.

Now what happened was I got a massive flood of messages saying something like "XXX Cancelled Drinking: No Bucket at well"

So I went and built another Bucket, and now I have 2 buckets sitting in my finished goods stockpile, and nobody who's willing to drink from the well. How do I instruct the lazy dwarves to go and get the bucket and use it with the well?

[[User:Zeidrich|Zeidrich]] 15:15, 29 February 2008 (EST)

: Why do you need them to use the well? As far as I know, the only time having a well is useful is when the injured need water. Even then, I strongly suspect that people can just drink from the river. --[[User:Shadow archmagi|Shadow archmagi]] 16:02, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:: Well, I want them to use a well because I built it! It looks prettier than drinking out of the stream. I'm pretty sure they get bad thoughts when they drink directly out of the stream. In this particular circumstance I was short on brewable supplies and I had a bunch of thirsty dwarves. Regardless of whether or not I should necessarily be using a well, I would like know ''how'' to use it.-- [[User:Zeidrich|Zeidrich]] 18:37, 29 February 2008 (EST)
:::Well, I believe that the well is *'''built'''* with a bucket, since you require one for construction. If it's really not there for whatever reason, then you may want to rebuild the well(and make sure that furniture hauling orders are ON), and if that doesn't fix it, then i think this is a bug and should be reported to the Toady One, along with the save. --[[User:Digger|Digger]] 05:22, 1 March 2008 (EST)
::::Yes, the bucket for 'normal' drinking is built into the well. U only need extra buckets to fill a pond or give water to a resting dwarf. Check with the q-menu if the well is even finished.--[[User:Koltom|Koltom]] 12:27, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:::::Nope, not a bug. I figured out what it was. Apparantly my architect was far too busy tilling soil and hauling rocks to go and gather the rope and the bucket and connect them to the well. So while I had all of the materials, and the well looked complete, it was actually waiting for construction. I think I was just confused by the message as my dwarves were trying to drink from it before it was ready. [[User:Zeidrich|Zeidrich]] 11:54, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Another Fair Warning ==
Dwarves don't even need to spar to fall into wells, they will generally not avoid walking over a well tile. This will result in the warning "X cancels...dangerous terrain" followed by dropping in anyway. The last bloody fool who dropped in seems to have been gobbling away at his food while walking, down the shaft among his gear i found 1 dwarven sugar roast. I mean, i know my sugar roast is delicious, but can you please sit down first like any goodmannered dwarf? How will I ever clean up that bloody mess you left in our water supply? --[[User:Koltom|Koltom]] 22:24, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
:Might be a good idea to designate the well's square a restricted traffic area and the eight squares around it low traffic. This should make aimless wanderers step around it instead of going WHEE! Animals don't respect traffic though, so maybe there will still be dogs and cats in the well. [[User:Rkyeun|Rkyeun]] 09:32, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
::One can fix the problem of well-diving dwarves by building a staircase adjacent to the well for them to climb out of... as long as your well isn't deep enough that they are stunned by the fall, or you have running water that sweeps them away.--[[User:Zipdog|Zipdog]] 20:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

== 1x1 Well ==
Does anyone have a good plan for digging a deep, unconnected 1x1 well? I'm currently thinking about trying something like this design, side view:
<pre>
_W_
| | <-- Empty space between water and well
| | <-- Empty space between water and well
| | <-- Empty space between water and well
| | <-- Opening room
|~~~| <-- Water down here
---
</pre>

It would be built like below, with a level pulled to knockout the support. Would the center collapse leaving a nice shaft?
<pre>
_ _
|r| <-- Ramp down
|r| <-- Ramp down
|r| <-- Ramp down
| X | <-- stairwelldown
| S | <-- Support. Water will be down here, but starts out dry?
---
</pre>
[[User:Tulthix|Tulthix]] 12:49, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

:It won't fall down as the ramps still have support from the adjacent stone/walls. I've been trying to figure out how to make a 1x1 shaft too but haven't had much luck. When getting the dwarves to build ramps on top of each other they do build a shaft downwards but after a certain depth the pathfinding seems to get confused and they stop. [[User:Yvain|Yvain]] 02:36, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:I was able to accomplish this by digging out a side-wall and re-building the wall after deconstructing a staircase down the shaft one tile at a time. If you want it to look pretty the 1x1 shaft going down should have nice stone smoothing on as well (and it covers up the "filled in wall" seam. Alternate methods: sacrificial dwarf can pull it off (he will rot away at the bottom of your water tank) and a utilitarian "escape hatch" out the bottom of the tank. I like putting in an escape hatch at the bottom, connected to a lever, with a grate and outflow underneath so I can retrieve that adamantium armor that falls down there. (when I don't build in an escape stairway anyway). [[User:Weasello|Weasello]] 10:34, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:I recently discovered a handy method for digging single-tile vertical shafts clean. Dig out the shaft by making it a tall stairwell. After it's dug out, channel out the stairs at the top. Your miner will stand one level underneath it and destroy the stairs from below. After that's gone, repeat this level by level, until you're at the bottom, where you can destroy the stairway going up with d > z. This also allows for you to smooth the walls of the shaft, or replace the dirt walls with constructed stone ones before you take out the stairs. [[User:Vanguard|Vanguard]] 16:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)

==Salt Water==

I've had a map with only salt water and an injured dwarf. Nobody could give him water because it was all salty. But I built a well over the water and dwarves brought the injured dwarf water. This happen to anyone else? --[[User:Bouchart|Bouchart]] 12:29, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==FAQ==
"How deep can a well be?"

This was added to the Water FAQ. I thought it better to put here, and the answer can be put on the Well page if/when it's discovered; as opposed to creating an entire new FAQ page. --[[User:Juckto|Juckto]] 06:04, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

:At this time (33g) I believe there's no limit to how far from water a well can be, as long as all tiles between are open space.
:I've got a particularly vertical map (something on the order of 50+/- levels!) so I'll give this some testing later and update this (within a week hopefully) if my tests conflict with my opinion that there's no limit. --[[User:N9103|Edward]] 21:59, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

== Smoothing walls for a well ==

Does smoothing the walls of a place to be filled with water prevent stagnant water?
:Makes no difference. [[User:Rkyeun|Rkyeun]] 09:32, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

::Doesn't matter. Dwarves will still drink stagnant water from ponds. --[[User:Stinhad Limarezum|Stinhad Limarezum]] 14:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

== Monsters and wells ==
Way back in the 2D days, monsters would sometimes come out of wells. Does this ever happen in DF3D? Now that there's a real Z-axis, I imagine that monsters aren't just randomly generated like they used to be... but I do wonder whether tapping an underground river might cause something unpleasant to ride the bucket upward. I'm playing on a map with an underground river and a chasm, and I'm wondering how careful I need to be with my wells. --[[User:Ookpik|Ookpik]] 05:45, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

IIRC monsters can't pass through grates - so instead of putting the well directly over the river, make an artificial stream with both ends blocked from the river by a grate. [[User:Random832|Random832]] 01:33, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
:I've never managed to make a grate block any water creature. I've had perch and lampreys pass through grates and pumps to end up in my meeting area. I wonder if bars would work better... [[User:Corona688|Corona688]] 02:30, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
::Grates/bars don't block vermin-class critters, which most fish are. [[User:HeWhoIsPale|HeWhoIsPale]] 09:11, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
::Right, but those can't attack you. It will (should) block carp. [[User:Random832|Random832]] 15:54, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
::Can vermin pass through fortifications? [[User:Random832|Random832]] 15:55, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Vermin don't have to pass through: vermin are spawned "near" the [[biome]] they don't need to be right in the biome (just like fire snakes turning up in your tunnels, they "appear").[[User:GarrieIrons|Gar]][[User Talk:GarrieIrons|rie]] 03:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

== Zone only drinking ==

Will a dwarf still drink from a well if zone only drinking is set? --[[User:Groveller|Groveller]] 02:14, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

== Wells periodically and mysteriously destroyed ==

I don't know what's going on with my above ground wells, but it seems I have to rebuild them about once every year or so. My dwarves are a happy bunch so there have been no tantrums and no bouts of vandalism or building destruction are recorded in my justice screen. I tried setting the area immediately around the wells as low traffic and the well itself as restricted traffic, but they still vanish, leaving one of their parts in the river-fed pool underneath. Could it have something to do with the fact that my fisherdwarves sometimes fish from the wells? Or is there a minor amount of seasonal flooding that I can not see but will destroy the wells? [[User:Lungfish|Lungfish]] 15:17, 30 December 2008 (EST)

:Does it freeze? I had to re-build my outside well once every year in the spring until I moved it indoors. So, in my experience, only if it freezes, otherwise I don't know. The reason the part is there is because it drops onto the ice, which then melts. One more question, is it in a brook, river, or pond?--[[User:Destor|Destor]] 15:35, 30 December 2008 (EST)

::I think it is a regular, yearly, occurrence. I don't think it's a problem of freezing though, since I've never seen any ice and no one has ever walked over my moat. One thing that might be a clue: I built a well on the next Z level up from one of the wells that gets destroyed every year, and it's survived, so I think it is flooding or something like that. Also, I'm pretty sure the only ground-level well I have that isn't fed by my river has avoided destruction. But if flooding is the cause, I should see more water tiles, right? Oh well. [[User:Lungfish|Lungfish]] 06:35, 2 January 2009 (EST)

:::Mystery solved. At the very end of winter all the surface water DID freeze, but for such a short time that I thought it was just the game glitching out for a second. I guess everything makes sense now. I hope I can serve as a warning to future generations. [[User:Lungfish|Lungfish]] 01:22, 3 January 2009 (EST)

== Dwarves refuse to use my well ==
i have an "Active" well, that my dwarves seem not to like. i am always getting complaints that i dont have a well, but some dwarves drink out of it!
any ideas whats wrong? [[User:Corhen|Corhen]] 02:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
*If a lot of dwarves are needing to use a well at once and you only have one, they might "think" that there isn't one at all. Also, unless your dwarves are injured, your well should be mostly unused as they should be drinking alcohol, not water. --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 16:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

== Water in well bucket freezes ==
I have a couple of wells, pumped from a salt water sea into an entirely constructed cistern. The wells are enclosed, the cistern is enclosed, and I'm in a freezing biome. For some reason, the snow indoors won't go away, and while the water in the cistern is liquid, the water in the well buckets is ice. Is there a reason for this happening, and is there a way to stop it? [[User:Conan12|Conan12]] 13:57, 12 August 2009 (GMT)

==a deep well shaft contributes to the building quality==
How does one check this? --[[User:Birthright|Birthright]] 23:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:I was wondering this too, and then reading you ask it gave me the (hopefully?) answer.
:Since value is listed in the room list, you should be able to build a series of otherwise identical wells over:
:*Increasingly deep open shafts, with a fixed water depth at the bottom, and
:*Fixed open shafts, with increasing water depth at the bottom.
:Once you've done that, if I understand the room list correctly, you should be able to compare values of wells, though you may have to have them all designated as meeting rooms for them to display on the list, I'm unsure. I'm haven't attempted diagramming here in the past, so I'll post this, and then see about adding a visual afterwards. And I still sometimes forget to sign --[[User:Njero|Njero]] 02:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
::Diagram:<pre>
:: First Case: Second Case:
:: _W_ _W_ _W_ _W_ _W_ _W_
:: | | | | | | | | | | | |
:: |~| | | | | |~| |~| |~|
:: |-| |~| | | |-| |~| |~|
:: |-| |~| |-| |~|
:: |-| |-|
::</pre> --[[User:Njero|Njero]] 03:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

40d Talk:Well

2009-09-15T02:56:29Z

Njero: /* a deep well shaft contributes to the building quality */

40d Talk:Well

2009-09-15T02:55:57Z

Njero: /* well quality test */

Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Community Portal

2009-09-10T03:45:34Z

Njero: /* Not too spoiled, no. */

Use this discussion page to talk about any issues or ideas you have about the direction of this wiki. The community portal is a hub for directing our conciousness. Read the rules carefully, take them to heart, post here if you have any questions or you think the rules can be improved.

==Account Problems==
I can't log in, but it says my username is already in use. --[[User:64.22.68.4|64.22.68.4]] 14:55, 29 October 2007 (EDT) (Peristarkawan)
:Are you sure? The new wiki cleaned out all the old accounts so you have to reregister. --[[User:Hamelin|Hamelin]] 15:02, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
::Unfortunately, I was unable to import all the user accounts, please recreate. --[[User:Senso|Senso]] 15:22, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

==AdBlock==
Could you move all the files in the graphics directory with the word "ad" in it? For those using AdBlock or similar add-ons it will block the display of the graphics in those directories. Thanks!!! :) [[User:Schm0|Schm0]] 10:26, 5 November 2007 (EST)

:It doesn't look possible - re-uploading the file keeps putting it in the 'ad' folder and I cannot edit the link in the DB as it is stored inside a BLOB. I suggest you whitelist this site anyways, it's not like you need to block anything here (and blocking /*ad*/ may cause problems elsewhere too). --[[User:Senso|Senso]] 10:49, 5 November 2007 (EST)

::Well after the fact, I know, but saw a related discussion elsewhere about disabling AdBlock to support fansites worth supporting, and I think it wouldn't be a bad idea if nearly everything got placed into an as-like folder to encourage whitelisting... but that's me. --[[User:N9103|Edward]] 03:59, 7 November 2008 (EST)

== Rule discussion ==

Z is pretty horrible, but not much point taking it out unless its to replace it with something better. (This whole setup is horrible, but that's irrelevant?) --[[User:Jackard|Jackard]] 21:23, 16 February 2008 (EST)

=== A ===

How do we handle several rules that starts with the same character? I see that '''titles''' have been moved to '''page titles''' because of '''timelessness'''. But what about other scenarios that doesnt have an solution as easy? --[[User:Mizipzor|Mizipzor]] 07:51, 5 November 2007 (EST)

:We can handle them as they come up. In general, I think it's better practice to avoid reusing letters than to have to rename an existing rule.

:If we want to just do away with rule '''A''' at this point, that would be fine. It was only meant to be a starting point for brainstorming, and the rules haven't changed much lately. --[[User:Peristarkawan|Peristarkawan]] 11:21, 5 November 2007 (EST)

::I Call for Judgment on this statement, this would remove the backbone rule used to define this alphabetical set of rules. We could put it outside of the rules though, like a description. --[[User:Senso|Senso]] 12:24, 5 November 2007 (EST)

:::Unless we have another rule that must start with A, why not keep it? --[[User:Savok|Savok]] 12:28, 5 November 2007 (EST)

:::I like rule A, it introduces the page, please keep it --[[User:Markavian|Markavian]] 16:32, 13 November 2007 (EST)

=== B and E ===

How are B and E ''rules''? --[[User:Savok|Savok]] 11:27, 7 November 2007 (EST)

:Rules? I thought the alphabet was the guide for the war against entropy [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 11:34, 7 November 2007 (EST)

::Well, the Alphabet rule does describe them as rules. But I don't really think that B and E seem out of place. --[[User:Peristarkawan|Peristarkawan]] 11:37, 7 November 2007 (EST)

:They will simply be replaced by "real" rules once someone have made them. --[[User:Mizipzor|Mizipzor]] 14:23, 7 November 2007 (EST)

:I think of them more as "guidelines" ;) [[User:Turgid Bolk|Turgid Bolk]] 20:22, 7 November 2007 (EST)

:I put strikes through B and E and wrote more helpful ones (along the same lines) --Me
:Gravitas was a silly word. What do you think of the new rules? --[[User:Markavian|Markavian]]

:The be bold rule makes it's dramatic return! Victory! [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 19:39, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

=== I ===

Personally, I find that when the default tilesets are stretched (like [[:Image:Qs01.JPG]]), they become substantially uglier and less easy to follow than many of the user tilesets. Should they be disallowed under {{rule|I}}? --[[User:Savok|Savok]] 15:59, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:If it displays that way on a computer with no alterations of settings, its by definition default. That's exactly the kind of display I see on my computer in fullscreen mode (although I do usually play with the 800x600 in windowed mode, but I wouldn't take a screenshot from that, i'd F11 over to fullscreen - and its aspect ratio is pretty close to my windowed mode ratio). It seems wrong to not allow what the game typically displays.
:I'm curious what you think the non-stretched aspect ratio is? I mean, I can't imagine settings which would actually make tiles look square.
:--[[User:Squirrelloid|Squirrelloid]] 16:10, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::Non-stretched, the 800x600 tileset is half that size (10x12). Stretched to 800x600, it's 10x24. This is the ratio of the tiles if you actually view the bmp. To put an end to this bickering, how about an "officially approved screenshot tileset" that is *gasp* NOT one of the two default tilesets, but matches their visual style while being less cramped. How about something in a... 10x16? [80x25 = 800x400] [[User:Random832|Random832]] 23:47, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:::I'm against anything that creates unnecessary impediments to uploading useful images. If you use an extremely nonstandard tileset, that'll impair the usefulness of your images. However, as long as someone familiar with the standard tileset can look at an image and understand what is being illustrated, I would suggest the image is acceptable.--[[User:Maximus|Maximus]] 16:30, 17 December 2008 (EST)

:::I'm against anything that makes you do extra work to take screenshots. The default appearance on a computer screen should be acceptable. We should not have to write a how-to on how to get DF to display in a way appropriate for screenshots for the wiki. It should be 'take screen shot', 'upload screen shot', 'add screenshot to page'. Done. Bizarre formatting requirements are both a significant barrier to adding content to the wiki and tremendously stupid since screenshots are *advertisements* of the game as well as instructional, and we want people to look at screenshots and be correct in the belief that that is what they'll actually see in game. I don't care what the bmp file says the aspect ratio should be, I care what the game displays that aspect ratio as. --[[User:Squirrelloid|Squirrelloid]] 16:49, 17 December 2008 (EST)

:::Insofar as I can tell, that screenshot is at exactly the same aspect ratio and size as the game window I use. It's the 800x600 tileset, I believe. It's a bit on the tall side, but otherwise I don't see much problem with it, presumably because I see it every time I play the game. I vote letting people make screenshots in whatever shape or form they prefer. Within reason, of course.--[[User:Quil|Quil]] 18:15, 17 December 2008 (EST)

:How about a wikiproject to improve screenshots, so people who care about these things can clean up screenshots rather than just complaining about them? [[User:Random832|Random832]] 14:28, 21 December 2008 (EST)

From what I have seen, on a regular shaped CRT (4:3?) you can simply set the windowed and full screen, they look the same, just different sized, and are fairly clean. For instance, I play with 800x600 resolution, because when I play windowed it is a good window size, but it is also one of the resolutions that most monitors will switch to and from easily under most any OS. [[User:Burlingk|Burlingk]] 22:31, 10 February 2009 (EST)

=== Serious Rules ===

Would it be possible for us to come up with some *real* rules that are more ... serious? --[[User:Geofferic|Geofferic]] 08:59, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:The alphabet rules concept is senseless. Maybe remove the fluff? --[[User:Jackard|Jackard]] 11:09, 10 December 2007 (EST)

::Hey now, with a couple of exceptions, the rules are serious. The point of the alphabet framework wasn't random silliness; it was to inspire creativity and make rule-writing fun. It's hard to come up with good rules out of thin air. It's easier to think up a topic of concern that starts with a particular letter and then write a rule about it.

::Of course, the rules have been pretty stable for a while now, so rule A hasn't been too useful lately. There was a brief discussion a while back about dropping rule A under [[DwarfFortressWiki:Community Portal#Rule discussion]], and everybody seemed to want to keep it at the time. If you want to reopen that discussion, then I'm okay with either keeping it or dropping it (besides which, I haven't been too active around here lately anyway). --[[User:Peristarkawan|Peristarkawan]] 11:54, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:::I support the Alphabet ruleset, I don't see why it should change. It's clean and clear. --[[User:Senso|Senso]] 16:56, 10 December 2007 (EST)

::::It's childish, incomplete, unprofessional and silly. The rules are not grouped logically and there is no table of contents. There's not room for clarification or expounding and little opportunity to expand. It should be scrapped for something that makes sense. --[[User:Geofferic|Geofferic]] 03:25, 12 December 2007 (EST)

:::::It would be trivial to change it from an unordered list to use section headings, which would allow a table of contents and plenty of room for clarification. I don't think "little opportunity to expand" is valid; there's no reason we can't have multiple rules for the same letter, or rules that fall outside the alphabet rubric entirely.

:::::If you want to improve the organization, then just go for it. Let me suggest that you create the new version on a subpage at first, so that others can view two presentations side by side when discussing it. --[[User:Peristarkawan|Peristarkawan]] 12:06, 12 December 2007 (EST)

:::::While I agree with some of your points, I'd like to say that this is not a "professional" wiki and silliness in general is a good thing. This is a wiki (Internet!) about a game (Haha!) that is pretty silly itself. If you want to create a Whole Complex and Indexed Body of Rules About Everything, go for it and as [[User:Peristarkawan|Peristarkawan]] said, editors should be able to choose between the two. I just don't see the need. --[[User:Senso|Senso]] 14:47, 12 December 2007 (EST)

=== Ack! The ToC! The ToC with a "1.26"! ===

...why do we need section headers for each of the rules? --[[User:Savok|Savok]] 22:52, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

:I've fixed the TOC. [[User:Random832|Random832]] 17:17, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

::Out of curiousity - how? --[[User:Juckto|Juckto]] 08:40, 20 November 2008 (EST)

:::Smoke and mirrors: He removed the ToC and created a sim-ToC. --[[User:Savok|Savok]] 15:59, 16 December 2008 (EST)

=== W ===

Word-of-mouth: If you hear someone saying something new about the game, don't post it without trying it out yourself. You might have misunderstood something or your friend might have expressed him/herself wrongly. 
Something like that.--[[User:Karpatius|Karppa]] 10:33, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:That goes in the "Rule discussion" section. *ka-move* Also, remember to not put blank lines in a comment by a single user.</offtopic>
:I don't like the rule. It discourages participation in the wiki. If they add something of questionable merit, they're supposed to use the verify template, as stated in rule V. --[[User:Savok|Savok]] 11:39, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

::Will remember that in the future.
::--[[User:Karpatius|Karppa]] 02:16, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

=== W 2 ===

There are no rules about humorous content yet. I notice that references to the '''Dwarf pensioners club''' instead of '''(fortress) Guard''' have been taken out of "fact-based" articles so maybe rule W could be:

:'''Wit''' can be hard to recognise once it has been written down. It is best if it is used on clearly humour or story related pages, talk or user pages, but kept to a minimum in fact-based articles like [[Dwarf]] or [[Summer]].

This puts it "on the table" that your humour is appreciated in certain places but not in every article you contribute to. I'm not happy with my own wording but I think the intent should be there somewhere.

It could go at '''Zany''' instead because Z will be harder letter to use up!
(having said all that I personally don't object to "well done" humour even in straight-cut articles like [[Screw pump]] - the issue is my humour is incomprehensible to a lot of people and can just sound rude!)
[[User:GarrieIrons|GarrieIrons]] 02:51, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

:I like it as '''Wit'''. --[[User:Savok|Savok]] 15:09, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

::With no against comments I put in in there with a reference to {{tl|D for Dwarf}}.[[User:GarrieIrons|GarrieIrons]] 01:01, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

=== Other letters ===

Historically English had a number of letters missing from this list, namely edh (Ð/ð), thorn (Þ/þ), and yogh (Ȝ/ȝ). Do we need rules for them?--[[User:Gandalf the Dwarf (No, really! Look it up!)|Gandalf the Dwarf (No, really! Look it up!)]] 20:49, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:No. They do NOT exist in today's English, thus they don't belong in the list. --[[User:GreyMario|GreyMaria]] 22:07, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::Of course not, that's just silly. We do need one rule for each positive integer in existence, however. --[[User:Maximus|Maximus]] 23:16, 14 November 2008 (EST)

== Enforcing consistency in screenshots? ==

Can I strongly suggest that all screenshots be taken with the default interface and tileset, for consistency's sake? It seems to me like that would be a good way of keeping the wiki aesthetics constant. [[User:EighenIndemnis|EighenIndemnis]] 11:33, 5 November 2007 (EST)

:We can make it a rule, but we shouldn't remove any screenshots for non-conformance (except to replace them with conforming screenshots). --[[User:Peristarkawan|Peristarkawan]] 11:46, 5 November 2007 (EST)

::Yeah, for some tutorials that are written while the user is playing, it would be impossible to anyway. [[User:EighenIndemnis|EighenIndemnis]] 11:47, 5 November 2007 (EST)

:::I agree that images should use the default tileset for articles, but I disagree for personal pages or bloodline games. --[[User:Markavian|Markavian]]

::::The rule as written already exempts bloodline games. The only rule that should apply to personal pages is '''D'''. --[[User:Peristarkawan|Peristarkawan]] 16:05, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Um, I added the rule before noticing the discussion here. Anyway, I added rule '''I''', inspired by the old [[Water wheel]] image ([[:Image:PerpetualMotion.JPG]]), which was incomprehesible to me and unnecessarily large. Like Peristarkawan said, the exemption of user pages is implied, but feel free to make it explicit if you want. --[[User:Turgid Bolk|Turgid Bolk]] 16:13, 5 November 2007 (EST)

How about this?

[[Image:World_creation_screen2.png | none | frame | 400px | World creation screenshot.]]

It's clean, neat and doesn't warp the page. :) The obvious drawback is file size is not monitored. Can't we edit the file upload settings to measure pixels? Nothing over 800x600? [[User:Schm0|Schm0]] 19:16, 7 November 2007 (EST)

== Redirects and article titles ==

How do you do that thing that makes a certain term redirect to a different page? Like [[Elephants]] redirecting to [[Elephant]], for example. --[[User:BahamutZERO|BahamutZERO]] 15:20, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

:If [[Elephants]] already exists, you can move the page to [[Elephant]], and it will create the redirect for you. Otherwise, just edit [[Elephants]] to read: <nowiki>#REDIRECT [[Elephant]]</nowiki> --[[User:Peristarkawan|Peristarkawan]] 15:26, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

::I see, thanks! --[[User:BahamutZERO|BahamutZERO]] 15:27, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Just FYI, if at all possible, ''do not create pages as plurals''. Use the following syntax: <nowiki>[[Elephant]]s</nowiki>: example [[Elephant]]s. --[[User:JT|JT]] 20:20, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

What about titles that are verbs? Should they be in "base-form"? Or whatever its called (my english on this level isnt the best). Example: should the title be '''Mine''' or '''Mining'''? --[[User:Mizipzor|Mizipzor]] 17:30, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

:Based on the Wikipedia style, titles should be nouns. So in your example it should be the gerund '''Mining''', and '''Mine''' would be the title for an article about mines. I've updated the rule to reflect this. --[[User:Peristarkawan|Peristarkawan]] 17:35, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

::What about skills and professions? Should we have a '''Bone carving''' (labor preference) article and a '''Bone carver''' (skill) article, or would this be redundant? I've seen both styles linked to, but tend to think that the -ing form should redirect to the -er form. Opinions? --[[User:Mechturk|Mechturk]] 03:11, 5 November 2007 (EST)

:::Sounds good to me. --[[User:Peristarkawan|Peristarkawan]] 11:21, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Btw, shouldnt all these comments be moved into [[DwarfFortressWiki talk:Community Portal|talk]]? --[[User:Mizipzor|Mizipzor]] 17:30, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

:Moved the account problem comments to the talk page. The rest are informative. --[[User:Turgid Bolk|Turgid Bolk]] 13:26, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

== Tutorials ==

New players are getting bogged down by the complexity at the start of their fortresses, I think we should get some "getting started" or "surviving your first winter" type tutorials up as soon as possible. --[[User:BahamutZERO|BahamutZERO]] 16:33, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

:[[Your first fortress]] will do just that. --[[User:Savok|Savok]] 11:31, 2 November 2007 (EDT) 

== Categories ==

I saw that the category [[:category:buildings]] had been added to category [[:category:world]]. I started to look for categories without parents and adding them to world to sortof have a list of every category. Is this good thinking? --[[User:Mizipzor|Mizipzor]] 19:19, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

:We already have a list of all categories at [[Special:Categories]], although it does include a few categories that aren't directly related to the game.
:Based upon the description of [[:Category:World]], it seems to me that most of the things that are currently in it don't really belong there. --[[User:Peristarkawan|Peristarkawan]] 19:27, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

::Ok, Ill remove them from [[:category:world]]. But how often is [[Special:Categories]] updated? I dont see [[:category:furnaces]] in there. --[[User:Mizipzor|Mizipzor]] 20:24, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

:::[[Special:Categories]] is automatically updated by the Wiki software as soon as it detects a change. However, MediaWikis aggressively cache pages. It's also possible you're looking a client-side cached page of it. Finally, I don't see any content in that category so it's possible it's being ignored. See [[Special:Unusedcategories]] instead. --[[User:JT|JT]] 20:28, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

== Deletion ==

We now have a [[:category:deletion]], who has the power to delete pages? When are they deleted? Who make the final call? The same person that deletes them? What rules should we make regarding this? --[[User:Mizipzor|Mizipzor]] 11:57, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

:Anyone can mark a page for deletion using the <nowiki>{{del}}</nowiki> tag, however it is usually recommended to get a consensus that it's not worth keeping. Exceptions are things like spam or empty pages. The <nowiki>{{del}}</nowiki> tag just lets the admin know to delete it, ultimately it's his call to do so or not. Just ask around on the talk page first, if no one disagrees, add the tag. (Disclaimer: that's how it worked on the old wiki, the policy may change as this new wiki grows.) --[[User:Turgid Bolk|Turgid Bolk]] 13:02, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

== Water level style ==

I think we should have a standard style for talking about water level. We could say it various ways, such as "6/7 water," "water with a depth of 6," "a depth of 6 pool," or "water with a depth of six." It seems using the numeral makes it clear that we mean water depth, without adding the /7. --[[User:Turgid Bolk|Turgid Bolk]] 13:02, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not sure. The /7 is definately unnessessary and that we should use 6 instead of six, maybe create a template to make the numberal blue/red (water/magma)? If not "Water 6" and "Magma 5" seem short, simple, correct, and understandable.--[[User:Draco18s|Draco18s]] 03:27, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

::Like {{Raw Tile|6|#44F|#009}} / {{Raw Tile|6|#F44|#900}} or {{Raw Tile|6|#00F|#000}} / {{Raw Tile|6|#F00|#000}}? --[[User:Matryx|Matryx]] 05:38, 5 November 2007 (EST)

:::Too hard to read against the normal white background I think. But just the coloured number on its own would stand out weirdly. --[[User:Shades|Shades]] 06:10, 5 November 2007 (EST)

:::: {{Raw Tile|6|#00F|#FFF}} / {{Raw Tile|6|#F00|#FFF}} or not even going so far as to use the tile template? --[[User:Matryx|Matryx]] 06:16, 5 November 2007 (EST)

:I think "depth of 7" works wonders, bold, colored text had a bit high contrast according to my taste. In case there is either magma or water, just state it. And we should also link to a waterdepth article for those that are in need of furher explanation of the concept. Example; "a water wheel needs to be placed in flowing [[water]] with a [[water depth|depth]] of at least 3". --[[User:Mizipzor|Mizipzor]] 07:44, 5 November 2007 (EST)

== Templates? ==

Is there a page with a list of all the templates available to us? Are all of the templates migrated from the old wiki? --[[User:Felix the Cat|Felix the Cat]] 00:51, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

:You can find a list at [[Special:Allpages?namespace=10]]. --[[User:Peristarkawan|Peristarkawan]] 01:44, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

== Forum references ==

Where there is a bit saying "Toady said this", what is the best way to link to the forum? Currently in magma, I've got a link to http://www.bay12games.com/cgi-local/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=001504 which shows up as [http://www.bay12games.com/cgi-local/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=001504] (not ''too'' bad). Is there a better way of doing it akin to Wikipedia with <ref>something</ref>? Maybe something like [[Template:version]] for future (but that doesn't cover the "this is how it works now" type thing. --[[User:Shagie|Shagie]] 02:17, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

: IIRC the <ref> system on Wikipedia requires an extension to be installed. --[[User:Rick|Rick]] 17:48, 7 November 2007 (EST)
::I know this is late but try this:
::<nowiki>[http://www.bay12games.com/cgi-local/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=001504 Caption]</nowiki>
::which shows as
::[http://www.bay12games.com/cgi-local/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=001504 Caption]
::I would use it like this:
:::"According to a [http://www.bay12games.com/cgi-local/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=001504 forum post]..."
::[[User:GarrieIrons|GarrieIrons]] 02:41, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Links of this form fail - is this forum totally gone/replaced, or can the links somehow be translated to the current forum? [[User:Random832|Random832]] 17:23, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

== Crops categories ==

My wiki-fu is weak, but surely there is a better way to present the myriad crops than having a different category for each season and biome? [[:Category:Crops]] could at least show the seasons grouped seperate from the biomes. Are we going to put each plant in its respective biome and seasons, ''and'' in [[:Category:Crops]], or is [[List of crops]] sufficient? Just seems like there's a lot of potential for a mess here, and we need to standardize the plant pages and various categories.

Personally I like the way the old wiki did it, with some nice templates. Granted there are a lot more plants in this version, but not so much that we need 20 subcategories cluttering up the crops category. See [http://archive.dwarffortresswiki.net/index.php/Crops Crops] and [http://archive.dwarffortresswiki.net/index.php/Plump_Helmets Plump Helmets]; easy to tell what crops belong in what season. --[[User:Turgid Bolk|Turgid Bolk]] 02:52, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

== Wealth page... ==

I've been looking for tips on building fortress wealth, and haven't really been able to find anything. Can someone who knows something about it start a [[Wealth]] page? I know that mining out areas, making things, and artifacts contribute to wealth, but that's all I know. How much does mining a square contribute? Are there other ways to build wealth? Do mined out areas have to be populated, or can I go mine away a random hill and have it count? What are the best things to make to increase value? Do items have to be placed, or just made? and so on... --[[User:Bobson|Bobson]] 16:22, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

== Formatting standards ==

=== Category tags ===

On this wiki, the standard for capitalization in category tags is <tt><nowiki>[[Category:Stub]]</nowiki></tt>. I asked what it should be, and nobody answered for two and a half months, so I feel entitled to decide it. --[[User:Savok|Savok]] 12:57, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

=== Headers ===

At the current time, the standard for a header is <code>=== Headers ===</code>. <code>===Headers===</code> is slightly easier to type, is typed more often by newbies, and works just as well, but has less white space. Input? --[[User:Savok|Savok]] 12:57, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:I like <code>=== Header ===</code> better, because it's easier to read, and the extra whitespace helps call your attention to the name of the section, whereas you might glance over it as an "unrecognized token" if you didn't manage to filter out the immediately surrounding markup. I think the 2 bytes saved on whitespace is negligible and I certainly don't mind correcting them when I find 'em, if necessary. A similar question (if it's not been asked) would be whether or not to include a newline in between a heading and its text. I think for big sections of text, an extra line looks nice, but for multiple, smaller, less important sections, it's easier to manage the headings if there's no blank line separating them from the section they head. --[[User:Marble Dice|Marble Dice]] 14:18, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

::I always put a blank line above and below a header (unless it's the first line in the page), except in rare situations, like the current List of Twenty-Six Rules. --[[User:Savok|Savok]] 16:40, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

=== Talk pages ===

The current standard seems to be to never put a blank line in a comment by a single users, except in highly lengthy comments, and to always put exactly one blank line between comments by different users, because that's what I say in [[Template:Newbie]], but is that correct? --[[User:Savok|Savok]] 16:40, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

== Italian Wiki ==

Hi! 
I've just ask to Tarn to open an italian guide on this wiki.. so can i do it? --[[User:Marte]]

:No, this wiki is english only. You're free, however, to make an Italian DF wiki... I'm not sure how that works, though, so don't ask me. --[[User:Savok|Savok]] 22:29, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

i need an answer about this.. who can help me?

== Wikprojects ==

Do we have wikiprojects like Wikipedia? I want to start one on making sure answers to the [http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=ff2b3eb60775033d8509fa42a227db08&board=7.0 DF gameplay questions] in the forum are in the wiki. [[User:DanielLC|DanielLC]] 15:18, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

== footnotes ==

Before Wikipedia had <ref>, there were some templates they used to get about the same effect with a little more awkwardness - I can find them and get it working here if anyone wants. [[User:Random832|Random832]] 13:11, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

== Pictures ==

How about RL pictures of things like minerals, etc, that people may not be able to easily visualize? [[User:Random832|Random832]] 00:09, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

:I agree. Can someone edit [[Template:Stone layer]] to allow pictures of the actual stone? I'd be happy to contribute pictures after that. I suggest using the pictures on [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikimedia Commons]. [[User:DanielLC|DanielLC]] 23:39, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

::We already link to the relevant Wikipedia article on all the stone and ore pages (at the bottom of that template). No need to bring all the pictures over here when they're just a click away. --[[User:Turgid Bolk|Turgid Bolk]] 14:43, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

== {{[[Template:a|a]]|anchor|name}} ==

<s>Can someone make that using my [[Template:Sandbox|quick mockup of the concept]] of anchor tags without the anchor tags? I'm busy trying to not get caught using the computer. --[[User:GreyMario|GreyMaria]] 23:14, 6 November 2008 (EST)</s>

:Nevermind, I just did it. :V --[[User:GreyMario|GreyMaria]] 17:01, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Worldgen artificial features ==

I.e. sites, roads, etc.

Right now, we have [[site]] which covers pretty much everything about buildings, [[road]] which has a section covering roads and bridges, and dwarf/goblin tunnels are briefly mentioned in both.

So, gathering opinions time - do you think we should have one article encompassing everything, one about sites and one about road/bridge/tunnel, or a different article about each map feature. And how do adventure-mode caravans fit in?

[[User:Random832|Random832]] 13:09, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Redirects with potential ==

I recently saw a link changed on the grounds of "when you can, don't link to a redirect" - I disagree with this - I think that when there is potential for a topic to eventually get an article of its own, links relating to that topic should go to that title so that they don't have to be altered when that article is created. [[User:Random832|Random832]] 08:34, 20 November 2008 (EST)

:In general I agree with you. I also advocate the use of sensible synonym and alternate word form redirects, such as [[architect]] for [[building designer]], or [[reveal]] for [[revealed tile]] -- this makes it much easier to link things that need linking without having to pipe all the time. (For the uninitiated, a piped link is like so: <nowiki>[[what it points to|what is displayed]]</nowiki>.) The cost to the server for handling a redirect is negligible, according to the devs of the MediaWiki software, so we should take advantage of them, where it makes sense to do so.

:In the particular case, I didn't contradict the poster because a) the redirect linked to didn't have much potential ("shore", was it?) and b) it was a piped link anyway. By the time you're going to pipe a link, at least use one that makes sense. A subsequent editor addressed that issue.--[[User:Maximus|Maximus]] 12:36, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Right, I just meant as a general principle. [[User:Random832|Random832]] 16:25, 24 November 2008 (EST)

== Creature articles of little significance ==

I just stumbled on [[Whale shark]] - there are numerous articles like this - and while there are plenty of creatures that are "notable" (either due to historical notoriety like the [[carp]] or [[elephant]], or due to some unique aspect of their behavior like the [[rhesus macaque]]), there's lots that are pretty much just name/tile/stats. Anyone have any thoughts on merging them into sensible categories? [[User:Random832|Random832]] 16:25, 24 November 2008 (EST)

:An article with just stats is unimpressive, but I'd rather have the stats than not. Merging them would be ugly unless the stats were removed, so I don't think there's any benefit to merging them.--[[User:Maximus|Maximus]] 20:00, 24 November 2008 (EST)

== New version approaching ==

Yes, I know it's likely not coming until april, but the new version will have some significant differences to the current one, particularly where combat is concerned. Shall we make a category and notice template in order to tag places that will likely need revision come april (or whenever it's done) in order to get a head start on organization? [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] 15:36, 25 December 2008 (EST)

:It's hard to correctly anticipate what will need changing. Better to wait until we have it in front of us, I think.--[[User:Maximus|Maximus]] 16:09, 25 December 2008 (EST)

== Thoughts on {{rule|i}} - Diagrams ==

Isn't [[Template:RT]] really more complexity than we need? How about this?

<pre style="font:bold 20px/1 'Courier New';color:#ccc;background:black;width:auto;padding:0;float:left">
╔═══╗
║+++║
║+++┼
║+++║
╚═══╝
</pre>{{-}}

Save the complex templates for when you actually need color

You can even drop the complexity further for a nice typewriter character set
<pre style="font:bold 20px/1 'Courier New';color:#ccc;background:black;width:auto;padding:0;float:left">
#####
#...#
#...+
#...#
#####
</pre>{{-}}

(I picked this particular size because it makes ░░░▒▒▒▓▓▓ look right in them, which makes it seem that it's the size the font is designed for. I picked this _font_ because it provides all of the CP437 characters. The actual style tag you see above could be moved to a template so it would look like <code><pre <nowiki>{{TD}}</nowiki>></code>)

[[User:Random832|Random832]] 20:28, 30 December 2008 (EST)

== Mod content in regular articles ==

"All mod content, it has been stated, should not appear in the regular articles." --[[User:Zchris13]], at [[Talk:Sand]] 
If I recall correctly, one guy stated that yesterday. Personally, I find it rather counter-DF: 
"In Dwarf Fortress, modding almost ''is'' vanilla." --[[User:Savok]], at the [http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php forums] 
Opinions? Beliefs? Comments? Thoughts? Please, answer this, The Community! --[[User:Savok|Savok]] 11:24, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

:I'm probably the one who you're thinking of who stated it ;)
:#I don't think that modding is ''ever'' vanilla, no matter what the game, how mod-friendly the game is, or how many mods exist. Saying that it's incredibly common does not change the definition of the term "unmodded".
:#I think that modding information would be better served by putting it in one place. It's easier to figure out modding and/or find the information you need if it's all on one page (or a small number of pages). And if the information is there, why would you ''also'' put it on ''every single other article in the wiki''?
:#Whenever the ways something can be modded changes, every single article about that something would have to be changed. If a new way to mod metals, for example, was added, then every single metal article would have to be changed to reflect this.
:#tl;dr version: I think it would be horrifically redundant even by typical wiki standards and would never be maintained anyways (seriously, there are still pages that haven't been updated since the 2D version). And that's even before you think about whether it ''should'' be done at all.
:--[[User:LegacyCWAL|LegacyCWAL]] 13:10, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

::Sorry, couldn't find it in all of yesterday's edits.
::#Yeah, I shouldn't go changing my definitions of words. What I mean is "modding is normal."
::#I agree partially, but, since light modding is normal and mainstream, it should go in normal and mainstream articles.
::#No, every article that mentioned metal-modding. And I don't think that there are too many non-modding articles that do.
::#TL/DR: I think that a little mentioning of modding (for example, stating in [[Sand]] that you can mod any soil into sand (although that's a bit obvious)) is fine, although I fully agree that all possible topic-related modding should not be mentioned.
::--[[User:Savok|Savok]] 18:45, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

:::I think I can live with that ;). Also, I appreciate the reformatting: I couldn't find the instructions on how to make such a list, though odds are it's right in front of me =( --[[User:LegacyCWAL|LegacyCWAL]] 19:41, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Heading gripe ==

I'd like to add to H that one shouldn't use heading sections of one = because it results in bad html coding and a title the size of the page name. It's also general practice on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Section#Creation_and_numbering_of_sections wikipedia]. Anyways, I thought I'd post something here before I go ahead and change it so I can at least pretend to have discussed it before hand. --[[User:Mikaka|Mikaka]] 05:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

== Modding content ==
Is this, [[New_Plants]], really how we do it? Frankly, i found it a bit confusing at first. At least it should get a better header. --[[User:Confused|Confused]] 00:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

== JavaScript seems disabled ==

The collapsible box doesn't seems collapsible anymore. I don't see the [show]/[hide] anymore either, since the wiki broke. Am I the only one with this trouble ? --[[User:Karl|Karl]] 01:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:Apparently it's fixed now, at least for me. I have found that my browser cache can screw with these things on other wikis so no reason why it wouldn't happen here. Javascript becomes disabled on client web browsers far more often than it does on web hosts/sites which previously allowed it. (Possibly belatedly I know.)[[User:GarrieIrons|Gar]][[User Talk:GarrieIrons|rie]] 03:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

== We spoil. Do we spoil too much? Do we detail pointlessly? ==

As everyone knows, the wiki spoils everything about Dwarf Fortress. We have a spoiler-warning system, but it's quite disused. I think one guy said that it's pointless, because we need to put it on every page, because every page is a spoiler. We have a tendency to detail everything, much of which isn't helpful to newbies but ruins a little the delight a newbie can take in DF that no longer exists for us veterans.

For example, to quote the page [[woodcutter]], "Woodcutters are working outdoors where they are in constant danger of being [[ambush]]ed by invaders or attacked by wild animals (unless, of course, you are the proud owner of an [[Tower-cap#Underground_tree_farm|underground tree farm]]), but they are also one of the few civilian professions which carry [[weapons]] with them. Thus, it can be helpful to teach them how to use their axes to defend themselves (and others) properly by making them spend a few months as [[axedwarf]]s in your [[military]]."

Here, all that really should be noted is that woodcutting skill does not help in combat. Yes, another problem with the wiki as it is is that we often assume that newbies know a lot of stuff they don't, making even DFwiki have a steep learning curve - a bit ironic. Regardless, pointless detail such as in the above article not only does not help but hurts, making the wiki dry and boring.

I propose that we write into our little [[Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Community Portal|constitution]] a guideline to avoid such detail in addition to removing large amounts from the wiki, fixing the pages. Of course, this is a major undertaking, not to just be done. What do y'all think? Agree? Argue? Please do comment. --[[User:Savok|Savok]] 02:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
:Wikis attract wikignomes who like to tinker and add information to articles until they are "complete". Attempting to define how much information can be added before an article is "over-complete" is pretty difficult.
:Is there a policy that this wiki must not spoil the game for new players?
:There are a lot of different reasons people read this wiki - it isn't just a hosted version of the wonderful instruction manual that is included with the game. Would [[computing]] be possible without collaboration (between players), which is nothing but spoiling?
:The answers would lie in either seperate articles, or some kind of template which hides information regarded as a spoiler.
:There is this option:
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="width: 100%; background-color: lightblue;"
!colspan="1"| Basic intrduction
|-
|Woodcutters cut down trees.
|-
|}
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="width: 100%; background-color: lightblue;"
!colspan="1"| Minor spoiler
|-
| They are one of a few civilian trades which involves carrying a weapon. In hostile areas you might want to consider training woodcutters as Axedwarves.
|-
{| class="collapsible" style="width: 100%; background-color: lightblue;"
!colspan="1"| Major spoiler
|-
|Another option on some maps is establishing an underground tree farm.
|-
|}

:However that requires some knowledge of either wikimarkup or html - tbh I just cookbooked it and it took me a fair bit of messing around before I got it right the first time.
:Another option is, linked articles, where you go from [[Woodcutter (base)]] to [[Woodcutter (minor spoiler)]] to [[Woodcutter (major spoiler)]] - it would be easy enough to include (base) in (minor spoiler) and (minor spoiler) in (major spoiler).

:I think "enough" readers ''want'' the major spoilers that taking them out would "degrade" this wiki.
:[[User:GarrieIrons|Gar]][[User Talk:GarrieIrons|rie]] 03:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

::I just re-read [[woodcutter]] in full. IMO the article builds nicely from the basic "how to cut trees" to more advanced gameplay strategy, such as "enable woodcutting on every outdoor worker so they all carry weapons". Personally I don't see that as being a good value strategy, for the work involved in equipping that many dwarves with axes you could have a fairly useful (specialised) millitary - but it isn't the first thing a spoiler-adverse reader stumbles over. If it was the first thing in the article it would be a far greater problem.[[User:GarrieIrons|Gar]][[User Talk:GarrieIrons|rie]] 03:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

:I'm going to agree with Garrie on this. Counting me, there's at least one person who would not have stuck with DF if he hadn't had access to a thorough DF reference library such as this. When a new player comes to this wiki, odds are they're looking to have ''something'' spoiled.
:One vote for 'Not Too Spoiled' --[[User:Njero|Njero]] 03:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)