40d Talk:Soap

As a construction material

Can you actually build things out of soap? I'm going to have to give this a try, and make the cleanest fortress ever. Maybe build a swimming pool out of it and force my miners to have a bath. Dangerous Beans 22:07, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Bars is bars, I see no reason why not. I believe you can make things out of charcoal and ash and such, too. Bryan Derksen 22:48, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Better question- will water damage or wash away a soap wall, bridge, or other object? Hmm. --Eddie 03:24, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Based on what I've seen so far (wooden walls being untouched by magma) I believe that water will not damage any structures made of soap, I could be terribly wrong though, just give it a try? --Eb 05:45, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

I started a game with the intention to make a giant soap-bubble for my dwarves to live in. From this experience, I found that it takes a LONG time to even get started building anything sizeable from soap. And, unless you trade for all your lye, you'll get through a LOT of wood, too! I got bored before too long. :( --Raumkraut 06:24, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

quality?

By any chance, does soap gain quality modifiers? If so, a fortress built from masterpiece soap would be quite valuable and clean indeed. I assume not, since soap is a bar type, but I figured I'd ask anyway. --Lightning4 12:47, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

I don't believe that soap would have quality modifiers, unless if it were made into soap crafts or something. If you smelt ore into bars it doesn't have any quality modifiers, so I presume that soap acts the same until it is processed into some other item. --Eb 10:44, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Deletion of color info

Why is it important to you to remove the color info? You are removing relevant information about the game because

• "colors differ with settings and tilesets"
• "in no(?) other articles is "building color" a concern"

The first reason is completely against the spirit of the wiki. All of the articles on here are about vanilla DF and this often shows through. The second reason is blatantly false. Counterexamples include: the gem page, which has a giant table including colors. The skill page, which you worked on, has skills grouped by color. Every individual metal page, stone page, and (almost) every creature page has an example of object color. VengefulDonut 12:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC) PS: In your eagerness to undo my edit, you also undid the grammatical corrections I made. Is there a reason you think the page should contain grammatical errors?

I would go with Venge on this one - it is valid information. It's not really to us to decide if it's important. --Koltom 15:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My original edit was based on the previous two changes - one which stated that soap buildings were "light grey", and the next which stated they were "white". This struck me as trivial to the point of diminishing returns, and, imo, added nothing pertinent to the wiki, regardless of any basis in fact. Light grey, white, noodles, not noodles - sometimes colors are important - professions, for instance, and certainly the ability to ID ~raw~ materials. But this is not on a par with that, which is distinctly different from a building, which is an end product - if someone wants to build it out of soap, or whatever, it's done. I could not see this info as adding anything, and it suggests the need for parallel info on all materials - which also adds nothing.

I guess, specifically - it's not specific. Can you suggest any time you would want to tell, at a glance, which buildings were made from "anything that produces a white building"? (or light grey, whichever is correct.) If it was just soap - maybe - but it's not. Not even close.

re grammatical errours - I've seen you do the same. In your eagerness. Easy to do.--Albedo 16:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)