User talk:Speed112

Masterwork quality

Cave spiders are pretty important. As an economic creature and the safest source of silk, they can have a fair amount written about them. How much can really be said about an acacia tree or a black diamond, though? Once you have linked to the appropriate labors and described where to find it, a material article is pretty well done, in my opinion. – unsigned comment by JohnnyMadhouse

I really don't think it's necessary to add images beyond the df tiles for most articles, and adding the real life information is just extraneous nonsense that doesn't help anything. Every mineral article has a link to the wikipedia page on the same subject already (in the side chart), we simply do not require a chemical formula and a crystal matrix diagram for every mineral on a wiki devoted to Dwarf Fortress gameplay.

For vermin articles, it makes sense to have a longer article for the economically important cave spider. For mineral articles, it makes sense to have a longer article for the rare and game specific adamantine. A D for Dwarf section for minerals like chert is simply unreasonable, and would take away from the specific purpose of the wiki, which is information first.

Look at the masterwork standards:

   *  Is comprehensive on the subject
   * Contains no unverified information
   * Has an appropriate number of outbound links
   * No redlinks are present
   * Links only contain links of type Template:L except where a link to another namespace is required
   * Is properly categorized
   * The article has multiple editors 

Source: http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Quality#Masterwork#ixzz0obgnkFEJ

All of the mineral articles fulfill these obligations. They are as comprehensive on the subject at hand as necessary, because this is a game, not a geology lesson. If players are interested in geology, they can find the information they need more effectively elsewhere.

JohnnyMadhouse 22:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Cease and desist request

Acknowledged, I will hold off on rating further. JohnnyMadhouse 23:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Waterfalls

See what you think!JohnnyMadhouse 19:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that artifical waterfalls created with pumps should be included in the pump article, since the article is included under the world features category. In retrospect, I should have looked at the 40d article before adding to the 2010 one. Whoops! JohnnyMadhouse 20:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)