- v50 information can now be added to pages in the main namespace. v0.47 information can still be found in the DF2014 namespace. See here for more details on the new versioning policy.
- Use this page to report any issues related to the migration.
Difference between revisions of "40d Talk:Chalk"
m (bad plan) |
(→Page 1 of my penance: On generic info) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
::Well, it's certainly thorough. Whether it's formatted in a way that's user-friendly is another question. And it runs blatantly against the current standardized format - so unless you're going to take responsibility for changing ''every'' stone page to fit this format, you should hold off. (You deleted the Template - it was made for a reason, so a User can glance at a similar page and compare/contrast at a glance - impossible with this monster.) You should also hold off on such a radical change until bouncing it off a discussion page or three - see current conversation on the Main Page.--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 09:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC) | ::Well, it's certainly thorough. Whether it's formatted in a way that's user-friendly is another question. And it runs blatantly against the current standardized format - so unless you're going to take responsibility for changing ''every'' stone page to fit this format, you should hold off. (You deleted the Template - it was made for a reason, so a User can glance at a similar page and compare/contrast at a glance - impossible with this monster.) You should also hold off on such a radical change until bouncing it off a discussion page or three - see current conversation on the Main Page.--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 09:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::This page contains all generic info on sedimentary stone. I very much suggest the generic info be kept in the sedimentary article, with the chalk-specific info either here, or in a flux stone subsection on the sedimentary page, and in a sub-subsection on chalk. --[[User:Nahno|Nahno]] 13:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 13:55, 21 May 2009
Am I the only one who finds it weird to make things out of chalk? --Blakyoshi7 00:42, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
- Aye. Ye are, lad. --Savok 09:09, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
- It would be funny if they could make chalk engravings on a blackboard. Then they could use it to teach dwarves! --AlexFili 04:11, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
- Until the engravers decide to start engraving melting dwarves. On second thought, maybe the kids should learn some history. Of the Boatmurdered variety. Those kids won't sleep for weeks. --Smartmo 16:27, 13 January 2009 (EST)
Page 1 of my penance
I know there's a lot of data on the new Chalk page that can be found other places. I mostly just cut and pasted from the full listings, deleting what wasn't relavent. I am happy to use this format and level of detail for all of the other stones, (one or two a day) if someone will simply say "Good job, Jaz. Do it again." ... On the other hand, if you think it's too cluttered, or whatever, then... It's easy enough to put it back the way it was. Even if you don't say "Do it again, Jaz." I am likely to do another few stones tomorrow... uh, later today. After I sleep. Sleep first, other stone pages after...
I do find one thing lacking in the new page. There is no humor. That is because I, sadly, am humor impared.
If there is something I did wrong, (like missing an entry or putting one in that doesn't belong) let me know, I will do my best to fix it. Assuming you didn't do it already, in which case, let me know anyways. I like to know what I need to keep an eye out for in the future. If the wrong thing was doing this page at all in the first place, a simple "Stop, Jaz, we don't like it" will suffice.
And yes, I know, I talk too much. --User:Teres Draconis 07:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- I can't quickly see what makes chalk different from a dozen other stones - I'll read the groupings on the "Stone" page for that. So I don't think it needs its own page. Precious/semi-precious/flux/coloured-but-useless - that's all I need to know until Toady tweaks the stone announcements. --Jellyfishgreen 09:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it's certainly thorough. Whether it's formatted in a way that's user-friendly is another question. And it runs blatantly against the current standardized format - so unless you're going to take responsibility for changing every stone page to fit this format, you should hold off. (You deleted the Template - it was made for a reason, so a User can glance at a similar page and compare/contrast at a glance - impossible with this monster.) You should also hold off on such a radical change until bouncing it off a discussion page or three - see current conversation on the Main Page.--Albedo 09:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- This page contains all generic info on sedimentary stone. I very much suggest the generic info be kept in the sedimentary article, with the chalk-specific info either here, or in a flux stone subsection on the sedimentary page, and in a sub-subsection on chalk. --Nahno 13:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)