- 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 "Talk:Main Page/archive2"
(Articles on Olivine and other generic stones) |
(→Articles on Olivine and other generic stones: Weighing in) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
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) | 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) | ||
Revision as of 23:54, 19 May 2009
|
| Archives |
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. --Timmeh 01:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
French language wiki
Can we have interlanguage links with the French wiki? -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. – unsigned comment by Blackdoggie998
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. --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. -Edward 23:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)