User talk:GarrieIrons

This is my talk page. You might like to email me instead, I will probably check that more often. --GarrieIrons 03:04, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Welcome to this wiki! Dwarf Fortress rapidly becomes more complicated, and we're always glad to have new writers.
Since we request that you try to follow DFwiki standards, we've made a list of basic guidelines to follow. Also, this is a template, some may not apply to you.

• To let us know who you are, please sign your posts on discussion pages by typing "--~~~~" after your posts. This can also be inserted with the button if Javascript is enabled.
• Avoid making a dozen small edits to a page, instead making one large edit. This makes the history of the page a lot easier to read and avoids cluttering the Recent changes page.
• When making comments on a talk page, if you are replying to a comment, use one more indent than the comment you are replying to. As indents are created with :'s at the begining of line, you'd use ::::: at the begining if you were replying to a 4-indent comment. Put an empty line between comments by others and you but not in the middle of your own comment.
• Most importantly, read and follow the rules.

--Savok 12:59, 5 February 2008 (EST)

Stone

Could you explain why you a removing category:stone from things which are clearly stones? VengefulDonut 10:51, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Ah, I see how you want to set it up. However, I think we should consider alternative ways to set up the subcategories. VengefulDonut 10:54, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Hi Vengeful (thought better not use the initials ?). As you seem to have worked out - Category:Ore etc are subcats of Category:Stone, so articles don't need to be members of both - especially when there are great list articles about the place, which I am more than happy to contribute to.

I'd rather be bold than wait for others to agree, but I won't object if someone reverts it because it's too logical but not common sense.GarrieIrons 01:36, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Here's the problem as I see it with stones in general. Each of them falls under several types of subcats (with different kinds of relationships). All ores are economic stones. Some, but not all, economic stones are in sedimentary layers. Maybe there should even be a category for layer-type stones, which would also intersect (but not contain nor be contained by) economic stones. While I like the idea of partitioning the stone category, I would only want to do it if an elegant way is found. These are the possible categories a stone can fall under and their relationships:

- x	Economic	Non-Economic	Ore	Layer-type	Sed	Ig.Extr.	Ig.Intr.	Metamorphic	Generic
Economic	x	Mut.Exclusive	Contains	Intersects	Intersects	Intersects	Intersects	Intersects	Mut.Exclusive
Non-Economic	Mut.Exclusive	x	Mut.Exclusive	Intersects	Intersects	Intersects	Intersects	Intersects	Contains
Ore	Subset	Mut.Exclusive	x	Mut.Exclusive	Intersects	Intersects	Intersects	Intersects	Mut.Exclusive
Layer-type	Intersects	Intersects	Mut.Exclusive	x	Intersects	Intersects	Intersects	Intersects	Mut.Exclusive
Sed	Intersects	Intersects	Intersects	Intersects	x	Intersects	Intersects	Intersects	Intersects
Ig.Extr.	Intersects	Intersects	Intersects	Intersects	Intersects	x	Intersects	Intersects	Intersects
Ig.Intr.	Intersects	Intersects	Intersects	Intersects	Intersects	Intersects	x	Intersects	Intersects
Metamorphic	Intersects	Intersects	Intersects	Intersects	Intersects	Intersects	Intersects	x	Intersects
Generic	Mut.Exclusive	Subset	Mut.Exclusive	Mut.Exclusive	Intersects	Intersects	Intersects	Intersects	x

The fact that economic and non-economic stones are mutually exclusive makes it tempting to partition them that way, but there are other possible arrangements with the same qualifications — I don't think any of them are very appealing. The reason I made the big lump in the first place was because of this very problem. VengefulDonut 02:27, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Although the ores do have an economic purpose - in-game they are seperate classes at least per the stockpile menu. I think as much as possible, the groupings in-game are the best ones to use because after all this is a wiki about a single game universe. The layers etc are observed characteristics of that universe but they are not immediately noticable and less likely search criterion for gamers seeking info (once you know the other mechanics chances are you know which ones are stones vs gems).GarrieIrons 04:03, 12 February 2008 (EST)