User talk:VengefulDonut

Welcome to this wiki! Dwarf Fortress rapidly becomes more complicated, and we're always glad to have new writers.
Since you should try to follow wiki standards, and you probably don't know ours yet, we've made a list of basic guidelines. Note that this is a template, not a customized message for you.

To tell us who you are when you talk, please sign your posts on discussion pages by typing --~~~~ after your posts. This can also be inserted with the button if JavaScript is enabled.
Don't put a question mark in the title of a page. Question marks mess things up, and your page will be moved to a different name.
When making comments on a talk page, use one more colon before each line in your comment than was used in the comment you reply to. In general, put exactly one empty line between comments by different users but do not use blank lines inside of a comment.
Avoid making many small edits to a page. Instead, try to make one large edit. This makes the history of the page a lot easier to read.
Don't edit the user page of another user. If you want to tell them something, add the comment to their talk page.
If you put a comment at the bottom of a talk page with section headers, you've probably put it in a section. Putting things in the wrong sections is confusing. You can create a section!
Generally, read and follow the rules. They're like a little constitution, except not boring! Really, read them.

"You have been processed! Go forth, now, and edit!" --Savok

Templates and RGB values

Mediawiki hates me - it refuses to let {{fgcolor}} (and {{bgcolor}}) work correctly unless they're inserted in the middle of an HTML tag (and it must be an HTML tag - a style attribute in a wiki-markup table does NOT count). Excuse me while I go sit in a corner and whimper. --Quietust 17:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be working.

VengefulDonut 07:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course, now a far more insidious problem has shown up - if the fgcolor and bgcolor templates are used more than 100 times in a particular page (a single {{Raw Tile}} uses each once), all subsequent transclusions turn up empty. I can only assume it's doing too many regular expressions, but it can't be that many, given how simple the templates are... --Quietust 20:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

For now, I've switched the templates back to 128-case #switch statements, and the problem seems to have gone away. Still, it seems odd that #rmatch and #rreplace would just stop working after being used 100 times in a single page. --Quietust 21:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The regex functions extension has an option that determines what the limit per page is. If you need a larger number, you can ask Breiss to raise the limit. VengefulDonut 01:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Raw

I've just adapted {{gamedata}} to attempt to fetch creature raws from "raws" pages similar to the stone/gem templates (except using an extra pair of templates to transform the page name into a CREATURE id and the name of the file that contains the raws, though the former could probably be skipped by just matching against "[NAME:foo:bar:baz]") - it works, but {{raw}} strips out all of the linebreaks and spaces between tokens. How hard would it be to make a version of {{raw}} (or add a parameter) that doesn't do that? --Quietust 18:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, figured it out myself and saved it as {{raw2}}. Of course, now the trick will be to make it so {{gamedata}} supports raw lookups for things other than creatures (possibly by simply giving it a "type" parameter - CREATURE, MATGLOSS, INORGANIC, PLANT, etc.)... --Quietust 18:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It already has a type parameter Oo VengefulDonut 23:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to {{gamedata}} (which I've currently hardcoded to CREATURE because it doesn't take any parameters), not {{Raw}}. I'll probably just split it into several different templates and have the various infobox templates include the appropriate one. --Quietust 23:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

RAWs

Is there any way we can categorize the RAW files? Perhaps by having a <noinclude>{{category|Raws}}</noinclude> at the bottom? Or would that break your system? Mason ^(T-C) 14:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I am. Mason ^(T-C) 14:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little OCD about that sort of stuff, and if you looked at the RC you probably saw my ongoing attempt to organize things, I saw those pages and just ignored them because I didn't want to break things :). But if that can happen that'd be great. Thanks! Mason ^(T-C) 14:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Stones, gems, and /raw

In the process of creating all of the templates to handle the various /raw pages, I included the ones necessary for stones, gems, and metals. How much work would it be for you to change your stonelookup/layerlookup/gemlookup templates to read their data directly from the corresponding /raw page instead of fetching it directly from the corresponding inorganic.txt file? I haven't created said /raw pages yet, but it'd be trivial to do so. --Quietust 04:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It would not be a difficult change. VengefulDonut 05:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy

I don't get exactly what this is all about. I guess you disapprove with how I handled the "quality" stuff. But I think I did exactly what you said I should do, which is "disregard the lot and do what you think is correct". It seems in this case that you were "the lot", but I assume even in those cases you'd still offer the same advice. Mason ^(T-C) 17:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

DF2010:Quality

I don't believe the revert was justified, as I went through all the content I copied, commented out stuff I was very sure was wrong, but had a possibility of being right, put ^[Verify] tags on things that were likely correct, but had a possibility of being wrong (I think I put in four, admittedly one of which was on the value modifier for Masterwork items because it was higher than the known stated value (what little you left behind) for artifacts), and removed things that I was sure were no longer relevant. I turned a blank page into an actual, decent, article.--74.103.148.193 23:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess the ^[Verify] tag is pointless then. Alright then I guess I'll just shut the fuck up and not bother helping out anymore, because clearly, I'm not wanted.--Draco18s 04:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"...a blank page was more beneficial to the end user..." As an "end user" a blank page is never beneficial. As an "end user" I would rather have duplicated, mostly correct, information than have to navigate an additional link. I apologize for being bold and trying to help.--Draco18s 17:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)