v0.31 Talk:Glass industry

How much of this should be copied from the 40d article? The only real difference I can see is that now sand is a trade good and can be chosen on embark. Otherwise, it seems pretty much identical. That being said, I don't see why we should say "Consult the 40d article, except sand is easier to get" if the goal is to create a stand-alone DF2010 section. --Shadowfury333 23:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that flowchart doesn't work

On Firefox 3.7, IE 8.0 and IE 9.0PP4, that flowchart doesn't work. I'd take a snapshot of it in chrome, and replace it with an image, if we all agree on that. Plus, it's never a good idea to use tables for that kind of stuff, because it is something the MagmaWiki skin can break. So? --Dree12 18:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The flowchart is incorrect too. It shows: "Wood industry" -> "Ashery" -> "Pearlash". The correct chart would show of course: "Wood industry" -> "Wood burner" (-> "Ash") -> "Ashery" (-> "Potash") -> "Kiln" -> "Pearlash" --83.119.189.36 21:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... There's generally no point in using a table for this, other than text sizing. The arrows are images too, which causes all sorts of link trouble. If there's more of a consensus, we should just make a new one. --Dree12 01:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Masterwork?

Are you joking? The article is hardly aesthetically pleasing , what with that broken flowchart. A flowchart which takes up half of the page space. Don't worry about changing the rating, though, I'll just upload my personal flowchart on the subject and replace it when I get home from work. It looks nice, and screwy tables won't break it. --Kydo 21:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, there, a clean flowchart. It looks a little intimidating, probably because of just how much stuff it contains. Any suggestions on how to make it look friendlier without detracting from it's detail? --Kydo 07:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)