User talk:VengefulDonut

Welcome to this wiki! Dwarf Fortress rapidly becomes more complicated, and we're always glad to have new writers.
Since we prefer that you try to follow our wiki's standards, we've made a list of basic guidelines. This is a template.

• 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.
• Never 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. Put exactly one empty line between comments by different users but do not use blank lines inside of a comment. If your comment has no indents, use <br> after each line.
• 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. Don't put things in the wrong sections. If necessary, create a section.
• Most importantly, read and follow the rules. Really. Read them.

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

Well, since linking externally isn't popular, and copying part-content isn't popular, might as well give up --TinyPirate 05:11, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Re Parser Functions: Hmm... it was working in august, and supposedly in january at some point. I guess i'll have to stop using my templates that relies on it, even though it was working back in august. :| thanks for the info -- Vaevictus 02:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Why did you revert my work on the Metal page about the different Value gains for making Billon with different ores?--Mrdudeguy 05:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

re stones

Thanks for the input - don't want to overstep trying to be "helpful" if I'm working off of bad info. But is a vein of Al an anomaly in the current version? I'm unsure how to read the RAW's at that level.

(edit) - matgloss_stone_mineral says...

"[ENVIRONMENT:IGNEOUS_EXTRUSIVE:CLUSTER_SMALL:100]" 

- is that supposed to be small clusters only? --Albedo 07:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"Refined Coal" vs "Fuel"

Hey - okay, I've learned a lot since the above changes. About the game, about this wiki - thanks again for your comments. On a different subject...

I find the term "refined coal" unnecessarily confusing. Refined coal, charcoal, bituminous coal - and coke (which is like coal, right?). But doesn't only mined coal get refined? Wood is not refined - charcoal is not coal - does charcoal get refined after it's produced? Bleh. When I first read that page, a day-one n00b in the game, it was complete gibberish, and even now it takes some wading through. Maybe I'm over-thinking it, but still...

I never see the term "refined coal" used anywhere in the game or forums. However, you are the one who originally changed the designated term from fuel to rc in the first place, over a year ago...

"6:28, 21 February 2008 VengefulDonut (Talk | contribs) m (Refined Coal moved to Refined coal: in accordance to naming conventions)"

What are the "naming conventions" you are referring to? Was that simply to match the term used in the article to the page title?

I'd like to put that entire article under "Fuel", and retire the term "refined coal" in favor of that word. Nothing else need change - with the exception of that one term, the page as is would be copied/pasted and moved whole cloth. (Currently, "fuel" redirects to the "refined coal" page.) A short explanation on th RC page, to save the history & directing people to Fuel. Redirects from "charcoal" and "coke" would go to "fuel". Any coal would then be either Bituminous or Char-, and the world a little brighter. imo.

But, while "B" is for Bold, I thought there was nothing lost in asking your opinion on the move first, since you were the one to see cause to change it in the first place. (respond on my page or in forums if you'd prefer) --Albedo 22:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

While it is true that I moved the page to "Refined coal", the page I moved it from was 
"Refined Coal".... 
...However, if it still does then "refined coal" is a more suitable name than "fuel" since only 
"refined coal" appears in-game. VengefulDonut 06:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC) 

Ah - all I could tell from the history was that you were the first to replace the term "fuel" with refined coal". Hmmm - when you have none and try to queue a task at a conventional smelter, you get the message "Must have coal fuel" - yet another vague and inaccurate term with "coal" - bonus. When you have some but run out before your queued tasks are complete, you get the "jpb cancels smelt <ore>: needs refined coal" message you are remembering. So much for in-game consistency (much less clarity).

The term "fuel" is what's used commonly (if informally) as a clear catch-all for both types - when you read the instructions "you need fuel for a smelter", that's both accurate and not misleading. A wiki needs to be sensitive to both the game and the players' usage, neh? The problem here is threefold - 1) that there is no single term, 2) that the (now two!) game terms are brutally misleading, and 3) that the chosen page title "refined coal" does necessarily refer to either "refined" nor "coal" - and all that should be made clearer, and avoid trying to use 4 terms with the word "coal" in them, including three that don't actually, technically refer only to coal. And all the more so since the in-game text doesn't go there.

If we direct both "coal fuel" and "refined coal" to a small explanation page, and then added a separate page to fully explain the concept of "fuel" (as the current page attempts, but without being a slave to the term "refined coal"), do you think that would cover it? Despite the confusion in the code, we can engineer a clear(er) understanding of what's going on for the new reader, which we don't have now.

Maybe something like this:

Refined coal and Coal fuel are both in-game terms for Fuel.  At a conventional (non-magma) smelter, 
cancellation the messages using these terms refer to the fact that there is no high-quality fuel available 
to fire the smelter.
However, due to confusion between the terms "refined coal", "coal fuel", "charcoal", "bituminous coal", 
and "coke", the term "fuel" is now more commonly seen and used, and you are now referred to that page.

Then, under "fuel" and using that term, each are explained clearly but without unnecessarily confusing terminology. If I were to do something along these lines and it's both clear and complete without being contradictory to the game terms, would you object? Because as is it's almost useless to newbies - we only understand it after we've played and figured it out ourselves, and that's not the point. --Albedo 10:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Good advice, all makes sense, thanks. It's up. --Albedo 23:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

metal table

Inspired by the sortable gem table, I've beaten the metal#List of metals into submission - mostly. How to make colors sortable eludes me. You did the work to achieve that on the gems - if you care to repeat your magic, or point me where to find out how to. --Albedo 07:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Completely by chance I stumbled on the solution to sorting the metal table - now fixed - explanation in my talk page.--Albedo 01:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Assorted armor articles

If you're not sure about something, please confirm it in talk pages rather than editing it into an article and leaving others to correct it. I suggest you read armor for a clearer understanding of the rules governing what clothes you can wear over others. VengefulDonut 02:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't make head nor tail of that article. It's a jumbled mess, and needs fixing. So either help fix it, or stop complaining. Although, yeah, I should have asked someone. Like you. What the heck are the rules about wearing items?!?--Zchris13 03:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"Help fix it or stop complaining" you say. I actually don't have a problem with how the armor article is right now. The in-game system is wacky and convoluted. My grasp on it is far from complete, and several of the tags completely throw me for a loop. Armor really is your best bet. If that's too difficult for you, you're better off working on a different topic. I think common sense says that you need to know something yourself in order to teach others about it. VengefulDonut 04:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I get how it works. I don't get how that article works. Although I am a little fuzzy on some of the specifics, such as tunics vs. shirts. --Zchris13 04:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If you get how it works, why are high boots not better than low boots? :P VengefulDonut 04:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

you can't wear them with something, due to the way the coverage works. And they weigh a bunch more. Something to do with how much of the leg they cover.--Zchris13 04:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe. I'm not sure, just something floating in the back of my head.

It's because they are completely identical except for their weight and material size. VengefulDonut 04:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

lies.--Zchris13 05:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

[ITEM_SHOES:ITEM_SHOES_BOOTS]	[ITEM_SHOES:ITEM_SHOES_BOOTS_LOW]
[NAME:high boot:high boots]]	[NAME:low boot:low boots]
[WEIGHT:20]	[WEIGHT:15]
[VALUE:15]	[VALUE:15]
[ARMORLEVEL:1]	[ARMORLEVEL:1]
[BLOCKPOWER:60]	[BLOCKPOWER:60]
[UPSTEP:1]	No corresponding tag
[METAL_ARMOR_LEVELS]	[METAL_ARMOR_LEVELS]
[LAYER:OVER]	[LAYER:OVER]
[COVERAGE:100	[COVERAGE:100]
[LAYER_SIZE:25]	[LAYER_SIZE:25]
[LAYER_PERMIT:15]	[LAYER_PERMIT:15]

See that place where there is no tag? That means that low boots do not extend to the lower leg. High boots do. That is why they are different.--Zchris13 05:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, good call. Hmm, armor doesn't even mention that kind of thing. VengefulDonut 13:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"I get how it works..."

While I admit acknowledge your effort and enthusiasm, the content indicates otherwise. Too many factual and practical errours.--Albedo 05:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Which is why we all need to work on it. I haven't been here long enough to know the mechanics very well. I'm still practicing not dying to gobbos in my third seige.(first two are ok, third gets hard.)--Zchris13 17:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Quote page

Hi. You took it upon yourself to decide "When a quote was too long", and deleted a half-score of them. Some would call that "arrogant", but that's just another word for self-confident - and that's certainly called for at times. As it is, I happen to agree with you in this case - they were too long. But that doesn't change the fact that you projected guidelines when there were no guidelines to be followed, for better or worse. It's questionable for any user to presume to dictate to others something that is personal style and not written policy, I think we would agree on that. There are no DF wiki guidelines on "spellchecking a quote", or "what defines a quote", etc. etc. I'll leave the synthesis of these various statements to you.--Albedo 12:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Screenshot Gallery

It's a nice addition, but I noticed atleast one faulty image that is from an older version of DF, and might not be appropriate for something that displays on the front page.
Not sure what you think of it, but File:Tshaped-smooth(Raynard).png probably should be one of those orphans that needs to be deleted, rather than placed in a gallery to be featured on the Main Page. -Edward

Not really, and since the Orphaned Pages Special Page seems to be broken, I can't really pick them from random either. Might not be a bad idea to add images from D for Dwarf pages though. The quotes are generally funnier than not, so it wouldn't be a bad idea for the SSG to be of similar direction. -Edward

rope/chain/restraint double redirects

Some of those were doubles, and some were pointing to rope/chain when they should have pointed to restraint (or being sloppy in distinguishing between those terms in the article.) After the first several I gave up trying to distinguish, and just changed them all on gp. Altho' it was more editing, it wasn't any slower than picking and choosing. Call me lazy.--Albedo 19:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, you're not explaining anything I don't already know. Some of the links linked to the chain page and then that to the restraint page, yes. But some needed rewrites as well, because a "chain" is not what you use for Justice, you use a "restraint". It's not about what I did, I just labeled them all the same rather than come up with an exact explanation for each one.--Albedo 20:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

concerning Refuse stockpile

I couldnt agree more, but i was sorta complying with a comment on my talk page, so be prepared for a re add.. --Birthright 16:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Aquifer Video Tutorial

Looks great! I'm glad you got around to this, because I wasn't ever quite sure what you meant with the up/down staircases, and for whatever reason, constructing floors never occurred to me. One small issue, is that it seems you were recording with an FPS cap of only 25. This makes the standard playing speed a bit too fast for most people I'd say. It's great for the most part, but the text might be a bit too fast for some people. Other than that, it's practically perfect! (I wonder how hard it would be to splice all those together for a YouTube version, a la Capt'n Duck's series.) -Edward 16:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea, the cap is a good idea, especially to speed up the dull parts on replay. Figured out what you're going to do about Pt 5? Seems like #6 is really short, and could take that extra time easily. Just a matter of piecing the replays together I'd say. -Edward

Vandalism

Gee, thanks for the giant letterbox quotemining me on my talk page. I haven't responded in kind since, despite your advice in favor of it, I continue to have doubts that the ability to edit anything however I please makes it a good idea. Please revert it and continue that conversation where it began.– unsigned comment by Corona688

Assumptions

So, you going to prove me wrong and actually make the pages? Shardok 03:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I happen to like the idea of having all the information on one page, however I also know that's impossible, but as it stands, I don't see any reason to go through and create the new pages, as I like it as it is. Not that I'd try to stop others from doing it, I just would rather spend my time editing more important things, like alphabetizing those giant challenge/construction/etc lists. Shardok 03:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, all I did was alphabetize them, hehe, I wouldn't dare to try a real overhaul of them, too much work, though I might do something about that Moria challenge, it's a complete joke the way it was written. Shardok 04:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

He, I almost undid Fran's edit of your comment earlier, but decided it'd be more fun to let you do it. Shardok 02:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Editing comments

"Please stop editing other peoples' comments. VengefulDonut 02:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)"

Retrieved from "http://dwarf.lendemaindeveille.com/index.php/User_talk:Frandude"

What do you mean? --Frandude 15:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"You have twice modified comments of mine on talk pages. I mean I'd like for you not to do that. VengefulDonut 15:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)"

I'm sorry, i don't recall doing this, but i'll be sure not to do it again.

version # (& OGL)

Thanks for clearing up the version page. "Open GL" (or OGL) also stands for "Open Gaming Liscence" (in another popular game, at least), which allows outsiders to modify and expand upon an existing, copyrighted game platform to suit - I thought it was the same thing, my mistake. But what's with "wtf"? You having a bad day?
More, why remove the asterisked comment in the larger example? That's what most people will see first, that's where the confusion between 40d, 40d11, 40d14 etc. will be clarified. I didn't have the time to reverse engineer the wiki code to make it fit with the same slick graphics formatting, but it was clear enough imo (esp since not all versions have that #). What was your objection to that> - (other than "wtf") --Albedo 17:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)