User talk:Kydo

Spontaneous Hypothermia

I've heard stories of this happening to other players, and it seems to result from corrupted raws leading to the creation of clothing made from " leather" (i.e. no creature name) which has a boiling point of 0, causing both migrants and caravans to be instantly frozen in a cloud of boiling leather the instant they enter the map. --Quietust 23:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Really? Neat! I just reinstalled the game, copied my save files over, and everything was oky-doky! Well, you know, except for the pile of dead dwarves. --Kydo 23:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I like to think it was just a really, really cursed island.

By the way Kydo, I've been working on my own little geology chart (and learning a whole lot about RL geology along the way). Mine is probably in way rougher condition than yours since I've just started looking into this, although I will point out that I have found it's pretty useful to organize gems into rough families of related gems, especially since many of these relationships aren't immediately apparent (eg., aquamarine, goshenite, heliodor and morganite are all beryls, as are emeralds). I also think the wiki could present this topic with more clarity - give me a shout if you'd like to collaborate a bit.Nemokara 06:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Gelogy chart & etc

I like it! It's definitely not something that's at an intro level, but if you don't mind, it should be more public - perhaps a new "advanced" sebsection at the bottom of the guide to rock? Or a new parallel article, the "thinking dwarf's guide to rock"? (or something). In several areas, this wiki has been changed to one article with basic info or an overview, and another with absolutely related info, but at a higher level. (See armor vs armor piece, the former being a technical discussion of the game mechanics, the latter being where helm, greaves etc redirect.)

I originally felt that the overall presentation of the stones and such to be absolutely wretched...
...I've learned why they were arranged that way... the whole thing needs massive cleanup...

What would you suggest? As (I am guessing) you've seen, the entire wiki seems to be laid out more at an intro level, more for searching one narrowly defined topic than for quick comparison or overview. I've been working on that, combining various stub articles, isolated topics and scattered info into unified pages (vein (and clusters), mayor/leader/etc, armor/armor piece, defense guide et al, dwarf weapon/other weapon, most recently thread/cloth and pearlash/potash, others) - I, too, found this wiki rather... hrmmm... convoluted in its overall presentation, a bit of a paper chase to actually find a complete answer to any broader question than "What is this one numerical value for this one facet of this specific item?" (and it still fails that regularly). I still think the generic animals should be grouped into charts of similar animals rather than each their own page - a shark is a shark is a shark, after all - maybe that'll be next. Thoughts?--Albedo 17:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC) edit - btw, a wagon gets broken down into three wood logs, not "two".

I'd like to make it more public- once it's a bit beyond the basic layer stones. At the moment, it's really limited, and there's some... Errors. I think. I need to examine the game information and the wiki a bit more, because I SWEAR I've found gems in some of those layers, even though the wiki didn't list any as appearing in them. Also, the gems page states that some of them WILL appear in those layers. So... Yeah... Cleanup is needed, if the wiki contradicts itself as to whether gems can appear in Igneous Extrusive layers. When i was doing this, none of the Igneous Extrusive stones mentioned ANY gems. But some gems do mention igneous extrusive stone. I think i need to go looking through the stones that appear in igneous extrusive layers first, though, before I jump to conclusions.

Also, I've noticed the manner in which most stone types are exactly the same, aside from a few having a couple of tiny special features. Which means the current table could (and should) be VERY heavily simplified for clarity. What I'd really like to get to, is reconciling the connections between stones and gems. If we can clearly see those relationships all together on one page, well, that'd be QUITE useful. At least for me, anyways.

I definitely agree about the animals, though. How many pages do we really need to dedicate to what is essentially the same freaking monkey? That really bothered me when I went browsing through there. Still, the object data does take up a fair bit of space, and it's more table-breaking than the gems lists are. So, in that sense, it kind of does make sense to give each one it's own page, just because that is a LOT of data.

And, yeah, slight error on my part.

--Kydo 02:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)