v50 Steam/Premium information for editors
- v50 information can now be added to pages in the main namespace. v0.47 information can still be found in the DF2014 namespace. See here for more details on the new versioning policy.
- Use this page to report any issues related to the migration.
This notice may be cached—the current version can be found here.
Editing 40d Talk:Gem
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Warning: You are not logged in.
Your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history.
You are editing a page for an older version of Dwarf Fortress ("Main" is the current version, not "40d"). Please make sure you intend to do this. If you are here by mistake, see the current page instead.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
==Organization== | ==Organization== | ||
− | + | Is there any reason the page is organized as it is? Wouldn't it make more sense to sort gems alphabetically within rarity categories? Or at least group similar gems (ie, Opals, etc...) within rarity categories? Because the current layout is not useful for locating particular gems. --[[User:Squirrelloid|Squirrelloid]] 01:02, 25 April 2008 (EDT) | |
− | + | You're right. You should go and organize it.--[[User:Richards|Richards]] 01:11, 25 April 2008 (EDT) | |
− | |||
− | |||
:::: Ok, the current setup is nice, it's alphabetized, but I was just looking at the [[creatures]] page, and it hit me. Why don't we do the same thing for the gems page? We could sort it by name, value and location. However, I don't know how the wiki syntax for that would work. I will attempt to figure it out for my self unless someone wants to point me in the right direction. I was thinking of just adapting the creature page to the gems page, but the more I look at it, the more I think it was written excusivily for the creature page. I shall investigate. --[[User:Sinergistic|Sinergistic]] 19:05, 7 January 2009 (EST) | :::: Ok, the current setup is nice, it's alphabetized, but I was just looking at the [[creatures]] page, and it hit me. Why don't we do the same thing for the gems page? We could sort it by name, value and location. However, I don't know how the wiki syntax for that would work. I will attempt to figure it out for my self unless someone wants to point me in the right direction. I was thinking of just adapting the creature page to the gems page, but the more I look at it, the more I think it was written excusivily for the creature page. I shall investigate. --[[User:Sinergistic|Sinergistic]] 19:05, 7 January 2009 (EST) |