Recent Edits to Chalk, Limestone
"Also contains many profitable ores and gems which make it ideal for exploratory mining." (Mrdudeguy)
True. But are you going to add that to every sedimentary stone's page, since the same is true for all? While the wiki is partially based on experience, it's also based on the game code. "Sedimentary" speaks for itself (or does if anyone bothers to find that link.) While the sidebar carries the same info, imo this is not overly redundant, because it spells it out for newbies - but be thorough. What's true for limestone is also true for mudstone and conglomerate and etc., even if they aren't as exciting. (I just did something similar with every "layer" stone, which prev had zero text to explain why they were notable.) --Albedo 03:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
All of the alloy reactions on the metal table without the ! can be made using ores of the necessary metals rather than the actual bars, so listing the ores is not necessary. Also, value increase is a deceptive term. That column is the difference in metal average material value of the base metals and the value of the alloy. Other things (such as fuel, limestone, or ores) are not accounted for. Past events have shown that if we try to broaden the scope of that column, it quickly starts to lose meaning. VengefulDonut 13:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
2 comments: first, usually(?) only the first reference in an article - or at least a sub-section - needs to be linked. (People sometimes do read subsections w/out referring to the prev sections.) No need to undo, but don't feel you have to link every keyword possible. (Can make reading a bit annoying for some.) Meh, otoh, certainly rather have too many linked than too few.
Also, any words related by the same stem don't have to be separately redirected. Rather then explain, I'll demonstrate how the code can work; these links are all the same as "smelt":
smeltgettheidea? The obvious reason is so we don't have to include every -s/ -ed/ -ing/ -er/ -whatever variation of a root word. (We could, but usually only if one is used extensively, or (especially) if it has a different significance, like a bar of metal vs metal bars, two different articles. If you wanted to talk about "bars of metal", you'd type "[[bar]]s<"/nowiki>, and it would go to "<nowiki>[[bar]]" - and there's a disambig at the top of both, w/ a link to the other.)
So long as there is no space/break after the link, it's treated as the same as that root link. Which is why you did the right thing w/ "dwarven", since "dwarf" doesn't cover that (Can't believe that had never been done before...)
That, and "smelted" should be the same as "smelt", which redirects to smelter, not "forge".
The important exception is when a user/noob might type in a word in a specific, longer form - which is why I recently redirected both "slash" and "slashing" to weapons damage, etc. (Pierce/Piercing and gore/goring do need 2 redirects, since there is no "root word" they share.)
Readya later.--Albedo 23:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
"Carbon" is not a game term - nothing you'd ever find in the game, nor read about, except in RL discussions of why charcoal is needed for making RL steel. No reason to add it to the keyword links, unless you think some newb is going to type it in, instead of one of the 4 in-game-terms for the same thing - and that I doubt. May sound like nitpicking, but there's no (good) reason to add a redirect for every vocabulary word that might be vaguely related. --Albedo 07:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- More to the point there just is no carbon in DF. Carbon is not needed to make steel. Making players assume they have to find carbon can lead to confusion, if not now then 10 edits or 2 game versions later. --Birthright 11:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The buggy template is for any feature that has outstanding bugs. Just because a page is short does not mean users don't need to have the bugs called to their attention. If there are bugs, leave the buggy template where it is. Thanks. Garanis 13:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)