Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Footkerchief]

I think birds (vermin-size ones, at least) do hang out at ground level a lot, so it shouldn't be too bad.

Do you mean small birds should not be given FLIERs?

Oops, no, I meant that, in DF, birds with FLIER still hang out at ground level, although that might be controlled by VERMIN_GROUNDER.

I just added a whole bunch of obscure creatures like sponges, worms, and xenoturbellids, when I noticed that Osteichthyes contains all tetrapods. And *gasp*: we have put them on the same level! Should I rearrange the pages to be taxonomically correct, or just leave well enough alone?

Osteichthyes contains all tetrapods?  Do you mean in the strict evolutionary sense that tetrapods are descended from a member of Osteichthyes?  In any case, I'm not going to lose sleep over having a superclass and a class at the same level, especially since Sarcopterygii is so tiny.

[Rainseeker]

Okay, here is Toady's response to my emailed question about whether undead birds and such will still fly:

You know, it's quite possible they will have a failure in this regard,
since it checks the muscles explictly.  Of course, tatters of muscles
might remain to stop the skeletons from falling apart, but I'm not
sure it'll be enough to fly.  I haven't checked what happens.  It
should be fun to see.  Skeletons can walk around, so it seems they are
getting a pass on some of the checks.

[Footkerchief]

Toady's response

Haha, interesting.  But yeah, sounds like we shouldn't have to worry about it, in any case.

Oh, BTW, Gorobay -- did you work through all of the phyla in Animalia that didn't already have an entry?  I know a lot of them can be discarded entirely for our purposes.

[Cheddarius]

Is there any sort of easily-comprehensible grunt work I could do to help out?

[Rainseeker]

Toady's response

Haha, interesting.  But yeah, sounds like we shouldn't have to worry about it, in any case.

Oh, BTW, Gorobay -- did you work through all of the phyla in Animalia that didn't already have an entry?  I know a lot of them can be discarded entirely for our purposes.

Also, Toady said it was his intention that they NOT fly at this point, until he updates the curses arc, and then that will open up.

[Gorobay]

Oh, BTW, Gorobay -- did you work through all of the phyla in Animalia that didn't already have an entry?  I know a lot of them can be discarded entirely for our purposes.

I'm pretty sure I did; I'll check again though. I have generally been discarding anything less than 1 cm.

[Lancensis]

Is there any sort of easily-comprehensible grunt work I could do to help out?

Fancy looking up some bugs?

[mendonca]

Hi there, had a bit of spare time so I went through and added some fish to the list, notably the Cypriniformes.

I'm completely new to any wiki editing, so if I am doing anything obviously stupid it is likely not to be deliberate so just let me know.

[Footkerchief]

Is there any sort of easily-comprehensible grunt work I could do to help out?

The stuff in the OP is all we've got, unfortunately, and it won't get any simpler once we move to implementation.

I'm completely new to any wiki editing, so if I am doing anything obviously stupid it is likely not to be deliberate so just let me know.

Looks good except for one thing -- use equals signs (=, ==, ===, etc.) for the section headers, not bold text (''' ... ''').  This makes them show up in the table of contents, and it'll help our raws generator understand the taxonomic tree.

The Ken Loach joke made me laugh, but it had to go.  I also asterisk'd "coolie loach" just in case, although I don't find it too problematic.

I also made a note that family Cyprinidae may need further representation -- I glanced through and saw a few large genera (with common names) that weren't represented, and "minnow" should probably be diversified.

All in all, though, it looks pretty close to ideal, so thanks!

[Lancensis]

The Ken Loach joke made me laugh, but it had to go.

Just as well. DF is grim and gritty enough as it is.

[Gorobay]

I have of late listed some tiny creatures on the wiki. Though they be small, as giants they would be big enough. Will the Ark Project include giant versions of creatures?

If it will:

• Should I continue to add tiny creatures?

If it won't:

• Why not allow names of the form "giant __" (e.g. anteater,  tortoise, clam, and deer), since they would be unambiguous? Currently, most of these are marked with asterisks.

[Footkerchief]

Will the Ark Project include giant versions of creatures?

It won't directly.  However (SPOILER WARNING) the next version is expected to randomly generate titan-size creatures, as megabeast-type things.  So there's a chance we'd see stuff like "Giant anteater titan," or worse, "Giant giant anteater."  It might end up being okay to have creatures whose names start with "giant," I'm not sure.

edit: I guiltily PM'd Toady to ask whether it's an issue

[Rainseeker]

It won't?  I thought it would use them for giants if we use the right tag...

[Lancensis]

  So there's a chance we'd see stuff like "Giant anteater titan," or worse, "Giant giant anteater." 

MANTEATER

[Footkerchief]

It won't?  I thought it would use them for giants if we use the right tag...

There's two separate concepts here:
1) The randomly generated aboveground titans that you guys talked about in the podcast, and that I mentioned above
2) The "giant lion," "giant cheetah" etc. which are now created with a creature variation, like animal men

1 is something we don't really have control over.  2 is something we could include, but probably shouldn't, since we're focusing on real-life creatures.