User talk:Harakoni

Jump to navigation Jump to search

About this board

Investigation To-do and other stuff i may have

Hordes (talkcontribs)
  • Combat in Darkness

From what the game tooltips say, darkness precept applies after shooting/weapon accuracy, but before cover. I don't have the means to test if its true. Regardless the precept is absurdly good and why i mention it everywhere it's relevant

  • LMG & Darkness precept:

Good quality, Shooting 10, Distance 18, Combat in Darkness precept, no cover. Game displays that LMG has 50% to hit. AR has 68% to hit. Results in (Optimal DPS * expected accuracy) of 7.89 vs 7.34 respectively.

LMG staggers. But AR has a shorter TtK, which is relevant for killboxes. Shorter burst time = good. AR has its usual advantages like outranging centipede blasters. Plus this isn't considering HSMG (55% acc, 6.787 dps at this range) or CR (61% acc, 8.07).

If you're in a mountain then you would probably be using shotguns / HSMGs instead. If you weren't in a mountain you are most likely fluid + sunblocker and it's not worth the effort to make an entirely different set of weapons. Roofing over everything doesn't work unless the enemy is considered "indoors", which while possible would deviate from the normal set up.

  • Haygrass vs corn

I think one of the biggest pros of haygrass is growing speed. In year-round or like 50/60 you can just make the pen bigger or use dandelions (which should probably be added to more places inc. haygrass).

  • Turret cover

As of 1.4, apparently mini turrets use cover (see here)

  • Cheapest 100% comfort


  • Masterwork wood dining chair - $185
  • Excellent armchair - $322.5 (0.99 comfort)
  • Legendary cloth kneel pillow - $230
  • Legendary wood pew - $210 per seat, 630 all

However I believe the super wealth-managey meta would be to use bi-phasic or some other form of rest schedule, due to how quickly comfort rises and how slowl it falls.

Thus without considering wealth, dining chair better if you have production specialist and/or plenty of wood + work to burn. Armchair easier to make.

Hordes (talkcontribs)

splitting into second comment for length:

  • Mechanoid page format

My reasoning for the current format (like centipede gunner as-is) is as follows:

  1. Have parity between the 5 combat mechs in core, and combat mechs in biotech. Ideally it would apply to all mechs, but that is what to be improved.
  2. For existing mechs, put all biotech summary stuff in its own subsection. This would be less confusing for players who dont own the expansion

I would agree that it's messy. But I would at least request for "as an enemy" and "as an ally" be completely separate and grouped up.

Maybe the following order could work

  • Occurrence: Enemy appearances & enemy AI
  • Summary: mechanoid summary template & combat & possibly work
  • As an ally OR mechanoid creation OR acquisition: Biotech stuff. Creation & power need
  • Analysis / Analysis - as an ally

For the worker mechs it would make more sense to have acquisition over summary. As I'm writing this I realize that it would be the same as the format as-is but with enemy stuff closer to the top

Hordes (talkcontribs)
Harakoni (talkcontribs)

Either can be. A was considered but the reasons it wasn't implemented were:

1) the question of whether there will be instances where you want to directly compare two different tables like the its sister template, Faction Xenotype Table, does at Pirates#Xenotypes. Having different row number and orders makes comparing them frustrating. 2) The risk that suppressing the rows will confuse absence from the faction for absence of information, and vice versa. For example, a reader might see that the base game tribes are missing from table and assume the information is just missing rather than that non-baseliners don't spawn in them. And on the flip side, the tables don't currently list Ancients because I don't have xenotype distributions for them, not because they're all 0% (though they might be, idk).

Feel free to weigh in/disagree/agree with me on that, but there was reasoning behind it.

If you're happy with B instead, would you prefer that a single command collapsed all examples of Xenotype Faction Table on the same page (e.g. if you want to do something similar to Pirates#Xenotypes, one click collapses them all), or collapse them individually (more flexible)

Hordes (talkcontribs)

I suppose the other option would be to make better use of horizontal space, by making multiple columns. I forgot to ask for this but probably the better solution with that considered,

Harakoni (talkcontribs)

That makes it very wide and breaks sorting.

Edit: Actually rereading that, I'm not certain what you mean by making multiple columns in this regard. Columns for each xenotype make the template a lot more complicated and processor heavy.

Hordes (talkcontribs)

Columns for factions.


Gentle tribe | Friendly outlanders
Fierce Trible | Rough Outlanders

This is only in regards to the table found in the xenotype pages like Highmates.

I'm not sure what the actual utility of sorting factions is. For not-baseliners: every xenotype has, like 2-4 factions in which they can appear at all. Other than world generation, there's no way to explicitly choose a faction other than ally/enemy. And because there's like 2-4 factions per xenotype, the sorting wouldn't be very helpful

Harakoni (talkcontribs)

Columns for each faction would be very wide, and dynamically merging them (e.g. Pirates and Cannibal pirates have the same) would make maintaining the template a bitch when the whole point of this was to make it all updatable from one source (or 1 and 2 very very minor and easy addtions if new factions are added).

And sorting is handy and future proof. Each DLC has added factions and there are likely to be more and that is in additional to the current ones changing and the factions currently missing from the table that need to be added (Ancients etc). The current xenotypes and factions are already getting enough entries to justify sorting. Dirtmoles have 5, hussars and genies 6, neanderthals 7, baseliners 11. And its not just world gen when its relevant. Say you want a neanderthal pawn for whatever reason but didn't add the neanderthal tribe at world gen, you can pick fights with the factions that have the most, become friendly with the rest, and preferentially have raids with the chance of pawns you want.

And tbh the tables aren't that large. But I will make them collapsible regardless.

Harakoni (talkcontribs)

Collapsing implemented. Looks better when theres a title but it works with the base as well.

Also includes a precollapsed version for use on highmate, just add "collapsed" as the third argument to the template.

{{Xenotype Faction Table|Highmate|Highmate|collapsed}}
Faction Chance
GentleTribe.png Gentle tribe 0%
FierceTribe.png Fierce tribe 0%
SavageTribe.png Savage tribe 0%
CannibalTribe.png Cannibal tribeContent added by the Ideology DLC 0%
NudistTribe.png Nudist tribeContent added by the Ideology DLC 0%
FierceNeanderthalTribe.png Fierce neanderthal tribe 0%
SavageImpidTribe.png Savage impid tribe 0%
Civil outlander.png Civil outlander union 0%
Rough outlander.png Rough outlander union 0%
RoughPigUnion.png Rough pig union 0%
Pirate.png Pirate gang 0%
CannibalPirate.png Cannibal pirate gangContent added by the Ideology DLC 0%
YttakinPirates.png Yttakin pirates 0%
WasterPirates.png Waster pirates 0%
Empire map marker.png Shattered empire Content added by the Royalty DLC 0%
Hordes (talkcontribs)

Re: Raid points & wealth management & wealth

Asking for feedback on recent changes to these pages. Added more derived calculations to raid point page, and removed them from wealth management. Also any other feedback is advised (I think wealth management is a suitable quality article at this point)

Re: Nearsighted

As I understand it, nearsighted lowers Medium range accuracy of the weapon. Since accuracy is linearly intropolated between Short (12 tiles) and Medium (25), then it would have an impact past 13 tiles, am I wrong?

Harakoni (talkcontribs)

Re: Nearsighted, I thought so at first too, given how the rest of the mechanics work, but according to the tooltip thats not how its implemented. See here for an example. Then again the tooltip is not infallible as the recurring turret cover issue showed.

Re: The other three How recent is recent? You've been working on those pages on and off for a while. Gonna assume the last few days, and only talk about the changes relative to the page state before. Lemme know if you wanna talk about a longer block of time/go over the page as a whole in depth.

Re: Raid points, taking recent as since the 19th of Feb.

  • The edits are pretty much perfect. The only issue I have is that the "1 pawn point is worth x storyteller wealth" might get confused as a true equality, where it adds to storyteller wealth directly. This should be understood by people reading the whole page, but its a pretty convoluted topic, and people might skip sections. Basically just idiot/newb proofing. I'd probably reword it to something like "Given (threshholds/pawn count etc), pawn points increases by 1 for every increase of x in storyteller wealth". I know its not something you started, its used elsewhere on the page but it is something I'd fix.

Re: Wealth, taking recent as since 17 of January.

  • No issues with those edits themselves, though the page does overlap significantly with the other two. The examples might be best on Wealth Management, the raid points are largely duplicates of parts of Raid Points. Duplicates like that make it harder to maintain and keep everything consistent (For example: Genes gets updated but the xenotype pages listing gene details don't - one reason I'm considering making their lists more like Hussars or template-izing them). It might be better to treat the page as a sort of "big disambiguation" or summary - give summaries and basics but leave detail to the main pages - basically all the other subsections would be fine as-is but analysis and raid points would shrink. But honestly that is just nitpicking.

Re: Wealth Management taking recent as since 20 Feb.

  • Again perfect. Solved the info duplication issue I had with the page, but left the important details. You could add the same short eqn summary for the other wealth bands, but again just nitpicking. The page as a whole is in a good state, and can definitely have the under construction banner removed now. Long term, some worked examples of common strategies people use might be good and some analysis of the expectation thresholds (and likely more importantly, how they trigger other things like Ideo requirements). The examples from Wealth are a good basis for the first one - a lot of the things people avoid like the plague actually have minimal effect on raid points.
Hordes (talkcontribs)

Re: Wealth management

The reason I left out the other wealth bands was, that if you are at 400k wealth, you are very likely at lategame or endgame stuff (bionics, charge rifles, etc.), so you should be able to handle the raids. The explanation for that was kinda clunky so I left that out.

Re: Wealth

Yeah, the idea [of the wealth page itself] was to put all the stuff together in 1 place.

The extra detail on raid points from of today/yesterday were to move the calculations from wealth management to a different place. The number crunching for wealth managmeent's 1 point = X wealth should be somewhere, but it'd be clunky on the raid points page (you'd have to place the "1 raid point = X wealth for real" section after all the actual factors to RPs). So the wealth page was the next best place.

I put the worked examples in the analysis in the Wealth page, mostly due to search optimization. Ideally the page should have some example of "wealth doesn't impact raids at <= 100%". Because when people say "wealth" / "too high wealth", they imply wealth management.

Hordes (talkcontribs)

TOPIC: User:Hordes/Basics Guide

I have 2 generalish questions that have to do with the basics guide rewrite and its content.

1. Wood generators vs wind turbine

What should be recommended for early game power? Wood-fired generators take a lot of work - even more so if you don't optimize base layout - and I often hear it's kind bad, even in the early game. Wind turbines are definitely easier, but are still inconsistent.

I really have no stance on this.

2.. Freezers

What should I recommend with freezers? Freezers make a new have to worry less about food. But as I write in the current version of the article, you shouldn't need to worry in the first place. There'll be details on how to make a freezer, regardless or not I actually recommend.

Being congruent with other rimworld guides (which do, most often, recommend a freezer) is also a positive.

Reply to "Investigation To-do and other stuff i may have"
Rab (talkcontribs)

Hi Harakoni... Just to let you know that I've started making some checks and corrections to the surgery section and other related pages.

The entire thing seemed to have become a bit confused on the wiki - bits and bobs had been added in different places: some repeating the same thing, some contradicting, some just wrong, as I'm sure you're already aware.

I noticed that:

  • some of the pseudocode on the Doctoring page was incorrect (like outdoors modifiers etc.)
  • the pseudocode itself it was incessantly complicated for a non-developer to understand.
  • The explanations on the Doctoring page mish-mashed the concept of surgical success chance of the doctor, with the type of bed, with the instance of bed.
  • The explanations appeared to get confused with environmental factors such as cleanliness and light level - in fact these affect the bed's surgery success chance multiplier which is a separate stat.
  • The concept that operations have their own individual success modifiers appeared to be missing completely.
  • The concept that facilities such as vitals scanner could modify outcome probabilities wasn't mentioned.
  • The concept of lighting was alluded to, but contradictory and not complete.
  • Generally the nomenclature "surgery" and "operation" seemed to be inconsistent across the Doctoring page; the entire wiki, and references back to the Doctoring page. It's quite confusing from a new reader's standpoint as they sound like two different things. It's admittedly a bit inconsistent in the game itself especially the descriptions - but one thing is clear, that the action on the colonist is an "operation".

So what I've done is:

  • Simplified the pseudocode into simple, worded equations like you'd see on wikipedia - no mathematical symbols, variables or logical control statements (viz. "if"s).
  • Broken up the different concepts onto their respective pages: Colonist Medical surgery success chance/Doctoring, Bed Surgery Success Chance Factor, medicine potency and operation chance multiplier.
  • Broken up the concept between the type of bed and the placement of a bed in-world (i.e an item or instance of a bed). This is explained fully, with the equations on the Sleep Furniture's Surgery Success Chance Factor stat.
  • Added previously omitted per-operation success multipliers to the Doctoring page.
  • More consistently referred to operations as "operations" on the Doctoring page (at least in the scope of my edits so far).
  • Checked contradictions or questionable claims against the latest game version and adjust as necessary.

What I'd like to also do is (pending acceptance of the further edit):

  • Put in a redirect for Surgery -> Doctoring#Operations (Surgery) (there's already one for Operations -> Surgery).
  • Consider further breaking down the doctor's stat calculation to the Medical Surgery Success Chance page (where from an engineering standpoint it should really live) - then refer to it from the Doctoring page.
  • Do a quick check regarding nomenclature across the wiki wrt surgery vs operations - and make any changes needed if it will make things clearer. They should always link to the right place regardless.

Apologies that the diffs from my edits must look hefty and complex - however if you look at the resulting pages it makes the entire thing simple to understand, plus from an algorithmic standpoint it's accurate and complete. The changes are very localised and specific to the operation chance factors, even verbose. I've tried to ensure that no pertinent information has been discarded (if you see this, they have probably been moved to the correct page). I hope this explains my string of edits! It's difficult to explain this in an edit summary.

Harakoni (talkcontribs)

Sorry about the delay in responding, been a hectic week and I wanted to make sure I could read everything in one go lest I miss or misremember anything.

I appreciate you keeping me apprised but its ultimately its unnecessary - you made your edits in good faith, you didn't needlessly blank good information, and added more - the edits speak for themselves. I do want to say I'm very glad you took the time to go through and organize it all, it is massive improvement over what it was. You're absolutely right that it used to be a mess - it mixed up sources, it conflicted with other information and itself, and was outdated in parts. I really appreciate you putting the effort in.

That said, I am always happy to help if you need anything though. Always feel free to HMU if you need a hand. So regarding some of the things you mentioned:

Re: Moderation permission. Permission for all those edits should already have passed through when or not long after you posted this, and I've quickly checked & approved all the pending ones you put in today. You also shouldn't have issues waiting for moderation from now on either.

Re: Medical Surgery Success Chance, what more do you want to add beyond whats already tagged for addition via the recode tag? Just an equation with the sight and manipulation percent? (also the stub tag can probably also be resolved now because of what you've already finished) Feel free to be bold on this, I'm just curious about what you intend and whether I can help, not requiring information to grant permission.

Re: Operations vs Surgery, afaict the closest thing to a differentiation might be the surgeries have a risk of failure, while operations are the hypernym - including surgeries but also everything else, but even there the game is not consistent. Given this lack of consistency I'm happy for everything to be placed under Operations and "Operations (Surgery)" to be changed to "Operations". A line that mentions that sometimes things refer to them as surgery in the intro is all it really needs and would be cleaner than the double section title.

Some minor notes on the edits:

  1. The capitalization of the first letter is ignored when linking, so [[Doctoring]] and [[doctoring]] turn out as Doctoring and doctoring and go to the same place without a redirect. Capital letters elsewhere do matter though. Stat names being capitalized is annoying but its a standard I inherited rather than implemented, and unfortunately there are some things that depend on it. Another thing for the to-do list.
  2. Related, things added after links without a space are also included as part of the link. So instead of [[Carcinoma|carcinomas]] you can instead just go[[carcinoma]]s and get carcinomas. This and the first one might make it a just slightly easier when editing, so thought I'd point them out.
  3. STDT tables aren't necessary for the equation boxes, also have a look at Templates or other uses of them for color options. Theres a rough color coding - purple for psychic for example, but there are no hard and fast rules.
  4. The line specifically calling out inspirations not affecting the cap was added because its a common misconception - what you've written is still 100% accurate, but sometimes spelling it out for people aids clarity.

Lastly, the Skills section of Doctoring seems somewhat redundant and linking to it rather than the dedicated stat pages seems like you'll run into issues with factors again. Any plans for that? Is that included as part of your intended changes to Medical Surgery Success Chance? If not, thats OK, I just don't want to get in your way if I make changes. After the effort you've put in, I'm happy for you to take the lead on it.

Rab (talkcontribs)

Oh thanks so much for replying; I realise it's not necessary to constitute my edits, but given that there was an overall "strategy" to a series of edits (and the fact that I am a new user) I thought best to explain.

Operations vs. Surgery; so glad you said this. Absolutely, my first thought was to simply call it "Operations" but didn't have the guts to in case there was some hard and fast reason why a member of the edit team staunchly stuck by "Surgery". I'll call it operations as suggested, thank you. It certainly suits me as it's what the game calls it when clicking on the "Health" tab of a colonist. Also, indeed, the most appropriately suitable in-game hypernym† as pointed out.

1. I realise this should be the case regarding case-sensitivity. However when referring to "doctoring", my links went red in preview. I figured it was probably just rendered incorrectly (two links in the same section were precisely the same; one blue, one red). Maybe I should have just committed. But what with it being pre-moderated, I couldn't quickly double-check if it was OK once published. Still trying to prove myself I didn't want my first edits to potentially contain dopey-looking dead links. I've got a bit more confidence with your kind response now, plus as you state I should now be automoderated... (thank you) so if the worst does happen I can sneak back and make a re-edit if the link is genuinely dead. Point noted for future; any resulting weird aliases I notice I've put in I'll go back and correct.

2. Ok that I didn't know! Thanks for setting me straight.

3. I'll revisit and put them in as a wikitable again; taking Nutrition and Doctoring as examples they do that. I was actually under the misapprehension that wikitable wasn't used. NB. I did originally look for the "math" template (I think that's the one; the Wikipedia template for LaTeX) but that didn't seem to work. I kind of expected some kind of serif font based template for equations.

3a. Regarding colours I did have a detailed look through and indeed concluded it was a tad inconsistent; I concluded for that reason to go with grey as some other pages did so to be safe. (I noted Doctoring was red... it didn't "feel" very medical!) But thanks for pointing it out... I'll have a look at revisiting and putting in appropriate colours, thank you.

3b. Just on the subject of equations I wondered where most of this stuff is figured out. I tried to stick primarily to what was there already; refactoring and simplifying the pseudocode and suchlike, then trying out the resulting equations in-game. But do we ordinarily do something to come up with these equations in the first place? Has someone decompiled the IL and figured out what the precise equations are?

4. Ah - yes I had a note to put that back in when I was juggling everything around. I actually thought it was such a good point that I went looking for a good tip box template. My conclusion was that I couldn't see anything used across the site other than the "meta-note" (i.e. "Edit me for this reason") notices, so decided not to use. And then forgot about it. So let me get on to putting that back in... superlative attention to detail thank you.

Re Skills in Doctoring becoming redundant - indeed I did recognise that this seems to be increasingly the case the more other appropriate places are fleshed out. You pointing it gives a lot more confidence in it making it a overall goal. I can totally have a look at doing that. I've already started bulking out Medical Surgery Success Chance and it could be the natural place for some of this to be anyway. I might have to think about XP gain and suchlike and where that should live, but totally doable I think. So glad we're on the same page.

† Completely irrelevant note regarding nomenclature of surgery "things" and forming hypernyms. I've coincidentally spent hours in meetings with hospital directors across the UK, working with the NHS (UK National Health Service) on software UI design and nomenclature (I know, exciting career choices there). The most superordinate hypernym is "procedure". This captures any kind of work performed by surgeons, including diagnostic procedures which aren't strictly classified as an "operation". In fact if you require health insurance pre-clearance in a Western country, you might know already that you're likely to be asked for the ICD-10 "procedure code". But that said it of course makes no sense to use nomenclature which the game itself doesn't use, however correct it may be in real life.

Harakoni (talkcontribs)

3a. Haha, I didn't choose the color, but red on white for doctoring always made sense to me - its the classic medkit colors!

3b. Equations, processes, and other info around the wiki have been taken from a variety of places. Some are experimental (which isn't always accurate and tend to be couched in language or noted as such - most get replaced), some are from the in-game documentation (which isn't accurate either), and others are from looking through the .xmls and the code. Rimworld has a large part of itself in .xml form where its pretty easy to read - most of the time I fill in the infobox for something, its by taking the relevant info from the .xml for it.

Something like dnspy or ilspy is necessary to read the C# that makes up the majority of the rest of the game, though. That is also done (for example Rest, Tolerance, and Raid points) but because its somewhat technical and can be very involved finding the relevant part, tracking down every branching part, and resolving it into real effect, its not always done. Its not that it shouldn't be done, its just that its a lot of work, and other things tend to get priority over it because more can be done elsewhere for less editor time and a lot of editors don't have the expertise required.

Anyway, I'll leave you to it. If this topic is closed, then you can close it with the ... in the top right hand corner. You're also welcome to leave it open or reopen if you want the option to chat later. I'm also on the Discord fairly often, if you post in #wiki-suggestions I'll see it.

Reply to "Surgical operations/success rate"
Hordes (talkcontribs)

I feel like the current drug standard (go-juice) is inadequate.

I wrote how I would design the page in User:Hordes/Go-juice (mind the errors). Basically:

Combining "On Injection" and "While High" would make things clearer for the reader. People want to know, "What (positive) effects does taking this drug have?".

While the, "These can be broken into effects that occur..." spiel will theoretically make things clearer, it makes it harder for the intended purpose. The new Drug Effects subsection IMO sufficiently distinguishes between the high effects and immediate effects. Then players are smart enough to know that addiction and withdrawal are completely seperate, which means that the page can be more concise.

In the same vein, I feel like listing addiction need/progression in "On Injection" ends up being messy. Addiction stuff only applies to addicted pawns, while drug effects and overdose apply to every pawn who takes the drug. Addiction was already explained in full detail in the current page's addiction section, and i feel like an addiction section is enough to explain how addiction mechanics work.

Harakoni (talkcontribs)

This is going to sound a little curt cause I'm a little busy atm and I'm in a bit of a rush.

I disagree that your version of differentiating between instantaneous and continuous effects is clearer than User:Ickputzdirwech's version (the current standard). Keeping them under separate headings reinforces the difference and helps get readers to check why they're separate, and combining them doesn't significantly improve clarity or reading time.

Addiction effects are applied upon consumption and putting it where it is makes that clear, especially for new players that are checking the effects.

These are all considerations that were discussed and iterated upon when the standard was built.

Ick might also want to weigh in.

Ickputzdirwech (talkcontribs)

I'm of course a bit biased in this matter, but I must say I would like to mostly keep it as is. Drugs are messy. Before I rewrote the go-juice page I had pretty much no clue how drugs worked in-game - and reading the wiki didn't really help. The current design of the Summary is therefore heavily oriented on the technical side - which I think it should.

What really helped wrapping my head around drugs, was to realise that high and addiction are just one-time effects a pawn will/can get when taking the drug. I therefore think it's important to keep those numbers under "on injection". This also means having a separate section for the high is necessary to avoid confusion about what the high severity actually means.

A positive side effect of me trying to calculate as much values as possible automatically, is that the page naturally can't present you with a number that wasn't introduced earlier. This of course also means, that the result of a calculation is always to the end of a paragraph. I understand that it might seem better to put the result first. But for people to understand what it actually means, they need to read the explanations anyway. Better to guide them through it from the start.

I don't want to say it's perfect. Some sentences could certainly be split and some wording simplified. But I think the most important thing should be to keep it as precise as possible.

Hordes (talkcontribs)

Completely unrelated, but what are your thoughts on 1= headers?

I know you're not supposed to use them, but some pages are just really long. For Endings in particular, each ending has its own page worth of content. But I am probably overusing them in general.

Ickputzdirwech (talkcontribs)

What is the advantage of using 1= headers over starting with 2= headers and shifting everything one header down?

Hordes (talkcontribs)

This is kinda unrelated (again) but I didn't know where to put this.

For pages explaining comfort, like Armchair#Analysis and Meditation throne#Analysis, you mention that beer gives +10 mood, but increases social fight chance. However, according to the actual Beer page, "Tispy" doesn't increase social fighting. I would assume that Tipsy is the level most players will keep colonists at, because more than 1 drink / day can cause beer addiction.

Harakoni (talkcontribs)


Summary by Zesty

The vandalism has been removed

Disbroc (talkcontribs)

Someone has vandalized the wiki page for sashes ( I didn't see any easy way to revert to a previous version, or I would have done so.

Disbroc (talkcontribs)

And now it's fixed, you're awesome!

Hey! I just joined and noticed that a lot of pages that I would like to edit have been protected. Is there any way you could grant me the necessary permissions? Thanks.

Harakoni (talkcontribs)

Page creation, image uploads, templates, and the main page are all locked behind getting auto-confirmed to help protect against vandalism. You'll get auto-confirmed by the bot after you make 10 edits and some time passes. Its annoying but its proved necessary.

If there's something specific you want to edit immediately that you don't have permissions for yet, let me know and I may or may not be able to arrange something.

How much time has to pass on top of 10 edits?

Harakoni (talkcontribs)

It varies but it takes a while. Why don't you just tell me which protected pages you want to edit?

I mainly want to upload images to several pages.

I believe that the bot may be broken.

Harakoni (talkcontribs)

Hmm thats not good. Its possible its just not gotten around to you, but I'll pass it up the chain and see what I can find out.

What images are you trying to upload?

Nevermind, the images that I was planning to upload are already there. I do think the bot is broken, though.

The bot is definitely broken. Could you manually give me confirmed?

Reply to "Edit permissions"
Summary by Harakoni

Mistake identified and corrected

FireDrakon (talkcontribs)

In game value says AP is 100%, you wrote 800%. In game it acts like 100%. I am going to fix it.

Harakoni (talkcontribs)

Go for it. I'm not in a position to check atm. It's absolutely possible I made a mistake or even that it's been changed since

Caelphon (talkcontribs)

Hi there, saw a post on Reddit concerning Wiki Maintainers.

I have experience editing a Wiki already; I moderate and maintain a SS13 Server's Lore - contributions can be found here:

I'd like to transcribe what is present on Rimworld, and this Wiki, so that other players can find what they need to.

I'd like to commence with Archotech. I have a write-up ready, if you'd like to see it.

Harakoni (talkcontribs)

Welcome to the RimWorldWiki! And yes I'd absolutely love to see it!

To be clear the main reason I asked people to lemme know is so I can help out and we can make sure it'll work transcluded into Lore (length permitting ofc). I'm more than happy for you to have go at it alone if you're happier/more comfortable with that.

Harakoni (talkcontribs)

Also I have no experience with SS13 but I can appreciate those pages even as a total newcomer. Definitely excited to see your write up now.

Caelphon (talkcontribs)
Caelphon (talkcontribs)

How'd you find it?

Harakoni (talkcontribs)

Oh I am so sorry I would have sworn I responded to you already. It either got lost somehow or maybe I closed the tab before it fully sent? Either way my bad for not double checking.

That is a little annoying. I wrote a few paragraphs last time. The tl;dr was its excellent and I'd be happy for you to put it up. There were some minor wiki related things - e.g. having the linked list of archotech items nice and early, and some source stuff and a couple of minor lore quibbles/additions that I've now forgotten, but otherwise its great and we can iterate on it as we go!

Great work!

Caelphon (talkcontribs)

Awesome, thanks! I assume that the permissions have been sorted? Again, thanks!

Reply to "Archotech"
Pawn (talkcontribs)


This important sentence now appears after TOC

Do you even read after you make these edits?

Harakoni (talkcontribs)

There is a format standard for a reason. The construction cost is not the most important part of the information and even if it was it wouldn't belong in the intro. The intro is a short introduction to topic. Detail goes in the body. This keeps the page formats consistent so readers always know where to go to find the information they're looking for, and stops the intro from being bloated into a monolithic page with no headings where you have to read everything to find the information you want. Removing the heading makes the page worse, makes it inconsistent with the others, and makes it less future proof.

And please stop spamming topics on my talk page. Just pick one and keep posting in it. In that vein of stopping the spam, regarding deterioration doesn't apply to buildings. We don't need to and shouldn't spell out everything that doesn't apply to a page topic unless its a comparatively rare exception. We don't need to put for example that armchairs don't zzt when it rains or that pirates won't try to steal the filth on the floor or that cows don't explode when they die like boomalopes. But noting that corn plants are vulnerable to blight? Thats a good addition because its only the domesticated plants, a fairly small subset of plants, and even then there are a number of exceptions.

We also don't need to spell out things that apply to literally every member of its class, because those are handled by their parent pages. For example, every temperature sensitive plant has the same temperature ranges. There is some variation on when a given single individual plant will die, because it uses an RNG to decide the specific tick it dies on, but the ranges are the same.

Pawn (talkcontribs)

You said nothing about TOC before. You said nothing about TOC once again.

Pawn (talkcontribs)

MediaWiki is far from perfect and we have to deal with that sometimes... Now read carefully about TOC.

Harakoni (talkcontribs)

Let me simplify it for you:

  • Content appearing after the TOC is a non issue.
  • Almost everything on the page is important. Thats why its on the page.
  • Construction cost is important. Cover mechanics are important. Fertility is important. Power requirements are important.
  • If everything important goes into the intro, then everything on the page goes into the intro
  • That makes the page harder to read and the ToC unusable.
  • Being below the ToC isn't an issue. Being before the content and linking to it is what it is for.

Now I have been patient, I have explained in both the edit summaries and here why the standards exist and I have repeatedly asked you to actually explain what the hell you're talking about both in Talk and on the pages you edit. You have consistently failed to do this. I still have no idea why you think being below the ToC is such a problem. You have also continued to make pages worse, inserting random non-sequiturs, wrecking formatting even putting aside any format standards, and spamming red links that will never be filled instead of just finding the relevant already-existent page to link or just leaving it unlinked. And you have continued to be rude.

Now if you want to discuss this politely and actually explain what the hell you're talking about for once instead of half assing single line complaints that are no more clear than your edits, I'd be happy to do that. If not, I'm happy to ban you for your repeated vandalism and move on.

Pawn (talkcontribs)

Your words "TOC is a non issue" doesn't mean anything really. I know what MediaWiki can do and can't do.

You made no suggestions about what to do with text, TOC or something else once again.

Pawn (talkcontribs)

You're complete MediaWiki noob and don't know how red links work.

I'm really sorry for anyone who will work with people like you.

Harakoni (talkcontribs)

The text goes under the TOC because that's where its meant to be and you have not provided any reason why it shouldn't be like that. That is my "suggestion".

Legitimate question - Is English your first language? Is there a language barrier? Because otherwise there is no excuse for this bullshit.

Zesty (talkcontribs)

Closing this topic. Harakoni has been more than patient with you, Pawn, and he isn't doing anything wrong. Disagreements about style can be handled in a civil manner.

There is no place for hostility on a video game wiki. Please take a step back and take a breather.

Pawn (talkcontribs)
Harakoni (talkcontribs)

Yeah again, I could not figure out what trees have to do with deterioration nor what update was being mentioned and there was no context in the article to explain its relevance.

Pawn (talkcontribs)
Reply to "Text is lost"

Text is lost (about red links)

Summary by Harakoni

Discussed relevance of removed text. Added blue link to replace red links

Pawn (talkcontribs)
Harakoni (talkcontribs)

Can you be more specific? Iirc the only thing that was removed was the line about stockpile zones existing, which had no context linking it to page at all. Everything else was just reshuffling to make it fit the page format standard.

Pawn (talkcontribs)

Yes, my bad then. Not text but some red links. I think "day" and "night" should be clarified or pointed with links.