Wiki

[Ahnaom]

It might be better to add gold ranges for with and without haggling. 

That's only one dimension, you must take trader's mood into consideration as well. Not to mention price fluctuations depending on the amount of the goods or language abilities when trading with another faction's NPCs. Buying/selling differences also come into mind.

I would say a rough average would be enough for the start. Gives you an impression about the value of the goods and if the can be sold/bought at different price than the trader is currently offering.

[Tom Failur]

Surely just an absolute minimum and absolute maximum would be better? Just say that the lowest price will be when the traders has loads, is sick of seeing the same old face and without haggling. While the highest would be the exact opposite. So you just see the item value as 3-6gc.

[Neil Tathers]

What about items in which you need to trade in more items for one piece of gold, like poison darts and poisonous snakes.

[Tom Failur]

10 poison darts for 1gc = 0.1gc per poison dart

[Neil Tathers]

10 poison darts for 1gc = 0.1gc per poison dart

Fair enough.

I'll need info for that category though, I don't know some of these off the top of my head.

[Ahnaom]

Surely just an absolute minimum and absolute maximum would be better?<...> So you just see the item value as 3-6gc.

Yes, either that or the average value (neutral mood of the trader, normal amount of goods in the stock). Depending on the goods, either could be a bit painful to research.

[Neil Tathers]

I'm not sure I see the advantage to having items in tables. Surely it would make more sense to have them in a list? That way they can easily be found in the contents at the top of each page. There would also be more room to expand on what each item does, for example there is no mention that signs can have skulls put on top of them or that they can be made to face in certain directions.

To address this point once more.

I looked into each weapon into their own special heading, and it got extremely confusing real quick.  The page looked like a mess to me, so I decided to try this instead.

http://wiki.shartak.com/index.php/Melee_Weapons

Added a contents to help ease navigation of the page.

I did similar things to all the item pages.

As for making signs and campfires, all that jazz, those need to have their own pages I think.  

EDIT: Like so
http://wiki.shartak.com/index.php/Campfire
http://wiki.shartak.com/index.php/Signs

[Swarm]

On the melee weapons page Neil (http://wiki.shartak.com/index.php/Melee_Weapons), can you please specify that a wooden club can't score a glancing blow?  I would, but then I would have to get an account and I would probably screw the page up.

[Neil Tathers]

On the melee weapons page Neil (http://wiki.shartak.com/index.php/Melee_Weapons), can you please specify that a wooden club can't score a glancing blow?  I would, but then I would have to get an account and I would probably screw the page up.

If you look at the rest of them that can score a glancing blow, it says it.  I'd rather not add cannot score a glancing blow and make things more confusing.

On the glancing blow skill page, it states there what can and cannot score one as well.

[AlexanderRM]

On the melee weapons page Neil (http://wiki.shartak.com/index.php/Melee_Weapons), can you please specify that a wooden club can't score a glancing blow?  I would, but then I would have to get an account and I would probably screw the page up.

If you look at the rest of them that can score a glancing blow, it says it.  I'd rather not add cannot score a glancing blow and make things more confusing.

On the glancing blow skill page, it states there what can and cannot score one as well.

Huh, I'm rather surprised at how many weapons can't score a glancing blow.

I think it might better to have it specify "cannot score a glancing blow" instead of "can score a glancing blow", especially since many of the weapons that cannot are more obscure ones that are rarely used for combat.
Also, I was thinking Shovels could score glancing blows, but I haven't used them much for obvious reasons.

And/or just put an asterix on the entries somewhere, like on the accuracy, saying that it can't score a glancing blow. Just because it seems weird to have that as a special function/trait thing, getting in the way of reading the actual special functions.

[Neil Tathers]

Why mention it can't score a glancing blow?  It's easier to mention things that CAN score a glancing blow.  No need to confuse people.

[Zeek]

specifying both would seem like the best way to avoid that.

[Neil Tathers]

Or you simply add to confusion.  Why mention something when it doesn't have it.  Specifying it only on items that have it kinda drives home the point that only certain items have it.

[Swarm]

Or you simply add to confusion.  Why mention something when it doesn't have it.  Specifying it only on items that have it kinda drives home the point that only certain items have it.

Actually Neil, I looked on the wiki before (when I thought clubs could score a glancing blow) and it didn't say, and even though I used logic to assume that since it said for other weapons, it might not be for wooden clubs.  But I still wasn't sure until someone told me.  You should specify that. 

[Ahnaom]

I'm with swarm on this one. There should be some kind of a clear yes/no mark. Wiki has a bunch of holes, a reader can easily assume that piece of information is simply missing.

Also, rune stones and dice have been added to the game. They might deserve a small article about gambling(?) items.