Thank you for the big work you did on the last few days on this wiki. Unfortunately I've undone some of them, at least temporarily.
Articles like "Squad leads", "Free Space" and "Back Wall" should be sections on "Knights", "Plains" and "Walls" respectively. Maybe we keep them as a redirect to the related article section, maybe not. It depends on how the term is relevant, so people would search for that specific term.
For the "huge rework" on articles, especially those removing full paragraphs (reinserting them elsewhere or not) I usually undo them, until I can revise each change.
I consider some articles like "Vendors and Tools" more problematic than the average, because it mixes too much distinct content. Before it was "Tools" and "Vendors", with the info on both mostly overlapping. I've merged them, but I'm still not happy with it, because as I said, it's too miscellaneous. So I'll not be rigid with it, and I'm accepting all ideas about this article.
The "Walls" though is a quite stable article, not problematic at all, except for the dilemma of leaving images inside the table (and include the stumps along with them) or move them to a specific section/gallery. The more details and things we add to a table, the harder it looks like for a common reader to understand and highlight the basics they're looking for. So, except for the table, the article as whole is fine. But I'll take a look on all changes you've done there.
I'm little late for this, but welcome to the Wiki. The FANDOM bot always arrives faster for this.
"Undoing [...] Each change will all be analysed and reinserted if suitable.)"
I am uneasy with someone starting with the all too easy undo, and them having to rely on them actually doing the hard part.
I put a lot of efforts into determining and testing my facts, I can't source that and the only way to check is try yourself. The game's details can be quite subtle, wording things to sound nice easely makes them wrong.
"for the sake of keeping the history readable, so we can track when each piece of info was inserted or removed and why."
I try to do that.
Unfortunately it is more work, and submitting in more edits of a work in progress is not clean either.
And at some point there is so little left of the original that diffs are useless and side-by side reading of actual pages is the way to go.
Articles like "Squad leads", "Free Space" and "Back Wall" should be sections on "Knights", "Plains" and "Walls" respectively.
When topics have little overlap, they can be separate articles. And those 3 you mention are already quite loaded.
"Squad leads" : The point is precisely that squad leading is not anymore specific to knights. Factor in possible future more-or-less equivalent units in other biomes, and we better future-proof.
"Free Space": It can be in the forest and/or bridges, and plain is often not free because of obstacles. Seems you did not read it.
"Back Wall" : It could, but the "Wall" page is already quite long.
I consider some articles like "Vendors and Tools" more problematic than the average, because it mixes too much distinct content.
Agreed, it was a compound page to start with and I am not satisfied either.
But I feel the need for an overview-like part to get the fundamentals in a glance, without having to dive in walls of text of every unit's page.
Still thinking how to better organize it. For a start we should...
Use much more topic-focused links, so we could change them between redirect or article without having to edit those links.
Clarify and improve the terms, to avoid ugly constructs like "soldier archer".
I'm sorry, but not all pages are open for users' editions. This is why I've protected the "Wiki Editing" after undoing most of your changes. Regrettably not all edition rules are expressed there, as you can see by my first post here on your wall (e.g.: "huge rework on pages, removing full paragraphs, disrupting the page's history will be auto-reverted and analysed conservatively). Elaborating new formal editing directives takes time and is only viable when we forsee it as a more general demand. This is a quite common phenomenon on tiny wikis like ours. If you feel some of my reverting as an abusive behavior, maybe you should invest your efforts on larger wikis with more precise editing rules, where you'll have to study their policies for 1–2 days before making a simple edition, but you'll be more sure not to be surprised by an admin countermeasure.