v50 Steam/Premium information for editors
- v50 information can now be added to pages in the main namespace. v0.47 information can still be found in the DF2014 namespace. See here for more details on the new versioning policy.
- Use this page to report any issues related to the migration.
This notice may be cached—the current version can be found here.
Difference between revisions of "40d Talk:Igneous extrusive layer"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (combine 4 identical pages?) |
m (moved Talk:Broken/40d\x3aIgneous extrusive layer to 40d Talk:Igneous extrusive layer: Fixing talk page name (336/738)) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
These 4 Ig.Ext. stones are, to use the technical term, ''identical''. Same ores, same cluster stones - they're even the same color. Would it be reasonable to put them all on the same page, especially since there is so little to say about any one of them, and it's all the same text, down to the last comma? Open the 4 pages, click from one to another, nothing changes visually. The ''only'' diff is their un-mined representation in the game - and if they're the same, that doesn't matter that much. Or leave it as is?--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 11:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | These 4 Ig.Ext. stones are, to use the technical term, ''identical''. Same ores, same cluster stones - they're even the same color. Would it be reasonable to put them all on the same page, especially since there is so little to say about any one of them, and it's all the same text, down to the last comma? Open the 4 pages, click from one to another, nothing changes visually. The ''only'' diff is their un-mined representation in the game - and if they're the same, that doesn't matter that much. Or leave it as is?--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 11:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I may be biased here, but I don't see how combining them would create a better situation. Even though they are ''identical'', the stone pages are intended to fulfill the need of people who want to look up a single stone. Combining them into one article would be detrimental to this usage. [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 12:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 21:47, 8 March 2010
todo: list of gems, ores, and stones present in the layer
- (I think we can mark that "done" - and thanks!)
- And on another issue...
Andesite, Basalt, Felsite, & Rhyolite[edit]
These 4 Ig.Ext. stones are, to use the technical term, identical. Same ores, same cluster stones - they're even the same color. Would it be reasonable to put them all on the same page, especially since there is so little to say about any one of them, and it's all the same text, down to the last comma? Open the 4 pages, click from one to another, nothing changes visually. The only diff is their un-mined representation in the game - and if they're the same, that doesn't matter that much. Or leave it as is?--Albedo 11:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I may be biased here, but I don't see how combining them would create a better situation. Even though they are identical, the stone pages are intended to fulfill the need of people who want to look up a single stone. Combining them into one article would be detrimental to this usage. VengefulDonut 12:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)