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.
Editing 40d Talk:Gem
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Warning: You are not logged in.
Your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history.
You are editing a page for an older version of Dwarf Fortress ("Main" is the current version, not "40d"). Please make sure you intend to do this. If you are here by mistake, see the current page instead.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
So... What's the difference between large gems and cut gems? [[User:Xaque|Xaque]] 09:42, 7 November 2007 (EST) | So... What's the difference between large gems and cut gems? [[User:Xaque|Xaque]] 09:42, 7 November 2007 (EST) | ||
:Large gems are a "finished produce." Cut gems are used to decorate stuff [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 19:12, 9 November 2007 (EST) | :Large gems are a "finished produce." Cut gems are used to decorate stuff [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 19:12, 9 November 2007 (EST) | ||
Line 9: | Line 4: | ||
:::Ok there is a small percentage chance that a gem will be cut into a large gem. Had to cut some 20+ gems to fill my mandate. [[User:Yvain|Yvain]] 06:12, 3 April 2008 (EDT) | :::Ok there is a small percentage chance that a gem will be cut into a large gem. Had to cut some 20+ gems to fill my mandate. [[User:Yvain|Yvain]] 06:12, 3 April 2008 (EDT) | ||
:::You make large gems by having a legendary gem cutter try several times. [[User:Rkyeun|Rkyeun]] 00:00, 11 September 2008 (EDT) | :::You make large gems by having a legendary gem cutter try several times. [[User:Rkyeun|Rkyeun]] 00:00, 11 September 2008 (EDT) | ||
− | :: | + | |
− | + | ||
+ | |||
+ | most of the gems have specific environments, but it would be a huge pain to organize it [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 19:12, 9 November 2007 (EST) | ||
+ | |||
+ | Toady One said under such metals as [[Bismuth bronze]] that he was trying to avoid using names specific to real-world places. I see several gems where he wasn't able to avoid it. --[[User:Alfador|Alfador]] 23:10, 9 November 2007 (EST) | ||
== Glass bar == | == Glass bar == | ||
Line 32: | Line 31: | ||
According to forum, people have round it [[User:Coelocanth|Coelocanth]] 12:24, 23 November 2007 (EST) | According to forum, people have round it [[User:Coelocanth|Coelocanth]] 12:24, 23 November 2007 (EST) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
== Redirects == | == Redirects == | ||
Line 51: | Line 47: | ||
Wow, I thought after ten years of building websites that I would automatically double check my links. It's fixed now. --[[User:Dwarven Gemologist|Gemmy]] 01:05, 17 March 2008 (EDT) | Wow, I thought after ten years of building websites that I would automatically double check my links. It's fixed now. --[[User:Dwarven Gemologist|Gemmy]] 01:05, 17 March 2008 (EDT) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
==Organization== | ==Organization== | ||
− | + | Is there any reason the page is organized as it is? Wouldn't it make more sense to sort gems alphabetically within rarity categories? Or at least group similar gems (ie, Opals, etc...) within rarity categories? Because the current layout is not useful for locating particular gems. --[[User:Squirrelloid|Squirrelloid]] 01:02, 25 April 2008 (EDT) | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | + | You're right. You should go and organize it.--[[User:Richards|Richards]] 01:11, 25 April 2008 (EDT) | |
== quality == | == quality == | ||
Line 83: | Line 65: | ||
:: I found it t0o... I'll see if I can add the info. [[User:Zara|Zara]] 11:45, 10 August 2008 (EDT) | :: I found it t0o... I'll see if I can add the info. [[User:Zara|Zara]] 11:45, 10 August 2008 (EDT) | ||
− | {{ | + | {{game Data| |
[MATGLOSS_STONE:MOONSTONE] | [MATGLOSS_STONE:MOONSTONE] | ||
Line 100: | Line 82: | ||
::Diamonds are much older than the Kimberlite deposits. They don't form in the Kimberlite - they form in the upper mantle and are brought to/near the surface by the Kimberlite. Most diamonds on the market are over 1 billion years old. So the actual diamond survives magma temperatures for its trip to the surface. Just because they're carbon doesn't mean that carbon is easily available for oxidation - at some temperature diamonds revert to graphite and then can burn, but that requires temperatures in excess of 1700 degrees C. As magma (in-game) is between 1300-1400 deg C, it shouldn't cause diamonds to become graphite, and thus they shouldn't burn. --[[User:Squirrelloid|Squirrelloid]] 14:00, 3 December 2008 (EST) | ::Diamonds are much older than the Kimberlite deposits. They don't form in the Kimberlite - they form in the upper mantle and are brought to/near the surface by the Kimberlite. Most diamonds on the market are over 1 billion years old. So the actual diamond survives magma temperatures for its trip to the surface. Just because they're carbon doesn't mean that carbon is easily available for oxidation - at some temperature diamonds revert to graphite and then can burn, but that requires temperatures in excess of 1700 degrees C. As magma (in-game) is between 1300-1400 deg C, it shouldn't cause diamonds to become graphite, and thus they shouldn't burn. --[[User:Squirrelloid|Squirrelloid]] 14:00, 3 December 2008 (EST) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− |