40d Talk:Slate

I would say that this is one of the worst layer stones - of the few ores it possibly contains, it contains little to nothing --Höhlenschreck 23:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

<nods> Not all stones are built alike (and no two examples will be the same). Granite is clearly one of the superior layers, both for its richness and variety. Rhyolite and some others are consistently disappointing, in my experience anyway. It would be interesting to analyze and categorize/rank these, but I'm not sure how you'd do it objectively.--Albedo 00:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, not sure its a good idea to encourage it, but the discussion is probably a good place for a comment like mine - in the long run we might see where there is consensus on a layer/stone, like there prob. is on granite and then consider incorporating. In the very long run we might get smth like a list.. --Höhlenschreck 00:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

B is for Bold. If you think you can create an article that 1) has enough new information (even if "you" don't have all of it - it is a community thing), and 2) is not redundant with too much other information and existing articles - go for it! At worst, start a rough page, and ask for input on the Discussion page that will be attached to that. If people don't like it, it'll get deleted before you put too much effort into it - if it has support (I think I would), then it'll grow. Many articles started out as vague or partial stubs, and contributions have padded them out to commonly accepted articles on the topic.

Or, (better?), you could add another table to the layer section of the stone page (after discussing it on that discussion page?). So long as it adds content and has informative value, and the info isn't found elsewhere (at a glance), it should be kosher.--Albedo 03:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)