- 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.
Difference between revisions of "40d Talk:Conglomerate"
m (moved Talk:Broken/40d\x3aConglomerate to 40d Talk:Conglomerate) |
|||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Conglomerate is a [[sedimentary layer|sedimentary]] rock, and that page has a list already. Do we have any reason to suspect that conglom is different? [[User:Aosher|Aosher]] 17:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC) | Conglomerate is a [[sedimentary layer|sedimentary]] rock, and that page has a list already. Do we have any reason to suspect that conglom is different? [[User:Aosher|Aosher]] 17:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :That's pretty much what I was thinking. I mean, compare the ungodly long "summary" box here to the one on the [[granite]] page, for instance. --[[User:LegacyCWAL|LegacyCWAL]] 18:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :: Oh well, I removed the gem parts! --[[User:Karl|Karl]] 10:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 15:40, 8 March 2010
conglomerate seems to contain far, far, more iron ore than any ~other layer~ it has decent coal veins, but almost no tetrahedrite, and little platinum we need to make this wiki a guide as to what rock is good for what, and this rock contains massive iron deposits(both limonite and magnetite) but no flux if you could help me with the other layers it would be much appreciated.– unsigned comment by eerr
What makes you think this applies to every world DF generates? Before putting such a theory in an article, we need good reason not to think it's random. VengefulDonut 18:22, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
Is it really necessary to list all the gems it can have, especially when so many are relatively generic? --LegacyCWAL 17:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Conglomerate is a sedimentary rock, and that page has a list already. Do we have any reason to suspect that conglom is different? Aosher 17:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's pretty much what I was thinking. I mean, compare the ungodly long "summary" box here to the one on the granite page, for instance. --LegacyCWAL 18:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh well, I removed the gem parts! --Karl 10:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)