40d Talk:Stone

'Stone is divided into a few key categories:'

The statement that stone is divided into a few key categories means the categories are arranged in such a way so that each stone is in exactly one of them. "Metal ores", "gems" and "other stone" is one example of such a division. "Metal ores", "gems", and "economic stones" is an example of something that isn't. This is because everything that is a metal ore is also an economic stone. Here are two possible divisions:

1. Economic stone
2. Gems
3. Other

1. Ores
2. Gems
3. Other

In one case 'other' is everything that isnt economic or a gem. In the other case other is everything that isnt an ore or a gem. Since eventually more types of stone will have special uses, and the economic stone feature may be expanded to include everything, I think the second division is better. Thoughts? VengefulDonut 11:03, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Clicking on "metal bars" and landing on the grating, from a discussion of the stone it comes from may be good wiki, but it strikes me as bad 'help'. Revert if you want, but I'm trying to simplify redirects and 'illogical' links. --Nightwind 03:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Old stuff

Where did the ore and economic stones go?

I've moved the economic stone and ore categories to their own articles, as was suggested. I've reorganized this to reflect the change VengefulDonut 22:38, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Oh! and if someone decides to make the ores redirect to the ore page instead of the stone page, keep in mind that it would be nicer of you to turn them into something like malachite instead VengefulDonut 22:42, 6 November 2007 (EST)

I notice that Economic stone lists economic + metal ores, my edit to the stone page divides it as the stockpiles do. -- infinity

Is there any kind of stone that isn't mineable? If not, then I don't think that "Mineable Stone" makes sense as a section header. --Peristarkawan 13:36, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Good point, I think I was trying to separate that from "soil" and other things that don't leave behind anything ... I shouldn't edit so early in the morning. --Infinity 20:45, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Now all we need is graphical representations! Schm0 16:24, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

What about ICE BLOCKS? those count as stones for some purposes. --Thehunterunseen 19:27, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

I haven't been able to get my dorfs to do anything with ice blocks yet. Haven't managed them to go down (or up) the stairs into the frozen river I had anyway, so... (I was explicitly trying NOT to mine out the side of it)--Draco18s 00:48, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't raw adamantine be under metal ore as opposed to "other stone"? --RedKing 00:43, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

It's probably due to where it's grouped in the raws. --Alfador 14:40, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Why are we listing platinum nuggets instead of native platinum, when talking about it in it's unmined state? --Trukkle 10:23, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

I am thinking about implementing a more detailed table style for this area. The existing tables are nice, but there should be much more information on this page. Perhaps something like this:

Name	Tile	Type	Uses
Olivine		Generic	Stoneworking

What do you guys think? Schm0 15:41, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

I really like that, Schm0 --Tracker 18:29, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

I agree it looks good, but can it be accomplished without using gifs? we have a raw tile template so we could do something like this:

Name	Tiles	Type	Uses	Value
Olivine	% • ╬║═	Generic	Stoneworking	1
Microcline	% • ╬║═	Generic	Stoneworking	1
Platinum Nuggets (Mined)	* • ╬║═	Metal Ore	Stoneworking, Smelting	40

--Matryx 06:10, 5 November 2007 (EST)

Someone, with correct formatting, add this to the bottom of the page. http://idisk.mac.com/fire_drake-Public/DF_StoneOre_Table.htm -penguin

I'd try, but what does the 'V' or 'C' mean in the table? --Valdemar 10:06, 4 November 2007 (EST)

"vein" and "cluster" VengefulDonut 17:29, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Okay, I've added something like it with some of my own formatting through a program, but it will still need a lot of cleanup. --Valdemar 17:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Individual pages

I'm of the opinion that ores and economic stones should probably get their own page, but the rest can just redirect here. There just isn't much to say about cryolite or jet. They're rocks, they have about such-and-such a value, the end. How about it? --Turgid Bolk 20:59, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Yes, the pages about the all the stones in the 'other stone' category should be deleted, any information about them can just be included in the table on this page. All the info from the raws is now summed up in the table. --Valdemar 21:06, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Instead of deleting, let's redirect to this page. Just replace them with #REDIRECT [[Stone]]. (The #R button above the edit box helps with this.) --Turgid Bolk 22:13, 4 November 2007 (EST)

On different note, I think that Ores should be on a separate page to Stone. I don't consider 'Ore' to be stone, although I agree there is little difference in the way that stones and ore operate in the game. One alternative; add information about metal ores to the metals page, which doesn't exist at the moment, ores could more usefully redirect there. I was trying to find out what metals tetrahedtrite produced by starting on the metal page, but found no reference. I was then confused to find myself redirect from ores to stones. --Markavian 21:09, 6 November 2007 (EST)

An ore: A mineral or an aggregate of minerals from which a valuable constituent, especially a metal, can be profitably mined or extracted. Answers.com/ore

Perhaps you would have found the tetrahedrite page helpful. (look at the beautiful template) VengefulDonut 21:18, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Unfortunately, not all of the ores have beautiful templated pages like that just yet. You can help VengefulDonut 21:21, 6 November 2007 (EST)

I did see the tetrahedrite page eventually, it was very plush. I look forward to the other ores exhibiting a similar likeness. :) --Markavian

Does anyone know what calcareous ooze is, or what siliceous ooze is? It's listed as a stone under the stockpile menu. Bouchart 02:27, 23 November 2007 (EST)

Stones water permeability

hi all! can someone tell me where I can find water permeability of stone?

I didn´t find it...

and could someone tell me how mica wall reacts on water? (I am looking for the cave river...digging nets and such stuff)—Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwinBG2 (talk•contribs)

The types of stone listed as an aquifer are permeable and those that aren't aren't. The only two types of stone aquifer are sandstone and conglomerate. If that doesn't help, you may be asking about a feature I have't heard of yet; could you explain? VengefulDonut 10:02, 24 December 2007 (EST)

ok thank you! that was exacly what I meant! I risk it...(could be a sea and my legendary miner is dead...no risk no fun!)

Petrified wood

does petrified wood count as wood or stone? also, does it count as fire-safe?--0todd0 21:57, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

I haven't been able to use it as wood. I'm almost positive it just functions as stone.--Mrdudeguy 22:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Otodd- you never seen petrified wood? 100% STONE, 0% WOOD. And yes, as a stone, it's fire-safe.--Albedo 22:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Damage/Block Percentages

Do all stones have the 133% Dam and Block percentages, like Obsidian or is that mutually exclusive to [SHARP] or [LAVA] stones? --MagmaSeven 22:03, 23 February 2009 (GMT)

No other stones can be made into anything resembling weapons or armor, so I guess not. Although I wouldn't say for sure. --Zchris13 21:19, 23 February 2009 (EST)

Other Stone changes

I added a new row to other stone to address the argument on the talk page of Olivine. Please only list interesting stones with material value of 2 or more.--Mrdudeguy 22:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The use of double question marks in the "Can Contain" column is confusing to new users; it gives the appearance that the page is in need of updating. Since as a more senior wiki editor pointed out to me that the info should be confirmed from the /raw/objects files first, I suggest that the "Can Contain" should be eliminated since it is misleading to imply that some stones will contain only one kind of gem (i.e. that the ONLY gems you can find in Bauxite are Rubies or Saphires) and that the matgloss_stone_mineral.txt file is not organized as such. (The Gem page is currently organized better for the purpose of finding which stones to mine for particular gems, plus is clearly based on the matgloss_stone_gem.txt raw object.) --3lB33 18:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively the "can contain" column can say "various ores and gems" so as to include all the gems and ores that are in the "ALL_STONE" environment. --3lB33 19:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

is confusing to new users

In your opinion. The "discussion" page is not so much to announce radical changes as a place to discuss them before they are implemented - collaborative effort and all that. Now, upon reflection, I happen to agree 100% - it is misleading, and the "??" should be improved as well - but the column is useful (it was added for those stones that are not "generic" yet don't really deserve their very own page) - so I changed the heading of that column. Not as radical a change as deleting it entirely. If others agree it should be gone, then it can go - once and if others agree. Not sure what the ??'s should be replaced with - I think as it stands they do mean those entries needs to be updated, altho' many will indeed be "none". --Albedo 23:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from the Media Wiki Help Pages: "The number one rule of wiki editing, is to be bold. Dive in and make changes. Other people can correct mistakes later, so have confidence, and give it a try! There can be all kinds of editing conventions, rules, and philosophy governing the editing of wiki pages, but the "be bold" rule overrides these!" If others don't like my changes they're more than welcome to roll them back. I'm just doing what the "number one rule" says I should do, sorry if I offended.--3lB33 04:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted? No way... It's necessary, and "can contain" wasn't all that confusing really. Maybe, "Can also contain" with it being stated that most gems/ores not listed can be found in almost all stones. Shardok 23:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Either heading seems like a decent compromise to me. But, the question marks still scream, "We, the DF wiki editors, don't know enough info for this section, please sign up and help us out!" I've seen it so often before on other custom wikis (particularly the ones which are rarely updated, but I'm glad to see my changes challenged so quickly!) Can't we just leave those table cells blank? --3lB33 04:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The last column makes the table looks ugly, and adds very little value since it is nowhere near complete. It should either be finished or removed. VengefulDonut 00:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No offense - and I'm not married to the current heading by any means, but I think that column serves a purpose, even if it still needs refining/completing. It was originally a compromise for stones that were not perfectly generic - but many are. So, it actually is close to complete, it just needs to have a lot of the "nope, nothing here" stones blanked in that column. Busy work that no one is yet excited about.--Albedo 17:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

So you think it should be finished rather than scrapped. But not badly enough to fill it in :P

Perhaps we can set it aside onto the talk page to wait for someone who wants it in the article badly enough to make it. VengefulDonut 18:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no, just not badly enough to prioritize it as "Must be done yesterday!". I have other projects in mind, and the time/benefit return for this one, for my tastes, is not as attractive as for those.--Albedo 18:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There, is that better? No, I don't like it much right now, seems to empty, which is why I am asking, do you think it would look better if I also added ores (Yes, I said I will do it, don't fret about added work) Shardok 19:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it would look better in a separate section specifically dedicated to that purpose rather than added onto that table. It really doesn't seem like it's going to fit nicely. VengefulDonut 23:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not entirely sure what we want out of something like that. The gem locations we can already see in one place. There is one dedicated to ores as well. What exactly is the goal here? Could it instead be accomplished by copying over those tables to here? (Or perhaps linking them?) VengefulDonut 23:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason I've visualized in my head is when you have your miners digging, and they hit Bauxite, and I want to know what's so unique about Bauxite, well, I can come here and see that it's the exclusive source of Rubies, Saphires, and Star Rubies and Saphires. Yey! Now my dorfs can hollow out the the whole bauxite cluster looking for the gems. Otherwise I agree with you, this column doesn't make sense here, and doesn't reflect how Toady One designed the RAW files. --3lB33 01:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, unless you are searching for specific gems, I don't see the point to this column. Even more since there's some information already in the precious gem section of the wiki. For the bauxite example, it's already listed in the article that's the only stone containing rubies and sapphires. If a new player saw this table, he might miss the part about the bauxite being the only magman proof stone. --Karl 01:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point to this column

It was originally a compromise for stones that were not perfectly generic.

Which is to say, that column was intended to cover information that set some few stones apart from truly "generic" ones (like, say, microcline) without needing their own page, which would all be stubs and even more offensive. If a stone has only a couple minor details that make it stand out, that single column covers them all nicely and completely - and in a single glance. --Albedo 03:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Telling someone why the column was created is not relevant when they are asking what the point of the column is. ("Why was is created" vs. "Why do I want it here"). Also, I would find individual stone stubs to be less offensive than the current arrangement. Can you really tell me you find the thing aesthetically pleasing? The framework for putting the stone infobars together is already set up and since they are almost all generic most of them wont need any special treatment. Probably a 15-30 min copy/past job. VengefulDonut 08:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If you *really* have a problem with it, make the pages yourself. As it stands now, most of the people that like it this way are the only people that might make a bunch of individual pages for the stone, unless you actually have plan to create them. Complaining about the way it is when it's okay as it is and you have no plans to change anything really doesn't do anything unless you can find someone that will do something. We've got it looking good enough right now and to some it is pleasing to look at.Shardok 08:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

First, by most of the people, you are speaking of the 4-5 peoples out of hundred who wrote here ? The fact is, this column serve no real purpose, the information is easily available elsewhere. An old timer would know this information already or know where he might find it, a new player might not even care to find some specific gems. 7 of the 40 entries are not empty, of these 7, 4 already have articles with the information available. And after a quick glance at the ores and gems articles I don't see how we could add more information to this column. I would rather create the 3 missing articles, remove the column and add an asterisk or some markup to the specific articles so we can better see that they are not link to wikipedia. There's already this little bit of text, upside of the table : The types of stone listed here that do not link to their own article are generic. (I'll not do it right now, since we are discussing about it... that's the point of a talk page. It's just a suggestion that will remove the ugliness of the table, without really removing the "information" part) --Karl 11:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, I may have been unclear here. I meant should I put in what ores are found specifically in certain stones. Which, I noticed afterward was already stated (Platinum being the only one). Shardok 04:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Why was is created" vs. "Why do I want it here"

The diff is subtle - "Why it was created" is the reason why some wanted it here; whether that's seen as a valid reason by all is not my job to intuit. If "some" users found it useful, then by definition it's useful, whether or not it's useful to you or me.

I would find individual stone stubs to be less offensive than the current arrangement.

(You realize that is the exact opposite from your stance from your view on the Olivine article, which, if you recall, was the spark that led to this column in the first place. Currently, the only stone articles with minimal text are ones for individual layer stones, which is the only reason those exist. Views change, all good - just saying.)

I would rather create the 3 missing articles

And they would say "this is a stone, and it has this one quirk." Meh, personally, I dislike having to go to a separate page for each stone just to find that out, when I can see all that and more at a glance on a table.

you are speaking of the 4-5 peoples out of hundred who wrote here 

We are speaking of the people who are vocal here and now, which is all we can speak of (besides keeping to the guidelines and existing style of this wiki.)

An old timer would know this information already
a new player might not even care to find some specific gems

With that philosophy we can delete 90% of the wiki, leaving only "advanced but not too advanced" stuff- but based on who's perspective?
The wiki starts at square 1 and goes as deep as the users care to offer. Having info on different pages is not always the best plan. The column looks odd because most stones are generic - it's the few exceptions that it addresses, and it covers them well - aesthetics aside, it does the job from a functional perspective. In the end, that is the large part of what we're talking about - style and personal preference. The only functional distinction is whether that information is better served scattered on several articles, or living in this one table.--Albedo 18:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have always been a proponent for having individual articles for every stone. This is how the wiki ended up with so many stone articles despite occasional opposition (look at the histories :). If you reread the arguments on the olivine page carefully, you will find that I have never said I oppose such a plan. VengefulDonut 03:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Quote to quote is somehow annoying, anyway. Should we edit the other table to add a special row for the granite to see that it's the only stone where you can find bismuthinite? It's redundant information and goes against the R policy Redundancy: Before creating a new page, do a search to find out if the topic is already discussed in detail somewhere else. If you find that redundant pages already exist, merge their content and have one redirect to the other. This rule also refers to redundant material inside pages. We basically duplicate information already available in this wiki. It's not like it's hard to click a link, except if the person is lazy :p --Karl 23:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Redundancy is not evil if done correctly. VengefulDonut 03:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

True enough, but in this case it's better served by this article ; The_Non-Dwarf's_Guide_to_Rock. Not only is it good looking, but it list every type of rock, not only the "other rocks". --Karl 10:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the last column of the table, added the 3 missing link... 2 of them were created, the third one already existed... which is odd, since the table linked to the wiki article. Like I said, it's duplicated information, you have it inside 5 of the 7 stones articles, 2 of them where created instead. It's possible to find this information, and a lot more inside the non-dwarf guide, and AFAIK, if someone struck a new stone he didn't know or remember, is first move, if he ever come here, will be to search for the stone name, not for the "other stone" article. So by having articles for specific stone, we actually help them navigate this wiki.

Semantically, a table with a lot of duplicate or repetitive information doesn't really serve it purpose, either. --Karl 00:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Alluvial

What is this? I found it all over the raws containing several shiny ores and gems, except I can't seem to find any information on where it's found. I would love to add it to the list of stones though, as these gems found in it aren't too valuable, but are still unique to find there. Shardok 19:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Alluvial = soil, at least in DF. VengefulDonut 23:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, alluvial is not soil, at least in 40d - all of the gems and minerals stated to appear in ALLUVIAL layers never actually show up in soil. If I change all instances of ENVIRONMENT:ALLUVIAL to ENVIRONMENT:SOIL in the raws, then I end up with soil layers containing small clusters of gold, cassiterite, and tons of gems. The [ALLUVIAL] tag itself doesn't seem to have any effect. --Quietust 19:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to guess it's another of T's over-plotting elements, one that (as yet) has not been developed. And, yes, from the evidence it seems that "alluvial" is not "soil", not by DF definitions anyway.--Albedo 21:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Dorfen nuke?

Has anyone figured out how to crack the secret of pitchblende?

Well, for that matter, a while I was keeping blocks of brimstone, saltpeter, and coke/charcoal next to the alchemist's shop in case someone had a really strange mood, but despite the suggestive materials I don't know if anything is implemented. Dorf and Dumb 07:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Actual pictures

I've been thinking about adding pictures of the actual stones to the pages, is this okay? (Justyn 07:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC))

The general rule I've been told is to just do things, rather than wait for some force to give you permission (provided you respect the stylistic choices of the site). In this case, I think adding it to the "DF Geology and real-world Geology" section would be fine. -- RomeoFalling 08:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I was asking to see if there were any objections rather than asking permission, I should have said that flat out. (Justyn 09:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC))

If you can't move a rock

This is for DF beginners as well as a question. If you reclaim a fortress and destroy a pre-existing wall, suddenly the rock you destroyed cannot move. That is because it is, like everything else you reclaim, set to "forbidden", in order to fix this you need to "claim" the rock before your dwarves will move it. Also, if you are building a large wall on top of pre-existing rock sometimes your dwarves will try to build the wall but say something is blocking the way, this is because the rock you want to build with is not the one the dwarves will try to pick up (instead of using the rock "0 spaces away" they will try to use the one next to it, and when they try to build the one next to it they will encounter the same problem). To avoid that you should build the walls one segment at a time (1x1, not 1x10 as usual).

Now for the question. I have a few rocks in my reclaimed fortress that are not forbidden but simply will NOT move. I cannot get dwarves to dump them, I cannot get dwarves to haul them off to a "Rock storage pile" I cannot get my dwarves to do anything with them but they are in the middle of my supply piles and my dwarves will not put supplies where these rocks are. Any ideas?

Known issue - anything which is TaSKed at the time of abandon will be impossible to interact with unless you force the object to be moved by some other means (such as flowing water, cave-in dust, or simply channeling the floor out from underneath it). Also, please sign your comments. --Quietust 04:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Layer 'main' link issue

The 'Main: Layer' thing at Layer section points to the newest version, instead of 40d. I would fix it myself, but alas I can't get it working, no matter what I do. Can someone better at wiki-formattomg fix that? --Haspen 10:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hrmph. Well, since {{L|Layer}} doesn't interact properly with the {{main}} template... I just hardcoded it to the 40d version. Shouldn't be a problem unless the community abruptly decides to redesignate the 40d-version pages to something else entirely. DeMatt 11:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)