Template talk:Stones

Wouldn't this be more aptly named Template:Stone_types or some variation thereon? Good idea though VD. --Edward 07:03, 25 January 2009 (EST)

If necessary, we can move/redirect or whatnot. Personally, I like the name rocks :) VengefulDonut 10:47, 25 January 2009 (EST)

As this stands, all stones except the non-flux economics (categorized under "unique") are included in their respective layers - stone that always appears as clusters is listed in the layer with its parent stone(s). Where a stone appears in more than one layer, it's listed multiple times. This may or may not be desired. Also left out slade. Ancient History 02:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Until recently, the top four rows were devoted to layer stones. They were followed by "unique" stones and then ores. These were all the stones I thought were worth drawing attention to.

With your edit, layer stones and generic rocks are being mixed together in the same rows. This seems really icky. If you think they deserve inclusion, at least put them in a new row (or new rows). VengefulDonut 04:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

My thought process was that you could look at the table and tell at a glance which stones were in which layers - I've separated out the clusters from the layer stones. Does that help? Ancient History 14:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm.. I think the format of this table is interfering with your goal. The result looks really cluttered.

Here's my suggestion: put your location table on the stone page or the guide to rock page and completely redo the structure. That way you can make it look attractive and we can leave this as a collection of links to relatively important stone types. VengefulDonut 14:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That basically defeats the entire point of the exercise, which is the fact that the original table is inadequate. They're not "important stone types" they're just layer rocks with the ores and the non-flux economic stones (and, for some reason, Kimberlite) shoveled into "Uniques." Fuck it, at least it's alphabetical. Ancient History 17:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What purpose do you think the table is inadequate for? What purpose would you like it to have?

About the "unique" row: this was a list of rocks that have some sort of special property that makes them stand out. For example, did you know you will only find diamonds in kimberlite deposits? And that graphite catches fire? And that you can make plaster out of selenite? Being economic or not is a completely different topic.

Also, the stone types that are in the list are more important than the ones that aren't (except the two super rocks). That makes them "relatively important stone types". VengefulDonut 07:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no point in having a Rocks template that doesn't include all the stone types. I mean, you've already got the layers identified - if you're going to have the template why not show what stones are actually in those layers? The other templates for animals and plants are all-inclusive. Your definition on the Uniques is just bizarre to me (and, more egregious, not alphabetical). Seriously, you might as well add in Kobaltite because it's the only bright blue stone. The others are at least economic stones. Ancient History 13:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is much point in having the rocks template include all stone. It becomes cluttered and impractical. If you want all stone, go to the stone page, where all the information needed to differentiate them is easy to communicate.

Actually I don't know how useful the current template is. --Nahno 15:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)