Talk:Gems: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:I think this should be fine for the moment, and we can (soonish) break it off into real item pages and use Semantic MediaWiki to include the gem types/colors into the page. --[[User:Callek|Callek]] 20:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC) |
:I think this should be fine for the moment, and we can (soonish) break it off into real item pages and use Semantic MediaWiki to include the gem types/colors into the page. --[[User:Callek|Callek]] 20:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
Has anyone actually found an aquamarine gem, malachite stone, or turquoise stone since the changes? I suspect they've been replaced with aquamarines, malachites, and turquoises. --[[User:StoicPriest|StoicPriest]] |
|||
Revision as of 16:22, 8 January 2009
I have a feeling that this page is going to get very unwieldy. It may be better if we use size/gem type only instead of colour/type/size/gem type - unless we can determine that DOES play into value. Also, do we want to use values of gems that have not had PG/CV cast on them? --Ysselt 20:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think this should be fine for the moment, and we can (soonish) break it off into real item pages and use Semantic MediaWiki to include the gem types/colors into the page. --Callek 20:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone actually found an aquamarine gem, malachite stone, or turquoise stone since the changes? I suspect they've been replaced with aquamarines, malachites, and turquoises. --StoicPriest