Talk:Adamant
| WikiProject Science Fiction | (Rated Start-class, Low-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
| WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry | |||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
| WikiProject Metalworking | |||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Wiktionary
Should be moved to Wiktionary, in my opinion. Jwrosenzweig 20:59 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- There's the fictional stuff in X-men, which probably isn't worth an article to itself. -- Tarquin 21:16 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Relevant information
There's some relevant discussion about this hard stuff over at talk:adamantine. --Qole 18:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Topic of discussion moved to Talk:Adamantine Spar. --Cast (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Paladin-Sir-Meed?
What is with the mention of 'Paladin-Sir-Meed, a famous Sherwood Dungeon player' in the Examples of use section? Google search for Paladin-Sir-Meed and variations came up with only this very article, and a youtube video about 'Sherwood Dungeon' (which doesn't really seem notable at all itself, it doesn't even have a wiki page.) I'm going to remove it. 67.160.142.194 (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Examples of Use
Couldn't the "Examples of Use" section be considered a trivia section? -- Sikovin (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Seperation from Adamantium
People have seperated adamantium from adamantine, this smacks of fanboyism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.155.125 (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC) The point is, which one comes form adamantine, and which use from Marvel's adamantium. Artcile on adamantium claims, that metal in Warhammer 40K and DnD comes from Marvel's metal, and here is claimed otherwise. The border blends especially, when we add that many people use word "adamantine" as substitute of "adamantium" and vice versa. Its really hard to tell. 178.37.169.99 (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] "In fantasy" section
There was an "In fantasy" section that someone had already tagged with "citation needed", but I decided to just be bold and remove it, since, well, it was pretty much nonsense. For the record, this is what the section said:
- "Adamant is a spell-forged metal, harder than any other substance in existence. It is almost weightless, and can only be destroyed by powerful magic of unmaking."
Now, I've little doubt that this is true of "adamant" in some particular game or line of fiction. But to put this under the heading "in fantasy" implies that this is what adamant is in all fantasy settings, which is patently untrue. As is very clear from the "In fiction and popular culture" setting, different fantasy games and stories have had very different concepts of what "adamant" is in their settings; this description of adamant by no means applies across the board. If whoever put in that section wants to re-add this description of adamant (I guess according to the edit history that would be D arckangel), I suggest he not put it in its own section, but put it in the "In fiction and popular culture" setting, specifying exactly which fantasy setting this description applies to. (I made a brief attempt to figure out which setting that would be using a Google search, but didn't have any luck.) ----Smeazel (talk) 08:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
-
- the "in Mythology" and "In pop culture sections need a bit of reorganizing. I will do my best, but if any Mythology experts can say if Alexander Romance and Paradise lost are better described as mythology or pop culture/fiction, feel free to rearrange again. IthinkIwannaLeia (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
