Talk:Adamant

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)

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)

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)

Examples of Use
Couldn't the "Examples of Use" section be considered a trivia section? -- Sikovin (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

"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)

Prose vs. List
I've removed the template message about lists/prose at the head of the In fiction and popular culture section. If this section needs to be re-ordered, then this whole article needs to be overhauled.

Really, I think this article should deal with and only with the mythological material. It appears in a huge number of areas that could reasonably be dubbed "popular culture" and the enormous list this article has just detracts from the actual encyclopedic value of the article.

Perhaps a list-only page could be made for it, to which a theoretically unlimited amount of references could be added, but I don't think it belongs here.

Also, why is this a part of WP:METALS? I thought the WikiProject for metalworking was primarily about the actual craft/industry of metalwork, not fiction? Kierkkadon (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Adamant old fashioned urinals
In past decades old fashioned British gents' public toilets dating from Victorian times often had Adamant brand urinals. I expect nearly all of them have been demolished or modernised by now. See http://www.nothingtoseehere.net/2009/10/victorian_toilets_rothesay.html I thought that was the source of the punk/new romantic pop singer Adam Ant's name. 92.24.136.226 (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Dwarf Fortress and Adamantine
I think that somebody should remove the Hell notice in Dwarf Fortress part, because it's a spoiler. Hell is really, really, really !!FUN!! to discover for the first time... 68.115.63.58 (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Simplified the sentence structure as well. -190.120.235.5 (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Adamant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620084555/http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?action=search&resource=Webster%27s&word=Adamant&quicksearch=on to http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?action=search&word=adamant&resource=Webster%27s&quicksearch=on

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Mythology?
The mythology section also contains entries from the Bible and literature. Maybe a more "neutral" name can be found? - Klein Muçi (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * How about just "In Literature"? I think that makes sense. The "In Fiction" section could be merged with it, and that would get rid of the triviality problem. -- Roundish   ⋆  t c) 13:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Roundish, in my eyes "Literature" again reads as something intrinsically different from mythology or the Bible. Maybe mythology can be thought of as a subpart of literature (even though, for what is for some people literature, for a very small number of people it can be a theological belief or, at least, it used to be many, many years ago) but it's very hard to reconcile the Bible with literature.
 * Inspired by your suggestion I believe the best approach would be to restructure those 2 sections. Either split them in more small subsections or maybe conjoin them in a big list-like section with a very neutral title like "Mentions of the term". Ideally speaking, the multi-sections approach would be better I believe (not necessarily smaller subsections) because it would make the article resemble more the classical article structure and help it separate from the list-like look it currently has. Having said that though, I'm not sure if more information can be found about the topic to help "fill it with text". I for one didn't know much about the matter before reading this article (was surprised to learn there was more to it beside the Wolverine's adamantium) so I'm not up for that task myself. - Klein Muçi (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I like the multiple sections idea, just not sure how to format it or what would be in them. If there is barely any information to "fill it with text" beyond trivial mentions, the section might have to turn into one smaller list...I created a subpage for it and I'm going to experiment there and try out different sections, then add it to the article. -- Roundish   ⋆  t c) 13:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with your thoughts, it bugged me too.
 * Maybe the "Mythology" section could become "In Tradition"? It doesn't imply much beyond it being a part of culture for a long time, nothing too messy.
 * Although, this could open a whole different can of worms as to what constitutes "tradition": is the Aeneid "tradition," or does it fit alongside Dante in "fiction"? Or should Dante be stuck in with the Aeneid in "tradition"? Now that I think about it, that could be messy! 🧐 HomoErectusFan (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * HomoErectusFan, I'm starting to think the best approach would be to have the way-too-general "Mentions of the term" (or something similar) big list. But I don't know how that would work for the general structure of the article. It already suffers from the lack of text from an aesthetical point of view. That would just turn it into a list. — Klein Muçi (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)