Amusing, how we dance around the ambiguity here. These were all Gems until just recently... :) --Eirik Ratcatcher 21:08, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd say there's more than dancing going on. People are (metaphorically) flipping through the air and composing serenades. I can't figure out why this article exists; "mineral" is not a term used in the game, is it? Do we have any incentive to make categories around it, set up rigid definitions to include it, etc? My vote is to delete or just abandon the term. Sig-JIM ° talk ˚ contribs. 18:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's not an official term, I think we should either add sections for ore and stone or rename the page to "raw gem" or "uncut gem". -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the current concept is:

  • if it comes from the ground (mining), but is neither ore nor "stone"
  • if it conceivably came from the ground (vendor items you can't actually mine, and drops)

... which is still dancing around it. I'd be happier removing the whole outland/northrend elements. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Find Minerals detects veins and deposits, which are generally named after the ore they contain, so ore and mining nodes have the strongest claim to mineral status. Maybe we could turn the mineral article into a disambiguation page. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:43, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

I find the same flaw. The person who wrote this page seems to want to assign the term "mineral" to any uncut gem, which is categorically incorrect: the "Find Minerals" skill seeks to detect nodes of ore, many of which contain no uncut gems. And in case there is still uncertainty, all the items listed are found under the "Gems" section of the Auction House. Austinlwyman4 (talk) 22:58, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.