This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gemology and Jewelry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Gemology and JewelryWikipedia:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryTemplate:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryGemology and Jewelry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. stateofOregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Talk:Thunderegg is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Esprqii, you changed the lead so it no longer says it's a "rock." I'm no geologist, so maybe that's so, but I think the lead sentence should say what it is, not merely what it's like. Is there a more accurate term that could be substituted in? -Pete 22:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to make it better, but I ain't no geologist either. My understanding is that it's not an official rock type but is a structure that is composed of rocks, a rock-like structure. --Esprqii 22:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty good, at least to my non-geologic eyes ;) -Pete 23:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now we need to fix the second paragraph...uninteresting on the outside, but yummy on the inside, bah. --Esprqii 23:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All I did was divide the paragraphs into sections. It may make it easier to work with, though I do not like the section heading "History". Someone suggest a better one? Zab 04:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a huge fan of one-sentence sections. If this collaboration results in bigger sections, that's great - but if not, I think the sections should be re-combined at the end of the week. Just my H.O. … -Pete 04:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Katr67 13:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may also be useful to consider how geode relates to thunderegg. Zab 07:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid the sentence "Thundereggs are not actually rocks, but rather geologic nodules which occur within other igneous rocks" is awkward and doesn't convey anything in a useful manner. "Geologic nodules" is a silly phrase; "nodules" should be sufficient. This sentence can pretty much be removed and preserve the initial paragraph's information. Farristry 18:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think your change makes the lede much better; but for background, the original purpose of that sentence was to point out that while thundereggs are Oregon's state "rock", they are (apparently) not technically "rocks", but occur within certain types of rocks. (See here for the source of that item: http://www.naturenw.org/rock-thundereggs.htm.) It might be useful to move that detail to the last paragraph, which mentions the state rock designation. Thanks! --Esprqii (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it formed? Is it only naturally occuring in Oregon? Why not near other volcanic regions? Chalcedony is found elsewhere. I saw a large (.5-1 metre in diameter) half of a thunderegg in a jewellery shop once. Are larger ones worth something? Jesset77 (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Thunderegg/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
The Thunderegg article never tells us exactly what one is. Harborseal (talk) 05:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Last edited at 05:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC).
Substituted at 08:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I have just modified one external link on Thunderegg. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
