Talk:Gemology

Gemology and Jewelry: Gemology Top‑importance

	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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Gemology subpage.

Geology Mid‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Gemology 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hello I am Jeremy Paramore and I'm sure iv got a big enigma 💎 can u help me please

Wikification[edit]

There are a lot of errors and omissions in the text that stand to be corrected. The approach to this page should be systematic, i.e., wikified like the pages dedicated to gemstones species. I am an editor for The Gemology Project which is a "wiki." It can be accessed through http://www.GemologyOnline..com There are other gemologists here who probably don't know about this page yet. I will try to pass the word. Good work on a good start here! T.E. Goodwin 22:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article "Diamond Simulant" is very well written in my opinion and contains a lot of important information that can be incorporated into this article. Would that be considered "plagiarism" here or just plain redundancy? T.E. Goodwin 10:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I listed my other alma mater, Santiago Canyon College, with their Department of Gemology as a public educational and accredited (!) resource. T.E. Goodwin 00:46, 13
I think that GIA London and GIA should be reversed. GIA, Carlsbad, is after all the headquarters not the London campus. Right? T.E. Goodwin 01:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 2007 (UTC)

Identification by Magnification[edit]

I added this today, since the article has been discussing magnification. This section should concern the use of loupes and microscopes in gem identification and the separation of laboratory-created gemstones from their natural counterparts. Also, a sub-section should address the use of magnification to determine color treatment by analysis of heat-altered inclusions. Go for it! T.E. Goodwin 00:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Identification by Spectroscopy[edit]

The selective absorption and transmission of certain wavelengths of light through a material has little to do with refraction of white light within the material itself. I find the article misleading on that point. Does anyone else? Benjamander (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gemology → Gemmology – The word comes from the Latin word "gemma", plus the suffix "-ology". Such words should be based on Latin or (better) Greek, not on an English word like "gem". Both words are in Wiktionary, but with a more complete entry for the spelling with two m's. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the difference is American English and British English isn't it? Hence the Gemological Institute of America and the Gemmological Association of Great Britain. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both are English, there's no reason to change it, "gemma" is not English, so no reason to change it. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gemology is the more commonly used of the two spellings. Apteva (talk) 02:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per In ictu oculi, trusting your research. As for "Such words should be based on Latin or (better) Greek" (emphasis added), well, WP:UCN and History of the English language and etymology and WP:RS and WP:V and other similar pages might help. Red Slash 10:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RETAIN. --BDD (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. I'm British and I'd spell it gemology. The other spelling is not common anywhere. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Enigma diamond[edit]

Everything that an enigma diamond does 116.251.134.104 (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]