Talk:Celestine (mineral)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Diamond Celestine (mineral) is part of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Gemstones, Jewelry, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article is supported by WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, gemstones subpage.
WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry To-do:

If "celestine" is the accepted name, shouldn't this page be moved to an article with that title, and have "celestite" redirect to "celestine"? - An anonymous user

The caption of the picture reads celestine: is this a typing error, or an accepted alternative spelling? Physchim62 12:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Er... second sentence ... :-) Vsmith 12:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Quite clearly you are correct, mysterious user. This is retarded. I don't know who called it celestite in the first place, it's obviously the creation of a recursive reference to its original name or a spelling error. MrAngy 03:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Retarded? The mineral is called celestite in a variety of standard mineralogy texts and celestine in others. The IMA in 2004 (see 2nd sentence) recently decreed that the celestine spelling was to be the official name: accepting the Mineralogical Magazine 36 (1967), p135 use as celestine and rejecting the Mineralogical Magazine 43 (1980), p1053 use as celestite. Thus officially it is celestine although still commonly referred to also a celestite. I think it was a European vs US usage dispute, but not sure about that. Currently the celestine link takes one to a disambig page, so if the article is to be renamed that would need changing also - not really a big deal, and I'll probably get around to it some time - but not tonight. More importantly, the article needs to be improved and references added - as a good article is more important in my view than a trivial name dispute. Right now it's bedtime, so ... maybe tomorrow. Cheers, Vsmith 03:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)