Talk:Jasper
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Requested move
IMO this article should be moved to Jasper (mineral), and Jasper (name) be moved here instead since that is the original meaning which all the other meanings derive from (including this mineral). /Jebur 19:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Page names should reflect the most common English usage of a word, and in my opinion Jasper as a name certainly doesn't qualify. Presumably you will also want other eponyms to point at their antecedent? Such as sandwich to refer to the Earl of Sandwich and boycott to point at Charles Cunningham Boycott? Sorry, doesn't work for me. Dragons flight 23:22, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Already reversed an undiscussed move. If you check What links here, you'll see that virtually all are to the mineral. Actually, the few that didn't I chenged to link to Jasper (name) or the disambig. page a few days ago. The given name Jasper is not as common outside of the Scandinavian countries and in itself is not that notable. Vsmith 02:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to oppose for the reasons already given. Also, from [1], it appears that etymology of the gemstone may be distinct from the proper name, rather than derivative. older≠wiser 15:32, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. violet/riga (t) 21:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - The common use of the word is to refer the the mineral. I found this page by typing jasper into google, and the other links were to the mineral aswell. HighInBC 21:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Historical
The information in the historical section only mentions references in Western civilization, and most particularly to Judeo-Christianity. If this is going to be here, references besides the Holy Bible should be used and there should be more information from eastern cultures. Shadowin 18:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Ummm huh, how about you track down that information and write it for us? Some one did the best they could with the knowledge they had. I don't seen anything wrong with there "only" being references from the Holy Bible, when you consider that the writing of Exodus and Revelation are centuries apart it seems like a fairly important reference marker in the Judeo-Christian tradition. I came to the page because I was wondering about a reference to "the jasper sea" was in a fiction book I am reading. If the historical section would have been removed then wikipedia would have once again been useless, but instead wikipedia came though for me. I vote to keep the historical section and vote that you stop whining. Thank you who ever put the historical data in the article. Dcllibrarian 04:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)