Talk:Ruby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Diamond Ruby 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.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-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:

Normally I don't like to mention prices in a wikipedia article, but I don't know how else to say that synthetic rubies are *incredibly cheap*, compared to "natural" rubies. Does posting the $15 price on the [Ruby_(gemstone)] article violate NPOV, and if so, what can I do to fix it ? (I am not associated with Edmund Scientific other than occasionally buying a few items from them). -- DavidCary 01:38, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

The sentence

 "Ruby" lasers operate with a corundum lasing medium.

is technically correct, although it implies that there is no "real" ruby in a ruby laser. Synthetic rubies are used in lots of lasers (such as the rangefinder in the M-60 battle tank http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/laserssl.htm#sslhrl ).

Would it be better to say

 "Ruby lasers" use a synthetic ruby as the lasing medium.

? (Are there any lasers that use any form of corundum that is any color other than red/pink ?)

-- DavidCary 01:38, 18 May 2004 (UTC)


The article currently claims "Most manufactured rubies have dopants added to them so that they can be identified as artificial." This may be true, but I suspect it's a misunderstanding of the fact that *all* rubies (natural and synthetic) have chromium as Doping Dopant in the semiconductor sense. References ? Wiki:DeletedUnlessDefended -- DavidCary 01:38, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

I've removed the pricing and commercial link: aside from being highly inappropriate, it didn't really say much. The price of artifical rubies depends on the process used to make them, and the quality of the cutting. Flux rubies, for example, can still be pricey for most people (although far cheaper than naturals).
As for the sentence about dopants, it's entirely false. There was one specific brand of flux ruby, the Ramaura ruby, which included a dopant to identify them as artificial under UV light. It was a family business run by two women, and they've sinced retired. They were very high quality, of course, and they often rejected bribes in order to omit the dopant.
I've corrected a few more errors (none made by you, I don't think), but this article still needs a lot of work. It seems I'll have to abandon my recently self-imposed rule of "no editing of articles on subjects which you are a professional", because I'm shocked at how long such misinformation stood. Oh well. -- Hadal 06:05, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hadal, as the supplier of the ruby pic I have an interest in this article so here's a thought ......
Wouldn't exactly the opposite rule be best i.e contribute particularly to articles where you are an expert? How else could errors be corrected that only a professional will know about? Best Wishes, Adrian Pingstone 08:25, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


    Myanmar rubies are well known for their high quality

is this true? i removed it because i didn't know and couldn't find much in a quick google search to back it up. Dreamyshade 04:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Contamination confusion

According to the sapphire article, ruby is a major variety of sapphire that has been contaminated with chromium. According to this article, corundum is a major variety of ruby that is uncontaminated with chromium. Help? --Kizor 10:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It's very simple. Every kind of aluminum oxide is called corundum. Some kinds of corundum have small amounts of chromium, which makes them look red -- we call those rubies. Other kinds don't have chromium, so they don't look red (but other impurities may tint the transparent aluminum oxide a wide variety of other colors) -- we call those sapphires.

I deleted the infobox text "Ruby when uncontaminated with chromium", to hopefully stave off more such confusion.

I wish I knew why chromium looks red when mixed in transparent corundum, but it looks green when mixed into transparent beryl. --70.189.75.148 02:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

this site is weird!!!!!1

[edit] Possible contradiction in article

The article says that all rubies have imperfections. This would mean that 100% of rubies have imperfections. A few lines down, it looks like it says that some rubies are perfect. Could someone fix this? Evan Robidoux 22:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rubies in the Bible

Our article states that rubies are currently referred to in the Bible starting from the Book of Exodus. The Britannica Online article states "Although the word ruby is used in the English translation of the Old Testament, it is improbable that ruby was known to the ancient Hebrews." What do we base our claims on in the article? I have asked for citations in the text. Capitalistroadster 03:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New link

Hi, I recently added an "External links" section with a link to ruby-sapphire.com. It was reverted by Vsmith as spam, so I'll make the case for it here (sorry I wasn't logged in before, I didn't expect the link to be disputed). I'm not affiliated with the site, I added it because in trying to learn about ruby I've found it to be the most useful site on the web. Admittedly it's partially of a commercial nature. The site's author is selling his book, "Ruby & Sapphire". But the site also has about 50 useful articles, including few sample chapters from the book. The wikipedia policy is to allow links to "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links ).

It covers a lot of topics not yet covered in the wikipedia article, such as judging quality, enhancements, world sources, and prices. I have found that someone spending 30 minutes on the site would be more knowledgeable than every jeweler in my city! I would like to see some of this information incorporated into the wikipedia article, and the site used as a reference, but until then I think the link alone would benefit readers.

If linking to the site isn't acceptable, perhaps using the book as a reference or "further reading" section would work? Like this:

Hughes, Richard (1997). Ruby & Sapphire. R W H Publishing. 

--Grendzy 15:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the website appears to be a promotional site by the author to sell his self-published book. That is why the link was reverted. If you wish to add content based on material from the book, then it can be cited as a reference. Additionally, your comment that you weren't logged in at the time seems a bit odd as the above comment is your only contribution. Anons and brand new users promoting pricey self published books are viewed with skepticsm. Vsmith 16:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction; can anyone fix?

The section on the largest rubies contradicts that in the G Vidyaraj article -- which ruby exactly is the largest in the world? There are no sources cited in either article.

[edit] Richard Hughes

You should reconsider Richard Hughes website and book. He is one of the foremost experts in Gemology, and is recognized by many gemologists and jewelers as one of the great hands on field experts. There are others, but they have not published a book. I own the book, I would not consider it self promotion other than I doubt publishers would print something that specialized that a non PhD wrote. Chapter 4 on Color, Spectra and Luminescene has an excellent table on page 73 where he discusses Electronic transistions on dispersed Cr3+ ions, Intervalence Charge Transfer, Ion pair transistions etc. The photomicrographs of ruby inclusions are an invaluable guide to determining origination of the stone, and I know of no other source other than course notes from Gemology classes that have this info. Detection of Heat treatment is also a unique chapter. In summary the informational quality and reference materials supplied in the book far outway awkward and crass attempts at marketing that may portray this excellent reference work as just eye candy.

70.171.240.21 18:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC) John LeBourgeois

[edit] Mrs. Bauer

The only thing the page says right now is "Mrs. Bauer is the fattest person in the world. Someone needs to rewrite the page.

[edit] Pricing

 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (February 2007)

Some information about pricing, especially historically and mined vs. synthetic rubies would be interesting. -- Beland 19:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] phenomenon

I just read this page and I think the snippet about stars in the phenonmenon section is still very ambigous event after having read the pages linked to from this page. I don't know exactly what needs to change so that this becomes meaningful, perhaps a picture is the best way to clarify what in the world you are talking about. thanks, JKrabbe 16:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Reworded a bit - hopefully more clear now. Also chnged the section title and other stuff. Vsmith 17:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Color

I reverted the color to the default for the minerl infobox, see my comment on the wikiprojectGemology and Jewelry talk Page --Kevmin 22:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fact Check Please

Someone added a whole section, very poorly written at the bottom of a section, discussing "fun stories" and spouting about random myths and legends with no citations, and contradicting the factual parts of the history (in very broken English). i cleaned it up as best I could, and added the heading "Historical and Mythological Use". Can someone who knows their facts look this over? Thanks. Mfrisk (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hist/Myth Use

If no one can find citations for this section in a week or so, I will delete it. I suspect it is based on questionable original research, and frankly, I think it's all fake. Check rev. history, it was written in poor English and originally was formatted wrong for WP, and ended with an emoticon ":-)"164.47.100.68 Mfrisk (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm deleting the section, since no one can verify or cite. Feel free to reverse this upon verification and citation of fact asserted, Mfrisk (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)