Talk:Nacre

message: The link to Mother of Pearl just redirects you back to Nacre.  So what's the point in having the link?
:There isn't one, so I've removed the link. Thanks for catching that. -- Hadal 16:29, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh? Conchiolin is mentioned in the very first line of this article. -- Hadal 02:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A note

message: Japaning; the english term for "luó diàn" (螺钿); lacquerware with imbedded mother-of-pearl &/or carved ivory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.77.255 (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Furniture decoration. 

message: * What are "black and white nacre"? The article uses these terms without defining them!
:Isn't it the inside lining for a black pearl?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobois28 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article issues 

message: I've seen this term used, but not with consistent meaning, and never in the way this article does. For now, I'm removing the use until someone can prove this definition.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.54.128.32 (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mother of toiletseat

message: Can someone please put protection status on this article - seems like the mollusc/k argument is getting a bit silly...--hydeblake (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Even before seeing this request, I had come to that conclusion. I have semi-protected the page (thus, IPs cannot edit it) for 1  month. If the protection needs to be extended, just ask me (or any other admin). --Stemonitis (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: I am a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin - Madison working primarily with Nacre.
I intend to update and correct a variety of points of discussion in this article, including adding citations to recent research related to nacre structure.
Wisciolson (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You can become an autoconfirmed user after  four days and if you also have made at least 10 edits (to any article). This is a very low treshold and can be easily achieved. Then you can edit semi-protected pages. Any referenced addition to this article will be welcomed. JoJan (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You can also ask for the confirmed user right which is the same thing as being autoconfirmed at WP:PERM/C. Baseball Watcher 00:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Confirmed. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Wisciolson, 17 May 2011 

message: The link to Flame Structure talks about a sedimentary feature, nothing to do with non-nacreous iridescence.  If there's a better link to connect it to, then that can be fixed, or else that part should be de-linkified :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.40.214 (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flame Structure 

message: I note this page has had an edit war over the spelling of the word Mollusc/Mollusk
One editor has cited MOS:ENGVAR which states that "The English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language over any other", and this is certainly the case where there are different spellings with no overlap or common ground e.g. colour v color.  If the only US spelling was Mollusk, as the article is written in US English, then Mollusk would be correct. 
However, under WP:Manual of Style#National varieties of English the first sub-heading is Opportunities for commonality which states "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English". Taking Wiktionary's definitions, "mollusc" is appropriate in all varieties of English - US, UK, Australia etc., whereas "mollusk" is only a "(US) Alternative spelling of mollusc".  Given the commonality requirement "to find words that are common to all varieties of English", to comply with MoS, the word should be mollusc.Arjayay (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it should be mollusc, so who is going to fix it? 109.176.246.172 (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I was waiting to see if anyone wanted to contest this, or was willing to revert themselves, but have now made the changes.I have no access to some of the journals quoted, so have assumed that those using mollusk are cited correctly.Arjayay (talk) 09:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mollusc v Mollusk