Talk:Chalcedony

message: Advertizing deleted. Wikipedia is not for free advertizing. Vsmith 02:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted advertising

message: the Greek word χαλκεδονιος is found more than once. See, e.g., the Acts of Thomas 108. 128.36.154.202 (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Needs more information about etymology - it gives the Latin word chalcedonius but not what that means! I always assumed it was named after the city of Chalcedon but maybe not.Gymnophoria (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology Section

message: I have created a "Varieties" section which systematically considers each variety in turn.  It still needs a lot of work (to add a fuller description of each variety), and I will improve on it later.  (I have also moved some content into a "History" section.) Hyperdeath (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Varieties Section 

message: "Plasma is a bright to emerald-green chalcedony that is sometimes found with small spots of jasper resembling blood drops; it has been referred to as blood stone or heliotrope."
Is it possible that the link to haematite (also sometimes known as 'blood stone') is  incorrect? As far as I'm aware, haematite does not fit the description of a 'bright to emerald-green chalcedony'.
:Done - missed that before, thanks, Vsmith 02:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Blood Stone' 

message: The article provides an outdated theory as to chalcedony's composition, namely that it's a form of quartz.  It is now known to contain moganite: http://www.mindat.org/min-960.html Hyperdeath 18:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composition of Chalcedony 

message: I have cleaned up the varieties section slightly. Hyperdeath 11:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Varieties 

message: I have tagged Aventurine with a merge to Chalcedony tag.  All of the information in the Aventurine article is unreferenced and much duplicates the information that is here. --Kevmin (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been bold and undone the merge.  I agree with the concerns raised about the article, but dumping the content here is not the answer. It is just too long to fit into what is essentially an index to variety sub-articles.  It disrupts the flow of the article. If anyone strongly objects to this, I would be happy to help improve the aventurine article.— Hyperdeath(Talk) 20:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Aventurine]]

message: It should not appear on this page.  Chalcedony is a microcrystalline quartz whereas aventurine is a crystalline quartz with small inclusions of other materials.  I have consulted the "Glossary of Geology" and the "Dictionary of Gems and Gemology" to confirm this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.250.87 (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aventurine is not a variety of Chalcedony 

message: Hey, I just wanted to point out that in the intro block of this page, the following statement occurs: "according to the OED a connection with the town of Chalcedon in Asia Minor is 'very doubtful'".  Then, later on under "History" it reads, "The term chalcedony is derived from the name of the ancient Greek town Chalkedon in Asia Minor, in modern English usually spelled Chalcedon...".  The latter statement has no citation; it might be worth finding one, and rewording things to point out this conflict in opinion
Opensourcejunkie (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible conflict of facts? 

message: I notice a header about imitations? 
I saw this "synthetic" bracelet at http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/642218093/Synthetic_gemstone.html 
Model Number:  SHSB-034, Gemstone Type:  Mineral Gemstones,  
Gemstone Material:  Chalcedony,  Treatments Applied:  Other,  
Optical Special Effects:  Pleochroic/Pleochroism, material:  cat eyes stone. 
There are many variations nearby. Photos look like tiger eye.  --68.127.93.12 (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artificial "cats eye?" 

message: Just to remark that the Intro section implicitly dates Pliny's work prior to the book of Revelations.  "Natural History" is confidently dated about 78AD but Revelations is hard to date.  It seems to me that the latest authoritative dating is J.A.T Robinson's "Redating the New Testament" (1976),  and he dates Revelations c.61AD.  Thus Revelations was prior to Pliny.  I have adjusted to wording to reflect this. C.jeynes (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pliny vs Revelations? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chalcedony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120225063934/http://www.farlang.com/profiles/afghanistan-museum-kabul/product.2009-03-24.6644617360 to http://www.farlang.com/profiles/afghanistan-museum-kabul/product.2009-03-24.6644617360
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080309094336/http://fgms.home.att.net:80/moganite.htm to http://fgms.home.att.net/moganite.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080530134400/http://www.geo.vu.nl/users/ima-cnmmn/MINERALlist.pdf to http://www.geo.vu.nl/users/ima-cnmmn/MINERALlist.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a discussion at  related to this page. Please join in the discussion. Primefac (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect discussion