Talk:Garnet

message: Are the groups at http://www.mineralminers.com/html/garminfo.htm correct? If so, I'll put the garnet groups into those subgroups. Pyralspite garnet redirects here, and though we never use the term, the three members of that group are covered here of course. If that link is correct, can someone fix this article to reflect the grouping, or let me know and I will? Same for Ugrandite garnet. Both of these come from the info at scienceworld.wolfram.com. Thanks - Taxman Talk 18:50, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
:Looked good to me - so I did it :-). Check it over for glitches. Do need to redo the reference section now, tho' I added Mineral miners link. Probably could expand the garnet structure as a separate section. Vsmith 00:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Groups

message: Is there any reason to substitute AB for the positions with X and Y? In Germany, the positions in lattices of this type are traditionally referred to as A and B, but I don't know how this is in the English speaking world.Cato82 21:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only to avoid some confusion, after anon editors replaced the A with Al on at least two occasions I thought X and Y might be more generic appearing and less prone to confusion by the average reader/editor. I would have no objections to putting it back to A - B. Vsmith 23:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If so, add both conventions then? -- Ktsquare (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  AB or XY? 

message: At one point this page describes pyrope garnets as being "ruby-red" in color.  Red garnets are a deeper red than rubies (making it look darker).  I'm not trying to be nitpicky but all that description does is fuel people who think garnets and rubies are the same thing (as someone born in January I beg to differ). Lollipop09 01:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color Description 

message: This article uses the term variety (mostly) when talking about the different types of garnet group minerals.  In actuality it would be more correct to differentiate between the species of garnet (andradite, spessartine, grossular, etc) from the varieties of the species of garnet (hessonite, melonite, etc) as there is a significant difference between the two groups see www.mindat.org for the specifics of the different species, their relationships, and the correct current names (almandine not almandite, spessartine a=not spessatite, etc...) Kevmin 01:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Variety vs. Species

message: I have looked through both Wikiprojects, Gemology and Jewelry; Rock and Minerals, and have found no consensus for a specific color for the infoboxes.  At this point the large majority of Mineral articles that have infoboxes use the default ?lilac? purple.  At the same time the Gem articles are rather sporadic and seem to follow the color of the Gem in question.  I would suggest having a discussion regarding a specific color for all mineral articles, but seeing as how the R&M group is not very active, I think I'm about the only one that is doing anything, It is probably best for the G&J project to take the initiative for standardization. In the interim I  shall change alternate color boxes back to default in preparation for an end result.  (also cross posted to both projects talk pages --Kevmin 22:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox Color

message: The gemological tables or details per species should indicate the R.I. for each species and the dispersion values.  Demantoid/Andraite is noted for it's .057 dispersion. Dispersion being the refractive index difference between a red (Fraunhofer A) photon  and a blue (Fraunhofer G) photon
I'll let others more competent than I edit this into the page. 
-John LeB.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.243.168 (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispersion

message: In the birthday article, Garnet is supposedly the birthstone for Tuesday. I didn't want to put this on the article because it could be called vandalism or something. So if anyone has any facts about it, please put it on the Garnet article. Wikimichael22 (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tuesday Birthstone 

message: Just a heads up if anyone is working on this article: the "abrasive garnet" section could use some trimming for clarity and conciseness, and has nonstandard capitalization. Crystal whacker (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cleanup is pretty much complete, though I am sure some parts can and should be re-worded.  I may continue to work on that in bits and pieces.  I removed the cleanup tag, and placed a citations tag, as that entire section does not have a single in-line citation.  Theseeker4 (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You did a good job, Theseeker4, and thanks for letting me know about it.  I fixed two more minor errors in grammar.  The main concern, as you state, is that there is no inline citation at all.  The writing is also of medium quality: it starts by distinguishing water jet grade from cutting grade (or whatever it was), but then it talks about various kinds of abrasive garnet and where they are found without clarifying the original distinction further.  It doesn't give much context, and reads as if an expert on the subject is trying to communicate with other experts, not with newcomers to the subject.  So there's still some way to go. Crystal whacker (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I am quite poor at catching my own mistakes at the time I am writing something, so often there will be spelling and/or grammer errors in what I write, but that is why we have multiple editors, lol.  I agree with your assessment, and would add that the original author may not have had English as a first language, so some of the distinctions he/she may have been trying to make were probably lost.  I tried basically to correct grammer, clarify sentences and correct capitalization/punctuation, without expanding on what is said and without being able to judge the truthfullness of the statements.  The entire section may deserve a rewrite, especially to go into more detail about the different uses of the grades, not just the relative quality and merits of the sources.  I just corrected what I could in the time available, and will continue to monitor it and possibly add/rewrite as necessary.  Theseeker4 (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Abrasive garnet" section needs cleanup 

message: Substituted at 15:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: <B>Only From Sri Lanka.</B></br>
123.231.124.120 (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - incorrect - "the main producers today are Australia and India" - Arjayay (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2016 

message: We are in the process of updating the website, please change the external link of gemstone.org to this one: http://gemstone.org/education/gem-by-gem/154-garnet
Thank you! ICAgemstone (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2017 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Garnet. 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/20071208172833/http://www.statesymbolsusa.org/New_York/gem_garnet.html to http://www.statesymbolsusa.org/New_York/gem_garnet.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Garnet has its uses as an abrasive but it is also used as a counter abrasive in aircraft and aerospace applications. The world's best and hardest garnet comes from the Emerald creek garnet mine in N.Idaho near Fernwood. It is shipped for all applications especially water jet and sandblasting like other sites but is being bought up at an ever increasing rate because of its rarity and finite amount and is becoming more difficult to mine. Their are buyers that are stockpiling it because of this. Its uses in aerospace are for one as a coating on leading wing surfaces by combing it with a polymer. As high speed aircraft pass through the air they encounter fine dust which acts as a sandblaster and eventually erodes leading edges of wing and tail sections. This polymer protects these surfaces as if they are coated with diamond the next hardest stone. The military has other uses as well and has ordered the site to remain operational during the current CCP virus pandemic. Emerald creek also has a public dig site operated by the Forest Service where quality gemstones can be dug for a small fee. It is here where the prized 6 ray specimens can be found in quantity compared to the rest of the world where this type(almandine)is absent or extremely rare.184.63.66.43 (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  GARNET USE IN AEROSPACE 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: There is a map of producers which doesn't show America and Australia as producers, but the text says that India and Australia are the main producers. Elsewhere the text says that an American mine is the source of 90% of garnet production (is this an error for 90% of US production? the citation for this is a broken link). Lavateraguy (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies re garnet production