Jump to content

Talk:Jewellery/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

From Third Opinion:

Does William Calley belong under famous jewelers simply because he is a famous person who is now a jeweler?

My opinion? No. His fame derives in no way from being a jeweler, or from making, designing, or marketing jewelry; his fame (or infamy) comes from his role in the My Lai Massacre, and being a jeweler is simply how he makes his living today, that's all. --Calton | Talk 06:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Seems to me that "famous jewelers" is a different category from "famous people who later become jewelers." However, if they later gain fame as a jeweler, then they're a "famous jeweler" and belong on the list. Seems like William Calley at worst works in a jewelry store, or at best runs a jewelry business, neither of which rise to the standard of gaining fame as a jeweler, and therefore does not belong on the list. - Mr. Zarniwoop 13:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion: Why not put a reference to him under a trivia section? He's not a famous jeweller, but it's probably notable that he became one. If enough other people qualify, you could add a "famous people who are jewellers" section or something similar. Fagstein 18:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I like this idea -- good compromise solution. Posterofwilliamcalleyinfo 19:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Opening discussion

I cut the section on Art Nouveau jewellery and made it its own seperate page because I thought the content was strong, but having only one time period/style discussed on the main Jewellery page didn't seem to make any sense. Better to have a general discussion of jewellery history/styles on this page, and links out to more detailed pages (I can envision jewellery by country or culture and jewellery by arts movement, such as art nouveau, for starters). I added links to all relevant pages to the new page. Brassratgirl 04:33, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Would anyone have a heartache if I did some shuffling on the types of jewelry table? Rather than organizing by common/less common I was thinking about bodypart worn on or some such - brooch for instance is definitely not 'less common' thna nose jewels in the West. & this listing thus appears a bit POV. Bridesmill 01:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

{{move|Jewellery}}

I wasn't aware that there was a statute of limitations on issues like this. The vote now irrelevant, as an admin merged the histories, this page can be moved (as per Wikipedia policy) back to the title at which it was created back in 2001 and as it stood until this cut and paste move ([1]) in June by and anon IP. Jooler 22:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Timeline

This is a timeline of jewellery production from the first uses of metal in history to the Renaissance.

Spawn Man 02:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Famous jewellers

Spawn Man 02:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Genital Jewellery

Would like to propose writing the genital jewellery artiicle, and linking the individual types (e.g. anal jewelry) from there rather than from this page. Your thoughts please, before I get yelled at for removing the more (ahem) unusual jewelry from the table on this page. Before anyone says 'prude' or 'censor', please be aware that I make genital jewelry myself, so it is not a matter of having a problem with it - just that it is very unusual (making up well under 1% of jewelry production) and on this page the types only serve to shock - in short, my proposal is that if someone wants to explore genital jewelry, let them got to the Genital jewelry page to find out more.Bridesmill 00:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


Sound of jewellery

The sound of jewellery has played an enermous part in many stories, poems, and religious literature (more details and sources to come). Different jewellery creates different sounds, ie plastic bangles create a high pitched clink sound, while others such as baxelite produce a "clunck" sound. Knowing how a particular piece of jewellery sounds can help someone identify whether or not a piece of jewellery is fake. Indeed people have written about the sound of "fake gold", and jewel makers such as Sharon Alouf, a famous jeweler have praised the high frequency pitched noise of gold bangles(most likely real gold she is wearing). To this day, the jeweler claims, "the sound of bangles clinking together is very soothing to me. It always reminds me of motherhood."Alouf is even partial to particular tones. "Gold produces my favorite sound," she says, "the pitch is higher and clearer, which I find energizing." [2]

--I placed this here until my editing of the article is complete, but I think the above stuff is obsolete, so it could stay here. Opinions?... Spawn Man 02:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur.Bridesmill 03:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

On another issue though, the Tiffany mounting picture is, well, a plain-jane Tiffany style mounting, no indication that it is actually a Tiffany designed mounting - if there is a pic of Tiffany jewellery, it should prob be something that is a. a bit more spectacular than this department store pattern, and b. confirmed to be a design from their house.Bridesmill 03:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find any other tiffany pictures, & this does use the tiffany mount style. So we have options, 1) Delete picture. 2) Delete picture & hope a new tiffany picture pops up somewhere that is free use. 3) Reword caption from "Tiffany & Co. diamond ring" to "Tiffany style diamond ring". I'm not too fussed on whether it's an awesome picture, but it is in the tiffany style, so I would hope that would be criteria for it to be used. Thoughts? Thanks again, & BTW, thanks for your kind words on my talk... Spawn Man 03:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC).

Will poke around; I really think this one is a bit tacky to show off Tiffany with...given the famous commisions they did (Lincoln's wife's jewellery for example) there must be something public domain around.Bridesmill

Also, Faberge, Cartier, and Morris at least need to be somehow put back nto the article; esp as Tiffany has such prominence - & their forte wasn't really just Jewellery.(makes it a bit US-centric).Bridesmill 03:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't want to get too detailed & tiffany is probably the most famous of the lot. You make a good point that their forte wasn't jewellery, so another option would be to just delete the whole section, or add a briefer section on famous american jewellers... Spawn Man 03:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Only in the US & because of the movie ;-) But I think that some of the others can get woven in - I'll have a look in the AM (agree on the FA, but it does need a bit of work yet I think - only a couple days worth at this pace.)Bridesmill 03:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Form & Function

I think this has massaged some of the old masters in; have some examples to flesh out the amulet para, will put in when I check my ref. (done)Bridesmill 15:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Body Mods

Point I was trying to make is that it is difficult to draw the line between the two - earings are not body mods or used to create/enhance them, but "sometimes" they are; same with collars. Then there are unintentional body mods (deformation of the finger form wearing rings is an obvious one). Then there is the jewelry - labrets etc - that are an integral part of body mods, and where do implants fit in - the are body mods. Hopefully the rephrasing makes it clearer.Bridesmill 14:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is a much better phrasing. The original sentence made no sense to me. FWIW, I think the wording of the last sentence in the Body Mod section is also quite awkward, but I wasn't able to think of a better way to put it. Perhaps you could try your hand at that one as well. Kaldari 21:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Is that better? Really just trying to close the paragraph of in a reasonably elegant fashion, & tie in to rest of modern jewelry.Bridesmill 22:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Version 0.5 review

Reviewing this for Version 0.5, this seems like a nice article (though I can't say I'm an expert), and I've added it to our listing. One point, though, under Materials and methods the only material included seems to be diamond. Surely there should be a section on other Gemstones, with a link that as the "main" article, to discuss use of rubies, sapphires, etc? Walkerma 02:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Gemstones and Jewellery???

Would anyone else be interested in a WP for this subject. I see a lot of holes that could use expansion. Anyone? SauliH 17:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Newly created. Please sign up and help out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry. SauliH 19:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Rendered picture

The earring from the top of the page was removed because it was a computer render. I don't think this is a particularly good reason to remove it, as it serves as a nice, clean, general example of the subject at hand. I'd like to restore it, but I want to know what other people think. --Eyrian 21:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it should stay removed. Pics of real jewellery are easy to find so we have no need for a pic of a piece that probably doesn't exist. I'll add one of my own pics - Adrian Pingstone 16:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I've added two amber pendants my wife owns - Adrian Pingstone 19:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Techniques and Tools

It would be great if a knowledgeable jewelry designer/craftsman could discuss the various techniques and tools involved in creating jewelry, both in hand-crafted jewelry and jewelry produced in a factory setting.

As a hobbyist, I didn't want to mess up the main article on jewellery, so I contributed what I know about jewelry making as a hobby on the jewellery making page - which is currently a candidate for deletion since it is a mere stub and needs much more information in terms of both sources and notability. Userafw (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

health effects of jewelry, toxicity

i'd like to see a section on health problems due to jewelry, for example from necklaces that are mainly(or perhaps just nominally) gold but have lead or other heavy metal contaminants. Thanks.-Rich Peterson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.86.14.87 (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of information on this topic under piercings also known as body jewelry. Nickel allergy is the most common problem that I know about. Userafw (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

famous diamonds

This external link looked interesting to me, not sure why it was deleted as "spam". http://famousdiamonds.tripod.com/ Userafw (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Finding it funny

I am finding this whole discussion really funny since I thought the spelling had more to do with your geographic location. I stand corrected. http://store.auctiva.com/noticeablejewels —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.135.26 (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with the dating system previously used, wikipedia is known for a global and a NPOV content, not a "western culture-Christianity exclusivity." In addition pieces of the jewelry pictured or discussed in Jewellery are not from Christian cultures, but were measured by the birth of their religious icon's date. Many other wiki-articles use the BCE-before current era & CE-current era; -or even BP-before present date nomenclature with an international "trans-cultural" respect. Those are a consistent global encyclopaedic style and standard. Please do not attempt to use Christ, however wise he was in other matters, to dominate the multicultural global creativity this article shares so well. cheers---Look2See1 t a l k → 07:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like it, too bad. This is not a matter for discussion since it's already crystal clear in the rules. If you read WP:ERA, you would see that articles must not be changed around with regard to BC/AD and CE/BCE; the original format must be kept. Since this article already had BC/AD, that is the way it must remain. Besides, this has always been the correct way to do it. Are you actually offended by it or are you just trying to appease hypothetical minority groups? (Huey45 (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC))
Please remain civil...According to the Manual of Style "no preference is given to either style"TeapotgeorgeTalk 12:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The Manual of Style specifically says: "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors". Someone with no involvement in the article turning up out of nowhere and instantly trying to start an edit war does not constitute consensus and his reasoning was fallacious anyway. CE/BCE is controversial, divisive and offensive. BC/AD has always been the correct way, so it's about time you got used to it. User:Teapotgeorge, you were completely out of line in trying to impose changes on the article instead of discussing it on the talk page, especially since you obviously knew this issue was being discussed here.(Huey45 (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC))
I tend to use BC/AD for articles restricted to the "Christian world", but BCE/CE for global ones like this. But I also agree with maintaining the status quo per the policy, until such time as there is "consensus for the change with other editors", which obviously isn't the case here. So leave it as BC/AD. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
"Please remain civil..." Huey45 = "If you don't like it, too bad" = is not civil------Look2See1 t a l k → 05:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Jewellery or Jewelery?

What was the final word on this issue? I thought we were using American/International English unless the subject demands a regional English spelling? Glowimperial 21:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)hr

You thought wrong. And I don't know what you mean by American/International English. Generally there is British/International and American. Jooler 12:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Since the article's name is jewellery, I've taken the liberty to change all instances of "jewelry" to jewellery for consistency. Of course, I left the references as-is. --Dayn 02:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
"International" is neither British nor American. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JackLumber (talk • contribs) 22:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
According to the Oxford Dictionary Online (which indicates that such usage is "widely regarded as uneducated") and The New Oxford American Dictionary application available with the Apple operating system ( which indicates "Avoid the pronunciation |ˈjoōlərē|, widely regarded as uneducated"), "jewellery" should be changed to "jewelry" for all instances in this article because it is inferior English usage not a national variant as is the spelling "colour" typically seen in the UK as opposed to "color" typically seen in the US. The root word is "jewel" expanded to "jewelry" indicating items containing jewels. The all too common mispronunciation as |ˈjoōlərē| in the United States as well as Great Britain apparently has yielded the all too common misspelling "jewellery". The fact that this mispronunciation and misspelling is ubiquitous doesn't make it right, and allowing it to remain perpetuates through dissemination this inferior English. The article should be titled "Jewelry" redirected from "Jewellery" not as it is at present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkFengya (talk • contribs) 21:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
You cannot assume that the mispronunciation of "jewellery" gave rise to the British spelling. If you had actually read the whole page of the Oxford Dictionaries Online and that of the respective British variant, you would have found that "jewellery" is the original spelling because it comes from "jeweller" (changed to "jeweler" in America). Like most Americanisms, "jewelry" is a "simplification" of the original spelling. It is American spellings, not British spellings, that are usually derived from the pronunciation (e.g. the American pronunciation of "titbit" gave rise to "tidbit" in the US). McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Jewelry vs. Jewellery

Since Wikipedia is American-based and most articles are slanted toward the American reader, so should the title of this article. "Jewellery," in nontechnical terms, just looks weird. If we are to be consistent, we need to be consistent here, beginning with spelling this "jewelry." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Purplesuperstar (talk • contribs).

This issue was discussed above. The article was first created using British spellings, and WP:ENGVAR requires us to maintain the British spelling. Wikipedia might be American based, but it is intended to serve an international audience, and no particular national variety of English is intended to dominate any others. For the English Wikipedia, while a nationally predominant form should be used, there is no preference among the major national varieties of English; none is more “correct” than any other. If an article has been consistently in a given variety for a long time, and there is no clear reason to change it, leave it alone. Editors should not change the spelling used in an article wholesale from one variant to another, unless there is a compelling reason to do so (which will rarely be the case). Skeezix1000 20:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should re-write other pages as Batry and Libry? --Kurtle (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Why would anyone do that? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What the heck is with the name "Jewellery"?

The talk page above says it's some foreign spelling (wikipedia is in America so we should use American spelling I think). Basically the article needs to explain the whole strange "Jewellery" spelling. I used to have problems always spelling it "Jewlery" so now this bothers me seeing the article spelled even funnier. DyslexicEditor 14:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The location of Wikipedia's servers is not relevant. Its contributors are all over the world, and those of us who don't live in your particular country tend not to see why we should have to write with your orthography, just as you wouldn't appreciate being forced to use British English throughout the project. For that reason, guidelines about this issue were established years ago, and you might want to read them. The main point is that we aim for consistency within articles, and avoid pointless edit wars changing them back and forth. — Trilobite 18:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Article mentions both spellings, so I don't see a problem. My understanding is spelling within a page should be consistent (e.g. 'color' or 'colour', but not both in the same piece) Bridesmill 22:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The article also lacks how jewelry become more common in recent times because people stopped using gold as currency. I came here to verify this fact and the article is missing it. DyslexicEditor 14:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it did; if anything, decrease in use of gold as currency would have the effect of making jewellery less readily negotiable. If anything has increased use in recent times, I would think its because of increased disposable wealth. Would welcome any evidence & evidence of cause for either trend Bridesmill 22:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

An article should be consistently British or consistently American English. So not only should an article not have both "color" and "colour", it should not have "color" and "jewellery" (or "colour" and "jewelry"). Also, the primary title should match the article itself. So if an American author wants to make extensive edits to the article, the redirect should be swapped so that the American title dominates; otherwise, if we leave the British title we should fix the rest of the article to ensure proper British spelling and grammar. --LDC 02:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The article is not supposed to switch back and forth. If an American wants to make substantial edits, he/she should stick with British spelling and grammar. Please see WP:MOS where this is explained. Johntex\talk 04:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still kind of new here, but why is this debate in two different sections? And for the record, I agree: Jewelry, not Jewellery. Unless the English Wikipedia is primarily a British product? Isn't there some sort of guideline for this sort of thing? If there isn't, maybe someone a bit more senior at Wikipedia should begin such a project. GilbertZ 22:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:ENGVAR. This article has established spellings which cannot be changed without specific reasons. --VMS Mosaic 23:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that was informative. GilbertZ 19:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is NOT a dead issue, and I want to say this is one of the reasons people don't take Wikipedia seriously. The insistence on the part of some editors to foist their provincial, colloquial language on the rest of the world. "Jewellery"? I've been on this earth for nearly 60 years and have never seen this word spelled like this. I'm fairly well-read, and this stumps me.
How does the tail always get to wag the dog here?
I would bet my house that Google searches for "jewelry" will outnumber "jewellery" 1000 to 1. The Wikipedia article DOES NOT appear in a Google search for "jewelry". How stupid is that? We have to change this. Nickrz (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Either you're trolling or you're the kind of person that makes the world resent US-Americans for their perceived insularity and assumption of superior status. I suspect you're not actually very well read if you haven't come across British English before, and you may want to check the meaning of the word 'colloquial'. The English Wikipedia as a whole is not written in any particular variety of English, and we have long-established guidelines on how to deal with variant spellings (namely, consistency within articles, and avoiding pointless edit wars over spelling). It doesn't inspire confidence in your intelligence that you made a prediction about Google searches that is easily tested, without bothering to test it yourself. As it happens, "jewelry" outnumbers "jewellery" in Google by less than three to one. I think you owe me your house! As said before, we don't use the prevalence of American English to rewrite the whole of Wikipedia into American English, so this test is irrelevant, but you might find it enlightening to learn that there's an English-speaking world outside your country. — Trilobite 18:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Well said, Tribolite. I have trust in the intelligence of the average Wikipedia reader, and their ability to understand and not be bothered by minor differences between the various varieties of English. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, well said by both. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

So Trilobite starts out ad hominem (quite the rant, there Trilo - why so angry?) and Skeezix joins the chorus. Both ignore the point of my post: A search for "jewelry" online does not return the Wikipedia article, and that does a great disservice to the vast majority of English-speaking people who spell it that way. But then again, why would you want to make Wikipedia more useful for more people? Nickrz (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The point of your post appeared to be a somewhat offensive diatribe about how non-American English usage was "provincial [and] colloquial" and then you indicated (surprisingly) that you had never run across this spelling (which is odd since it's in both Oxford and Merriam Webster). Only then did you get to your Google difficulties, which I actually ignored because the Wikipedia article is actually the first item returned in my search when I Google "jewelry". As for accusations of rants, anger and ad hominem attacks, perhaps you should reread your original post. Trilobite's response was a fair one, given the tone of your comments. If you resort less to insults and sarcasm, people will respond in kind. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's start again

Jewellery? Huh? It should be Jewelry — Preceding unsigned comment added by PumpkinSky (talk • contribs)

Please don't unnecessarily restart this debate; the effort would be better spent in improving and refining the article. --Ckatzchatspy 19:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Who actually spells it "jewllery"? I never saw that before I found this page. And I'll ask any question I feel like, thank you.PumpkinSky talk 23:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Simply put, this has been discussed repeatedly, and there's no consensus to change it. Bringing up the same "change the spelling" topic yet again doesn't help the article. --Ckatzchatspy 00:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't answer my question about actual usage. Don't blow me off. From reading the threads, it sounds more like a case of wiki can't agree to do anything about it so they suffer with a less than optimal solution (towit, RFA).PumpkinSky talk 00:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
And the "historical" argument is complete hokum. Shall we change every "the" on wiki to "thou"? PumpkinSky talk 01:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I await your compelling argument to change away from this (correct) spelling. Naturally you will bring something new to the discussion that will change everyone's minds. violet/riga [talk] 17:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Correct per whom? It's wrong as is. If your view were so correct then why does this keep coming up? PumpkinSky talk 17:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Though it might be wrong in your view, it is correct in mine. It obviously keeps coming up because people cannot accept that there are variations and that years of consensus/begrudging acceptance mean that the article used this spelling. Unless you can come up with a whole new spin on this discussion then it is never going to change. violet/riga [talk] 17:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
So you're saying you're more right than me. Got it. See [3] - primary spelling not alternate of something. No wonder wiki is so hosed up. Good riddance. Bye. PumpkinSky talk 17:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
While it always up to editors to ask to revisit any past consensus, the expectation is that it will be done in an adult and mature manner and compelling reasons will be put forward. That has not occurred here. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Memorial jewelry

I'm just writing to indicate the need for this page to specifically mention and describe memorial jewelry (e.g., Mother's rings, hair jewelry, and I suspect many others).Peter (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Jewellery, really?

I went to the Jewelry page and was directed to Jewellery. An encyclopedia (or is it encyclopaedia) is supposed to educate, not obfuscate. In my sixty years of reading, I can't remember seeing Jewellery. It would be instructive to read the statistics of the redirect page to see the majority vote on this. My guess is that the readership votes for Jewelry. This makes sense, also, because it's easier to type on those many mini keypads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMGualtieri (talk • contribs) 17:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Jewellery? That spelling is inane, but what else would one expect from wikipedia? The very first sentence is hosed..."is small decorative items", hmm, "is" goes with "items"????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.218.130 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 2 March 2014‎

Spanish link "In other languages," leads to obscure article

I randomly came across recently that the Spanish link from this page leads to the Spanish article es:joyería which, though being a fair literal translation of "jewelry" seems to refer in Spanish to the industry, business and craft of creating and selling "las joyas," es:joya being the Spanish equivalent of jewel but is used to refer to pieces of jewelry as evidenced on its article. The article for joyería is sparse at best and briefly describes the jeweler's business. Joya's article is nearly identical to jewelry. Jewelry should link to joya but I don't know how the links are changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.228.110 (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Good point! I tried but failed. I'll ask someone. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
This needs to be resolved, though discussion and consensus, on Wikidata, from where such links are sourced.. Note that we have no article Jeweller - it's a redirect. Relevant Wikidata entries are Q161439 (jewellery and, currently, Joyería) and Q2142903 (Joya; no English article link). Ping me if I can be of further assistance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but that's over the wire for most of us, Andy. I looked at the relevant page but have no idea what to do, nor much desire to learn. Johnbod (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Joyeria is not jewelry, as that article clearly says in Spanish. It's jewelry stores and associated trades, joya is jewelry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.59.232 (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Neandertal Jewelry

Not ready to include it yet but we should probably keep an eye on how this shakes out:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0119802

©Geni (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jewellery/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Looks nice, but I suggested adding to Materials and methods) a section about use of gemstones.

I am downgrading the rating for now to GA. Large portions of the article go uncited, and work should be done to correct this. SauliH 18:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit dissapointing that there is no where near enough info on modern indian jewellery!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.176.188 (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 12:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jewellery/Archive_1&oldid=1252473258"