This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gemology and Jewelry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Gemology and JewelryWikipedia:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryTemplate:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryGemology and Jewelry articles
Talk:List of U.S. state minerals, rocks, stones and gemstones is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
A fact from List of U.S. state minerals, rocks, stones and gemstones appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 July 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Although the lead to this article states "Colorado is the only state whose geological symbols are always red (rhodochrosite), white (yule marble), and blue (aquamarine).", rhodochrosite is not always red - it may be brown or even green. A fairly large variety of brown is commonly available in ebay in the jewelry section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.216.3.5 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 24 May 2007
Going through sources, I'm seeing that only a few states list both an official "Stone" and "Rock." Many more, however, list a State Fossil, for which the article currently has no category, although editors have inserted some State Fossils into Stone or Rock columns. It is a bit confusing, at least to me. Do we need to add a Fossil column? If that would make the table too wide, could the Stone and Rock column entries be combined under one header? • Astynaxtalk21:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe approach it like List of U.S. state mammals, which I tried to clean up a bit. Have a few basic columns, with the headers corresponding to the most common types, and then add a paranthetical with the actual offical "State Foo" that it is, if it differs from the header. You'll see what I mean on the mammals list. If there is more than one in a state (stone + rock), do a split entry. Katr67 (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That seems a reasonable solution to me. After looking at that, I'm thinking that a separate Fossil column/category is more useful than keeping separate Rock and Stone columns (too few states have both). Unless someone raises an objection, I'll "be bold" and try rearranging it when I have a bit of time. I also have some references I wanted to add, so I may be able to do both at the same time. • Astynaxtalk23:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I was "bold" and rearranged the table. Regarding the only 2 states which previously had listed entries in both the Rock and Stone columns: California's source does not list jade (not even so-called "pulga/californite jade") as an official state stone, and Tennessee lists both of its entries as "State Rocks." So I think merging Stone and Rock columns is justified, as it seems most or all of the states use one or the other term, not both. I'm still not sure whether the Fossil column should stay, however, as there is another wiki article devoted just to "State Fossils." Should it stay or go? • Astynaxtalk09:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I decided "simple is best" for now, and removed the Fossil column which I had inserted. There are already enough entries which still need pics without adding a bunch more. • Astynaxtalk10:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that a lot of incorrect information has crept into the mammals list and that might be the case here. These state symbol articles seem to attract a lot of enthusiasm from folks who aren't familiar with Wikipedia. :) Your changes look great. I'm curious why the the thumbs in the table look so wonky in iE. They seem to look OK in Firefox. Katr67 (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There does seem to be some sort of spacing problem. Not sure why—I've played with it, but nothing seems to help. I skimmed over the wiki table articles and haven't yet noticed anything helpful. • Astynaxtalk08:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back on Firefox and it looks great. My advice? Use Firefox! But seriously, we ought to have markup that works in all browsers. But that's a larger problem I don't feel like dealing with. Katr67 (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arizona has messed things up a bit with a state metal (copper), mineral (wulfenite), gemstone (turquoise), and fossil (petrified wood). BiologicalMe (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added pictures to the last items in the list. If anyone has better acceptible photos of any of these local materials, I encourage you to improve the article by uploading them and substituting within the article. • Astynaxtalk00:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removing the "Expand" tag. The list seems to be complete for official minerals, rocks/stones and gemstones as of now. If something was missed, or if a state adopts a new symbol which should be included, then please add to the list along with a reference. • Astynaxtalk06:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "trivial list" tag has been removed. This is a List and what constitutes trivia is somewhat subjective. Nevertheless, some of the items which have been inserted recently do not fit into the MOS guidelines for List articles. The new material placed in the Lead section breaks WP:MOS for Leads, as these items do not summarize what is in the body of the article. The DYK section likewise isn't something you find in good Lists. I've tried to solve that by creating a nota bene section ("Endnotes"), which is allowable, to contain this type of State-specific information. So if editors do not see their contributions, they are still there, just moved down into a notes section. • Astynaxtalk18:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 10 external links on List of U.S. state minerals, rocks, stones and gemstones. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on List of U.S. state minerals, rocks, stones and gemstones. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 4 external links on List of U.S. state minerals, rocks, stones and gemstones. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on List of U.S. state minerals, rocks, stones and gemstones. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
It is being used as an image of a geode from Iowa. This image does not look like an geode from Iowa. However, it resembles a geode of Mexican or South American origin. --Tibet Nation (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree, it looks more like a Coconut geode from Mexico. Wikicommons does not currently appear to have anything similar. Although I personally don't know of anyone with an Iowa geode that I could photograph, I'm sure that I can find a geode that looks closer to those from Iowa to use as a generic geode image for this entry. If you have a photo of an Iowa geode that you'd like to contribute, please do upload it and use it instead. • Astynaxtalk18:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I searched through Wikimedia Commons a bit and found this image which is reported to be a geode from Keokuk, Iowa. Whould it be more approiate, or should I continue searhing? I'm not a geolgist or collector, so my eye is useless for knowing what appearance an Iowa geode should have. BiologicalMe (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that looks much more like what should be there. I'll go ahead and insert it for the present - if someone has a better photo, then that might work, too. • Astynaxtalk05:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A few states have designated state metals. In addiddition to Nevada (silver), Arizona has both a designated mineral (wulfenite) and metal (copper). Copper was removed from the list to make way for wulfenite. While the list title does not include "metals" there is a relatedness that makes me feel they belong ion the page in some way, shape, or form. Any thoughts on handling this? Footnotes are an option if a column would be too much blank space. BiologicalMe (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps State Fossil and State Soil would also be related. The concern you mentioned about adding mostly blank columns is valid, however, particularly for viewing on mobile devices. Perhaps an "Other" column to contain items that few states have designated? I also wonder whether there might be a way to optionally hide the images to make the columns narrower (at least for any additional columns that contain info for only a few states)? My table template knowledge is now rusty. • Astynaxtalk19:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much experience in table layout; I work by mimicry, trying to duplicate the patterns and hope I don't make a mess. I don't have a number, but state soils are fairly common. Fossils are in a overlap zone between geology and biology, but would result in a fairly full column.
This is a grand challenge in ontology on what should be a finite problem. Unfortunately, state symbols are a general mess since the legislatures operate on different rules and traditions. List of U.S. state mammals shows a noble effort to deal with the various designations with qualifiers, but there is a lot of white space. BiologicalMe (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Maine state gemstone is tourmaline, but there are a number of tourmaline species. Only one is gemmy, and it is not the one that someone added as the photo. This is what gem tourmaline looks like. [1]Rocksnstars (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that, although there are other tourmaline varieties used as gems, schorl crystals aren't representative of the elbaite tourmaline for which Maine is primarily known in the gem world. I could not find on the museum site any permissions to use their images. Does anyone live in or near Augusta who could visit Blaine House to grab a closeup photo of the main stones in the necklace? • Astynaxtalk20:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, I've substituted a photo of some specimens from Oxford County out of my own collection. I'm not much at photography, so a better image would be welcomed. • Astynaxtalk20:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a placeholder and reference to the Senate Bill that shows it was signed. Hopefully someone will upload a good photo that can be used here. Thanks for the alert. • Astynaxtalk19:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
