Talk:Gembone: Difference between revisions

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Rocks and minerals Low‑importance Gembone is part of WikiProject Rocks and minerals, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use rocks and minerals resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Rocks and mineralsWikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsTemplate:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsRocks and minerals Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Palaeontology Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this redirect.

I've just added a bunch of references about this topic, many around the controversy surrounding the collection and use of agatised dinosaur bones as jewellry. I attempted to find legitimate sources of information about the mineral content of the bones, but was unsuccessful.

As there has been a US Supreme Court decision stating that these bones are not gems/minerals, and there is no one set type of agatisation that the bones undergo, neither the rock nor the mineral infobox fit here. Therefore, I added an infobox for fossils. There is not much to be added to the infobox, but there is also no scientifically measured mineral information, so the other infoboxes would be completely empty.

I realise this may be controversial for those who use this material in jewellry making, or who collect it, but scientifically-speaking, it is a fossil and I could find no evidence of anyone arguing otherwise. Anfornum (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gembone. 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/20110926002252/http://ganoksin.com:80/blog/differentseasons/2010/09/15/agatized-dinosaur-bone/ to http://ganoksin.com/blog/differentseasons/2010/09/15/agatized-dinosaur-bone/

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed in this section that Gembone be renamed and moved to Agatized dinosaur bone. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Gembone → Agatized dinosaur bone – "Gembone" is not the WP:COMMONNAME, indeed it is so rare-to-nonexistent that (although it is a clever portmanteau of "gemstone" and "bone"), it is not a "recognizable" or "natural" name, the criteria for an article title; indeed, it may be a Wikipedian invention: AFAICT, the term "gembone" is not used in any books (academic or otherwise), and it is mentioned [as an alternate name of "agatized dinosaur bone"] in only one article [reprinted in two places] listed on Google Scholar, which is from 2015, years after this article's 2010 creation. In contrast, "agatized dinosaur bone" is used in dozens of books (mostly scholarly books and governmental- or museum- reports), and half a dozen academic papers, going back decades before Wikipedia existed; it appears to be the common, natural and recognizable title. (Note: as I only considered the relative commonness of the names listed in the article, it is possible that some other name which I did not know to search for is even more common.) -sche (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fossil#Fossilization processes, Gembone is clearly a wiki creation, but "agatized dinosaur bone" is much too narrow a name for this type of fossil as circumscribed in the article. Opalization, pyritization etc are also included in this, and its far from limited to dinosaurs, with mineral replaced fossils coming from all sorts of ages and creatures (looking at the opalized antler on my desk).--Kevmin § 18:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead image is NOT of a dinosaur in fact, and is not agatized. Its an opalized skeleton of a Plesiosaur.--Kevmin § 18:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about agatization not being the only process. If the fact that this article is still very small after 14 years is a sign that there is not much more to be said about this topic than what little is in the article now, then merging anything of value here (such as the photo and the note that some species have been identified from mineralized fossils) over to Fossil makes sense. -sche (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]