Talk:Labradorite

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Labradorite 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gemology and Jewelry: Gemstones Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Gemstones subpage.

Recent additions about quarrying

I reverted the recent edits, as I don't feel that they are sufficently relevant to an article about the mineral. If the quarry was mining the mineral, rather than producing dimension stone that might be different, but I don't think that the article is the appropriate place for this material. Mikenorton (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They do quarry the gemstone. I thought that people would be interested in learning about the quarry and the native legends surrounding the island and the stone.Torngait (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon tag

I've removed the recently added jargon tag. The article uses terminology common to mineral articles and the "jargon" terms are linked (at least mostly) for those needing clarification. Technical and scientific articles are going to use technical terminology (jargon to some) and we can't realistically write a whole treatise on mineralogy, crystallography, chemistry, geology and physics in every article on a technical subject. The interested reader who is unfamiliar with terminology used is free to follow the links and learn. If any confusing terms are not linked or explained, feel free to link/explain or ask here. Vsmith (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Vsmith: Now there is another cleanup tag on this article, since its jargon is supposedly "too technical" for non-expert readers to understand. @Rebestalic: Why does this article need to be revised to make it less "technical?" Jarble (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the absurd tag. I s'pose we could just replace the article text with "Labradorite is a rock thingy" so as to not offend those who don't want to larn nothin. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 13:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarble: Apologies Jarble, I guess I'm at fault here Rebestalic^{[dubious—discuss]} 20:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any objection to articles including lots of jargon and scientific detail, that's absolutely appropriate, but I do think it's also appropriate for articles to have a short introduction first that's more accessible and gives context for the detail. I'm just thinking of, for example, my own use case where I've seen labradorite used in jewellery, wondered what it actually is, and found Wikipedia immediately telling me something about the plagioclase series(?) and anorthite percentages(???), so that I was still wondering what it actually is.

Anyway so I've edited the first sentence to keep in "feldspar mineral" because mineral distinguishes it from eg amber type things and feldspar is clearly a subset of that I can explore if I want; and to add its origin, which explains the name, and the irridescence, which seems the most salient thing to lay people. Someone who knows more might be able to add something about uses of it (just jewelery?) and/or other facts that could be of interest to lay people. If the introduction was expanded a bit more in that way then the scientific paragraph that follows could be its own section ("Composition" or something?) that people could jump to or skip depending on their interest; but for now I've left it as is. --Zeborah (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Labradorescence

I quote the french wikipedia : Translated

The phenomena (refering to the colors of the gem) is the result of interferences in neighboring lattices (Schiller effect of adularescence, known for other members of the family as "oligoclase" (I don't know the translation)). The word labradorescence, sometimes used, is incorrect.

Can a specialist confirm this?

Thank you in advance.

--Aerophile5390 (talk) 09:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term labradorescence is certainly not incorrect in English, since it is the accepted term for this phenomenon in this mineral, however it may be caused, and whether or not something equivalent happens in other minerals. By the way, it was not coined by Bøggild in 1924, as it appears (in English) in the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911, and the German word labradorisiren is much older. Perhaps some French-language institution has objected to it. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 09:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Composition I - Writing Wikipedia, section 2

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WZWCC (article contribs).