|WikiProject Bivalves||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry / Gemstones||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
The link to Mother of Pearl just redirects you back to Nacre. So what's the point in having the link?
- There isn't one, so I've removed the link. Thanks for catching that. -- Hadal 16:29, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Why no mention of Conchiolin?--Joel 22:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
- Eh? Conchiolin is mentioned in the very first line of this article. -- Hadal 02:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- I think an example, that has been used as inlay should be included, (or instead of) the dolls leg! LOL Lion King 11:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Where does "sadaf" come from? As far as I can tell, it is not an English word--it's not listed in the OED, Webster's 2nd Unabrigded, or any of the several recent college dictionaries I checked.
Japaning; the english term for "luó diàn" (螺钿); lacquerware with imbedded mother-of-pearl &/or carved ivory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raden —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- What are "black and white nacre"? The article uses these terms without defining them!
- Isn't it the inside lining for a black pearl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobois28 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Mother of toiletseat
I've seen this term used, but not with consistent meaning, and never in the way this article does. For now, I'm removing the use until someone can prove this definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Even before seeing this request, I had come to that conclusion. I have semi-protected the page (thus, IPs cannot edit it) for 1 month. If the protection needs to be extended, just ask me (or any other admin). --Stemonitis (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from Wisciolson, 17 May 2011
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
I am a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin - Madison working primarily with Nacre.
I intend to update and correct a variety of points of discussion in this article, including adding citations to recent research related to nacre structure.
- You can become an autoconfirmed user after four days and if you also have made at least 10 edits (to any article). This is a very low treshold and can be easily achieved. Then you can edit semi-protected pages. Any referenced addition to this article will be welcomed. JoJan (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The link to Flame Structure talks about a sedimentary feature, nothing to do with non-nacreous iridescence. If there's a better link to connect it to, then that can be fixed, or else that part should be de-linkified :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Mollusc v Mollusk
I note this page has had an edit war over the spelling of the word Mollusc/Mollusk
One editor has cited MOS:ENGVAR which states that "The English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language over any other", and this is certainly the case where there are different spellings with no overlap or common ground e.g. colour v color.
If the only US spelling was Mollusk, as the article is written in US English, then Mollusk would be correct.
However, under WP:Manual of Style#National varieties of English the first sub-heading is Opportunities for commonality which states "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English". Taking Wiktionary's definitions, "mollusc" is appropriate in all varieties of English - US, UK, Australia etc., whereas "mollusk" is only a "(US) Alternative spelling of mollusc". Given the commonality requirement "to find words that are common to all varieties of English", to comply with MoS, the word should be mollusc.
Arjayay (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes it should be mollusc, so who is going to fix it? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)