Talk:Prasiolite

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.

Green "Amethyst"

I added this on the article page as this is considered a misnomer. The other erroneous term is "greened amethyst." T.E. Goodwin 04:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename article to Prasiolite

I suggest that this article should be renamed back to "Prasiolite", which is the much more common name for this green variety of quartz.

The page was originally named "Prasiolite" but was renamed to "Vermarine" on 4 June 2016 by User:Asarelah to "avoid confusion with praseolite". I have not found any discussion on article Talk pages e.g. seeking opinions or consensus about renaming "Prasiolite" to "Vermarine" before the rename occurred on 4 June 2016.

On Google search, I get 560,000 hits for "prasiolite" and 20,000 hits for "vermarine" (and 10,900 hits for "praseolite"). Prasiolite is the dominant scientific name and vermarine is mostly used in gem/jewellery/new age "crystal healing" contexts. Even the source references used in this article use prasiolite instead of vermarine. I think the current situation with this mineral article, which now uses the much less common synonym to avoid alleged confusion with another (less well-known) mineral, would be like trying to rename the "Silver" article to "Argentum" to avoid confusing it with Quicksilver - not a good idea. I suggest that this article's title should be reverted to "Prasiolite", along with a standard "not to be confused with praseolite" warning at the top of the page, and any associated redirects should be removed or swapped back to how things were before 4 June 2016.

I'm interested to read any comments and advice about my suggested rename.

GeoWriter (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done as it seemed rather obvious and per above rationale. Vsmith (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. GeoWriter (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]