Talk:Padparadscha

Wikification
This article reads like an essay to me. We all like essays (don't we?) but that is not what we understand Wikipedia to be about. I like Padparadscha sapphires very much too. There is some good information here that needs to follow the format of the other gemstone articles. Right? T.E. Goodwin 11:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been considering cleaning this one up, but there's a problem, there's just not a whole lot of information out there about this color of sapphire. A sentence or two in most gemology books at best. Kinda makes one think that maybe this shouldn't have its own page. What info I have found so far is on the treatment method that has made these stones a bit more common than the current article would indicate. I think the pricing info should go, as even if its accurate- which I highly doubt- its bound to be temporary, and more appropriate to a buying guide than an encyclopedia. --Olneya 00:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It should definetly have its own page. I am currently reading two books which have sections on it. One I have sourced for the article (hope i refrenced it right feel free to fix). This article, no it wasn't originally written well for wiki. I tried to fix some. Still LOTS of work. But this is one of the rarest stones, the only corundum besides ruby to get its own name to seperate it from all other colored named sapphires. It should have its own article. --Xiahou 03:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Not so sure if it should. Article as it stands now does not add much value, that could not be summarized in a paragraph on the Sapphire page. And.. there are many gemstones that have additional names. Padparadscha is perhaps more commonly accepted, but I am not so sure if it'd win a nomenclature comparison. In any case.. I want to list it for merging with Sapphire. Gem-fanat 17:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Padparadscha should certainly be moved to the Sapphire section. Yogo sapphires are just as (or perhaps more) rare and expensive and they haven't received their own page. Why should one color be favored over others with it's own page? However, rubies have been long thought of as a separate gem. Because of this, while not technically correct, it would make sense to put the pads under sapphire and the rubies separate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.90.212.181 (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Merger with Sapphire
Reasons for proposal to merge Padparadscha with this article: 1) Information can easily be summarized in one paragraph and included into this article. Most information is redundant and article is not really written as encyclopedic entry (but more of an essay). 2) Given the not enormous resources for all gemstone pages, it is better to reduce amount of pages and make high quality of the combinations (in other words, do we really have the resources to write a proper article on Padparadscha). Merging would improve the quality of the Sapphire article. 3) Does Padparadscha warrant its own article ? How about so many other varieties, fancy named gemstones etc etc

PLEASE ADD COMMENTS ON DISCUSSION PAGE OF SAPPHIRES to keep all arguments and input in one place. Gem-fanat 17:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Padparadsha (and yes, most people spell it without the 'c') is sapphire. Therefore it needs to be in the sapphire article. --98.232.182.66 (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Example stone too orange
I've seen a lot of padparadshas, and this one (at least in its photo) is far too orange. Orange sapphire doesn't equal padparadsha, although a lot of Ebay dealers in Thailand would like you to believe otherwise. Padparadshas are salmon colored. Pinkish-orange, orangy-pink, pink-orange. You get the idea. Its a great photo of a gorgeous stone though, but I think it'd be better in the Fancy Sapphire paragraph in the sapphire article. --67.189.16.236 (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)