1

'Stones' can include anything from river rocks to rubies.
The latter linked question includes both and tags, but does not mention anything about the intended use of the stone, so the tag seems inappropriate.

The description for includes "the selection of materials", but that is logically in relation to the creation or reparation of jewelry.

| |
  • 1
    Can you clarify why gemstones should have a separate tag from stones? Yeah, [stones] covers a range of kinds of stones. Why wouldn't there be a similar argument for separate tagging for large stones vs. tiny stones, or some other distinction? i.e., what characteristics of gemstones would provide a tag-related benefit beyond what's provided by the question title and context from other tags? It seems like there would be potential for a [gemstones] tag to become decoration on a lot of questions for which the distinction isn't germane to the question. (cont'd) – fixer1234 Aug 4 at 17:32
  • [jewelry] wouldn't be relevant to the ruby question if it concerned a loose stone, but the author's usage implies the ruby is in a jewelry setting, which clarifies in the tags that it's a precious stone. If it was a loose stone, the question wouldn't be harmed by removal of [jewelry] from the tags, since ruby is in the title. – fixer1234 Aug 4 at 17:32
  • @fixer1234 I can't really, but the use seems unintuitive, hence the question. Good point, and rather obvious. There is also the [lapidary] tag, but it's more about manipulating (gem)stones than the material itself. – Joachim Aug 4 at 18:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .