Talk:Touchstone (assaying tool)

Opening comment

I had the impression that as touchstone was exclusively Basanite (Lydian Stone; black Jasper) used. Can anyone confirm? Speaking of which, Basanite is supposed to be a Quartz as any Jasper is, but the entry for Basanite states the opposite. In fact, it seems to be an entry for some Basalt, but not for Basanite.

In German, the word Prüfstein is more often used as an analogy for a test, similar to the English (political) litmus test. Fore example, Martin Luther uses this word in No 12 of his 95 Theses [1]. The Bible is often cited as the "Prüfstein" in theological issues (undecided? read the scripture!) in Lutheran churches. Doesn't "touchstone" have this meaning in English? --LA2 08:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Touchstone as a metaphor

I added headings so that other pages could link to the explanation of "touchstone" as a metaphor. The heading names may not be the most appropriate names, but I thought this would be a good start. --Culix 03:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Touchstone Metaphor Revision I added some links to articles explaining Matthew Arnold's "touchstone" technique. I also added a more in-depth definition and how to apply it to literary criticism. April 4, 2007 --User:sclonce 3:18 pm.

"Fieldstone"?

This article talks about "fieldstone" as an example of a kind of stone you could use as a touchstone. But the "fieldstone" article says that fieldstone is just any stone found in a field, not a particular rock, in the way that slate is a particular rock. Maybe the article means feldspar, which is a particular mineral, and means "fieldstone" in German? Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 03:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

i agree it surely should read feldspar and not fieldstone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant-serpell (talk • contribs) 00:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Touchstone → Touchstone (assay) — No primary use. Touchstone is a more common use. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support Revert _{(see below)} — As a matter of fact, I would go so far as to suggest a merger onto the lead of Touchstone (disambiguation), rather then moving this to Touchstone (assay). I'm honestly kind of surprised that this article has avoided the deletion process on WP:DICDEF grounds...
  — V = I * R (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Not persuaded; all the other usages are metaphorical or evocative employments of this one - and, while this article is a stub, it could readily be expanded, when someone is inspired to do so, with a full list of touchstones and how they work. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. This article used to be quite a bit more substantial (see here or here for example) until the "Probing" section disappeared and the "Metaphor" section was split out for no good reason I can see. Should this article be restored? Station1 (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  Actually, yea, that seems to be the way to go. an IP and Wikiuser100 (talk · contribs) appear to have gutted this article back in late March/April, with little discussion or even edit summaries to support their "improvements". Therefore, I wouldn't have a real problem with reverting and/or merging other materiel back here. I'm not 100% convinced that doig so would satisfy the WP:PRIME issue that this movereq really calls into question, but at least changing it from a stub back into a full article would help.
  — V = I * R (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.