While I like the way this table is organized, there was a predecessor (now Template:Minerals) of this name that was a sidebar. Some pages still have the Gems template at the top, which looks REALLY bad IMO. Some pages got updated to have the Minerals template. And I've retrofitted 
[Talasite] and 
[Dawnstone] to have both.
There are valid reasons for each template, and different information on each. But I'm not sure how well they look together. ... And I haven't taken time yet to develop a firm preference. --Eirik Ratcatcher 17:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The major problem with this template is that it is not a general "Gems" template, but a BC-only one. It should be renamed and removed from places where listing BC gems is not appropriate. --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1:13 PM PDT 3 Aug 2007
Missing Pearls
How should we add 
[Purified Jaggal Pearl] as well as the new 
equivalents? Because 
[Jaggal Pearl] are used for things other than just jewelcrafting. -Howbizr (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've added them. Every uncommon BC gem other than Shadow Draenite is used by at least one other profession. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Spell Power
No Spell Power gems? Rolandius 
(talk - contr) 13:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Focus, name
Having just edited {{Minerals}}, I come back to this template... It tries to do entirely too much, in my opinion. It lists raw materials articles, and it lists cut gem type articles. Other than both having to deal vaguely with gems, I don't see a particular reason that any one page would want to have both on it. And combine this with the Minerals template on the same page?
This could be turned into, IMO, a couple or three good templates that could coexist with Minerals. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
New version
Please see {{Gems/dev}}. Edit as you see fit. This proposal is to replace both the current {{gems}} as well as {{minerals}}. The ideas is based off of {{mountfooter}}. 
Howbizr(t·c) 3:25 PM, 28 Aug 2009 (EDT)