Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocks and minerals/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Questions

  1. The detailed list of varieties in the example Quartz box came from the Quartz page. Because it includes the descriptions, the box is really long. Would it be better to elide the descriptions and just have a comma-separated list (e.g., Chalcedony, Agate, Onyx...)? This loses some of the identifying info directly related to the Quartz entry being all in one handy-dandy place, but it shortens the table (and presumably one could include a table in the main flow of the article with this info in it). Elf
  2. It has been suggested that the same info and format used in the compounds proposed table be used here. How much really overlaps? And how appropriate is it? I'm coming at the table from a rock collector's viewpoint, not from a chemist's viewpoint, but maybe both need to be accommodated? Elf
  3. Quartz photo link is now broken. I'm not good at navigating Wiki namespace yet--can someone fix it? Thanks. Elf 18:07, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Comments/Answers

  1. Most minerals don't have as many discrete varieties as quartz; in such exceptional cases it would be unproblematic to elide the varieites with a simple "Many; see text." This is what I already do with animals; i.e., if there's a huge number of genera I'll work it into the main body of the text (e.g. what I attempted to do at moray eel).
  2. I think most of it isn't applicable. We've already got density (specific gravity) and melting point could be covered in a fusibility column. Solubility in acids could also be incorporated. Safety concerns (e.g. with asbestiform minerals, beryllonite, etc) are so few and far between that I think it can be left for the article body text.
  3. Is the quartz photo link still broken? It works fine on my end, even after several reloads..
Looks OK now. Huh. Elf 21:34, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I should point out that what's under "Crystal structure" should actually be under "Crystal habit". There needs to be a "Crystal system" field; in this case, quartz is trigonal. I should also ask this: which standard are we to use regarding crystal system? In the States I know hexagonal (e.g. beryl) is treated as a sort of subfamily in trigonal. Will we use the six- or seven-system crystallographic method? Anyway, great work! Hadal 20:22, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a good question, and it's beyond my knowledge level. I'll make the other changes you suggested. Elf 21:34, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I revamped the crystal structure page and created pages for all the crystal systems. I put in 7 systems, because that's what my solid state physics books say... I'm sort of a beginner at crystallography, so if you see problems, fix 'em! Tantalate 20:33, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not familar with the term 'crystal class'. However, from your mention of Schoenflies, I think that the concept is the same thing as space_group (an article in need of beign written - I'll get on to it if noone else does). The way to test this is by example: The space group for quartz is P3121 Is that the sort of thing you mean?

Google revels that crystal class seems to be specific to minerology, and is used somewhat interchangable between the crystal system, and the space group (although when used to mean crystal system it does tend to be qualified as the 'primary crystal class'). For this reason, I would prefer the term space group.

Addenda: We've got three pages here (this one, the talk page, and /Taxobox) where discussion of the same thing seems to be going on. Can we standardise this, otherwise, it's very likely that some discussion will be missed somewhere along the line. I'm in favour of just putting it all on this page. Syntax 17:38, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is it more coherent to put Opacity into Crystall optics section ? Greudin (beginner geologist)
Um, maybe. The problem with the opacity is that it's highly microstructurally dependand - as each grain boundary in the sample will scatter light. So it's not actually meningful, except as a few words describing a typical range - which is more or less covered by any descirption of colour. Syntax ~

"Crystal class": is a classification by C. Hermann and Ch. Mauguin or Schoenflies for the 32 point group. see:

Besides there are existing 230 space group and 1651 Shubnikov-groups. Gaucho 15:30, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If crystal class is just the Schoenflies symbol for the point group, then that is redundant, because it gives less information than the space group symbol. It's also not correct, as the point groups cannot describe a crystaline motif. For example, the motif of quartz cannot be descirbed by a point group (because quartz has a screw axis).

The Shubnikov groups (sometimes called the 'magnetic space groups') are a superset of space groups, and not used in general crystalography. Plus, there's only a few crystals that need them, so they don't go in the box.

In summary, my opinion is: Point group: Not in the box, not informative enough Space group: Goes in Magnetic space groups: In the text if relevent

Syntax 16:36, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You are right, point groups do not have the full information, but they build groups (classes) for the space groups. Its like: crystal system - point group - space group. With the arguement that it laks information, we could leave the crystal system as well. Therefore I would vote for both point group and space group and the Magnetic space groups: In the text if relevent, as you say. (ps.: We juse the International symbols for the point group at the german wikipedia(C. Hermann). Have a look at the list: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallsystem ) Gaucho 08:10, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ah, right. I understand your point. However, there is not a reliable mapping from point group to space group. There are some space groups that are derivable from two (or more point groups). (This is evidenced by the fact that there are fewer than 14 (bravais lattices) * 32 (point groups) = 448 space groups). Therefore, unless you write all applicable point groups, there is some arbitary selection of groups. More directly, I'm not aware of any use of such information - it's less information than the space group, and I know of no application of a point group with respect to a crystal. Syntax 16:19, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The point group is used to classify nonlinear crystals. For instance, it tells you whether the crystal shows the Pockels effect, and which orientation shows it. Tantalate 20:33, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

{{SampleWikiProject}}

Sodalite, linked Syntax 14:24, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Sodalite has no cellspacing. gracefool 05:59, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rock type infoboxes

I'm experimenting with templates for each of the three basic rock types. See:

Comments? Vsmith 19:44, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Clean up on Blödite needed

I came across Blödite on the dead-ended pages list, someone has tagged it to be moved to a wikisource, though it seems to be within the scope of this wikiproject, could someone familiar with minerals take a look and have a go at fixing it. Thanks--nixie 04:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


notice

Just wanted to notify this group od the existence of {{mineral-stub}}. Circeus 16:38, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

requested pictures

Is there a list of minerals needing pictures?

Important! Cleavage has moved.

Apparently, Cleavage has grown to become a full-fledged disambig page. Someone moved all the crystallography-specific information to Cleavage (minerology), but I felt that Cleavage (crystal) was more aesthetic, and also more general since cleavage of the same type is also quite important to semiconductor manufacturing and gem cutting, etc. There are now a huge number of mineral pages that link to a disambig page...I've changed the materials specific ones to Cleavage (crystal); who's up to changing the rest? The template should probably be changed before all of the individual minerals are, but I didn't want to intrude on your turf.--Joel 19:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Improvement drive

A related topic, Rock cycle has been nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Support the article with your vote!--Fenice 19:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Project Still Active?

Hi. I've begun working on some mineral pages, mainly of less-well known minerals I have in my collection, such as chalcanthite, caledonite, benitoite, and torbernite. I see that there hasn't been much said about an official infobox, so I've been using a modified version of the one for quartz listed on the main page, as well as a format that emphasizes uses, associates, and identification. I haven't really examined other, more common minerals (such as topaz) in detail, but before I plow on ahead with some other of my favorites, I wanted to see if any of the project members had any input on the work I've done thus far. Thank you in advance! Baryonyx 11:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I suspect there's not an active community here--this is on my watchlist and pretty much nothing ever happens (and sorry I was away for a few weeks when you posted your question). Elf | Talk 05:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Mineral template?

Is there a mineral template? (a template, not a sample). If so, what is it called? RJFJR 21:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Formula standards?

When I started editing mineral pages I made links to elements as follows: [[Copper|Cu]]<sub>2</sub>. Then, someone came along and changed them to: {{copper}}{{sub|2}}, so that's how I started editing the minerals from then on. Now, someone else is coming in and changing them back. What is going on? Baryonyx 23:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Your first is standard HTML and works, it's the one I use. The second works with my browser (Opera) but may not with all as it isn't standard HTML. What is the "right" answer? I don't know - but the sub /sub bit works. Vsmith 03:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Improvement drive

Asteroid deflection strategies is currently nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Support the article with your vote if you would like to see it improved on the article improvement drive!--Fenice 18:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, which may be familiar to some of you as the WP:Chem criteria. We are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, or even simply good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles on rocks & minerals? Do you have a worklist of articles like the list at WP:Chem? I don't know if you've had any FAs, but they would be suitable as well. Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Walkerma 05:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I started this project a couple of years ago and then got distracted by the dog breed project...I don't know whether there are active folks watching this page or not, FYI. I have no suggestions for you myself. Elf | Talk 05:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I watch this, and even though I'm not a signed on member, I have been editing mineral pages, mostly of ones I am familiar with through collecting. I can't say that any of the ones I work on would be A or B class, since they're really mostly rare minerals with not a lot to say, even in professional literature (though if you want to look, they're all listed on my user page). If you were looking for a place to start, Quartz may be a good choice. Baryonyx 08:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, for some reason I missed getting back to you sooner - I saw Elf's comment but didn't check again till now. I will put quartz in as a B-Class. If you get any more suggestions please add them to the list here, preferably with your assessments (you know the articles better than me!). I actually linked to one of your articles, kyanite, when I worked on Antarctica recently (one of our core topics for WP1.0 than became an FA recently). Feedback on my attempts at geology are most welcome, I'm a chemist, not a geologist! Thanks, Walkerma 05:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Earthquake weather

Hmm, I was looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology but there seems to be no such thing. I'm looking for expert opinion on earthquake weather, an article written by an anonymous editor (or possibly as many as three) and then wikified by (primarily) me. It seems well-sourced but I wonder if overall it's a little unbalanced. --Trovatore 01:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's unbalanced about it; the info about there being no such thing looks correct to me, but I can't speak for the ancient history. Can you give a better idea of what you think is lopsided? Elf | Talk 02:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Um, I think you looked at it after Vsmith edited it. Try looking at the version from when I asked the question. --Trovatore 03:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Help needed please

Hi Project I have taken a couple of photographs, over the weekend but I am at a loss to explain the geological phenomena behind the objects. Can anyone help? They are to be viewed on User:Ballista/images/Lyme Regis East Beach - Thanks. - Ballista 20:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It would help if we had a bit of info about the area, I don't even know where it is. Now just looking at the images, I'd guess we're looking at some mudstone and the first could easily be mudcracks. The second Ufo rock looks like a nodule due to perhaps silicification. The presence of ridges on the upper portion are similar also to mudcracks due possibly to dessication and shrinkage. The phrase septarian nodule comes to mind. So much for my speculations. Helpful? or totally off? Vsmith 21:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Great to have a response, thanks - we're talking Jurassic Coast here, taken between Lyme Regis & Charmouth (it's all Blue Lias, Greensand, Shales with Beef, etc.). Does that help your deliberations, which are very interesting? - Yes, I'd sort of guessed the mudcracks one - loads of similar rocks abound, on that stretch of beach - but the other thing was a COMPLETE MYSTERY to me. - Ballista 07:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I've been to Lyme Regis once, but not seen those features. The first one seem mudcracks to me, affected by tidal erosion, which causes the strange "wobbly" surface. The "UFO" looks like a zone where rock competence is higher and therefore sticks out. This can be due to mineralisation of silica or calcite. It is later overgrown by animals. Cheers, Torero, not logged in.
Thanks for this insight. Good to know there are folk out there with all this understanding of our planet. - Ballista 04:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm a physicist rather than geologist, so I could be way off !
First looks more like Benard cells - columns caused by thermal convection in a liquid. Like Basalt columns - do you line up with the Giant's causeway (west Scotland to Northern Ireland ...)? No! Main difference is mud cracking is a surface phenomenon, but Benard cells go all the way through, like lettering in seaside rock ! The cracks have zero width, and tend to curve into part-circles. Mud tends to crack into straight-edged polygons, instead. Tension cracks will fork, and produce different-sized flakes, whereas convection cell boundaries will not have ends, and will form cells of similar sizes. Any chance it's igneous ? Two other combinations of cell are notable: bisected circles (screw-head) and near-perfect circles surrounded by six or seven others with radial boundaries (flower-petals). Both fit convection better than tension cracking.
Second looks like layers of hard sediment formed in a puddle surrounded by soft mud. The mud washed away, and the puddle-contents remained, but got flipped upside-down. Could just be hard/soft layers wearing away at different rates.
Nice photos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.93.171 (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
PS Looking at Giant's causeway and Benard cells and Googling finds few published links - this may be 'original research' ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Turquoise

Turquoise is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 20:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★TWO YEARS OF MESSEDROCKER★ 03:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Infobox for igneous rocks

I notice that the project page links to a template for an igneous rock infobox. Is that still under discussion, or should I go ahead and start putting that onto articles like basalt? -- Iotha 19:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


Help needed: Moonstone

I tried creating a page for Moonstone (gemstone), copying the format of Aquamarine, but for some reason the info box tag didn't copy right, I completely redid it, and it still does not display right. I gave up and am not adding any more info to that (I just left it a very weak stub), in the hopes that someone can fix it up. Fredwerner 15:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Boundaries with the WikiProject Chemicals"

What are boundaries between this project and WikiProject Chemicals? For example, would Cotunnite belong to this project? Solarapex 04:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

To add to this question. How about this project and Wikipedia:WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry? (e.g. Corundum) Solarapex 05:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Notice of List articles

Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).

This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ore genesis/Mineralization (geology)

Ore genesis/Mineralization (geology) - should they be merged (taking care of the Mineralization DAB page)? The Ore genesis page is very assertive and technical but doesn't mention zoning, a process that sounds important! I started the Mineralization (geology) article, when it was a redlink on the Mineralization DAB page and included some history of the idea. Vernon White . . . Talk 18:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Mineral interconnection templates

One thing I believe Wikipedia lacks is decent interconnection between articles on minerals. For example, if you are browsing the article on rhodochrosite (manganese carbonate) you should be able to automatically navigate to other manganese minerals, and other carbonate minerals. At present, we only have the category listings, which are unstructured and thus not particularly helpful.

Therefore, I propose that navigation templates be added to the bottom of all mineral articles, allowing users to browse to related minerals. As a demonstration piece, I have created Template: Manganese minerals, which has been added to articles on manganese bearing minerals.

Would anyone be interested in participating with this project? Hyperdeath (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The template looks good. Potential problems arise though. Mn is relatively rare, how big would the aluminium template be? Also, where is the "cut-off" for minerals with only very minor to trace amounts as substitutions? For another thought: take a look at Zircophyllite: would we have templates for all eleven or so elements in the formula - stacked up at the bottom of the page?
Should we make template for the anion or anion group and then only for major cation elements? For the Zircophyllite example that'd be 3 anion groups: (silicate, hydroxide and fluoride) along with seven cations. That's still ten templates to stack up. Just some thoughts, Vsmith (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Another possibility - rather than work to built all those templates, why not work to restructure the categories. For instance redo the Category:Potassium minerals to have multiple subcats to organize the K minerals into the various anion groups per either the Dana or Strunz system. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There are certainly issues to be resolved, but none of them are fatal. The following could work:

  • The extremely common cations (aluminium, calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium and sodium) would have to done differently (for example, by only including economically important minerals within the templates).
  • The template for hydroxide minerals would have to be omitted completely (or at least, severely restricted).
  • The template for fluoride minerals would have to omit all (OH,F) minerals (with the exception of fluorine-rich endmembers).
  • The template for silicate minerals template would have to be omitted, or subdivided into the many different types of silicates.

In this scenario, Zircophyllite would have fours templates (or five, if a silicate-subvariety template was provided). This doesn't really matter, as they can be folded up. Furthermore, zircophyllite is a fairly extreme case (and I wish I had more like it in my collection).

I don't like the idea of using categories instead of templates. I believe that categories are more of a bookkeeping device for editors, and that templates provide a vastly better user interface. Thanks, Hyperdeath (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Categories link both ways - can you see 'pages using this template' ?

Should both the Anion and Cation be in Category:Minerals ? eg Cryolite in Category:Sodium minerals, Category:Aluminium minerals, Category:Fluorine minerals ? It may be a special case because Cryolite is used in Aluminium extraction ... maybe as a catalyst rather than ore. There is a risk of the category growing to equal List_of_minerals or even List_of_minerals_(complete) ! Maybe leave that to Category:Aluminium compounds ?

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mineral schema.jpg

Does the Wikiproject have any need for ? If not, please delete. Thansk. GregManninLB (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I came here from Cryolite looking for a standard way of cross-linking (or merging ?) mineral pages and their associated chemical compound pages.

Discuss !

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Realgems.org: worth some links?

Dear Rocks- and minerals enthusiasts, dear gemstone lovers,

my URL realgems.org was blacklisted in December because I added too many external links to its URL. I did that "link spamming" from July 2008 until December 2008 without any problems. As a consequence thousands of Wiki users visited my website, looking for varieties of gems and their minerals. Then, in December, Wiki's automatic spam search engine (I don't know the exact name) put my URL on the index so to say.

I added all these links to special mineral projects to support Wiki users in finding much more gems and mineral photos than it's possible to present on Wiki pages. That was the only reason. I do my website without financial interests and for educational purposes only. That was confirmed and supported by those who gave me their kind permission to show their photos (more than 100 dealers, collectors and professors) on my website.

German "trusted and high volume" admins reached a whitelisting of my URL on Wiki.de - and obviously back me in asking Meta-Wiki for a global whitelisting so that interested users are free to add a link to your mineral or gemstone pages where they think it's appropriate resp. a worthy addition of your texts.

This problem is deeply discussed on: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#Discussion and there I was told to ask you, members and admins of this mineral project.

Kind regards, F.N. Berg (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, Wiki in not here to promote your stuff. Vsmith (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

30,000 images of minerals donated

(taken from Signpost; written by Phoebe and HaeB)

U.S. mineral collector Dr. Robert Lavinsky has released almost 30,000 photos of mineral specimens under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, which will be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons soon. They consist of the (currently about 29,000) images from Lavinsky's picture database on mindat.org, and of the images from his own homepage irocks.com, the web site of his mineral business "The Arkenstone".

The donation came about after Dr. Lavinsky had been contacted by German Wikipedian and Commons user Ra'ike for permission to use a small number of these photos. According to his biography on minrec.org, "The Arkenstone" was one of the first mineral businesses to move onto the Internet in 1996, and Dr. Lavinsky gave academic lectures on the "Impact of the Internet on the Mineral Hobby" in 2006 and 2007.

Help is needed in translating the image descriptions. Also, images from irock.com need to be screened and any misssing pictures uploaded to Commons. See Commons:Robert Lavinsky for more info. --Yarnalgo talk to me 00:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing mineral articles

I'e update my page of missing geology topics, including its section about minerals - Skysmith (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Article that may deserve extra attention

Although this is connected to the wikiproject for soils, Fuller's earth may deserve some attention here as well, as the BP oil crisis has made it a highly accessed page. i have tagged it as needing attention, and linked it to your project. i hope this is appropriate.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Volcanoes

Portal:Volcanoes is on featured portal nom. ResMar 15:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

New categories

Just to let you know that Category:Minerals by crystal system and its subcategories has been created, would be good to populate them! DuncanHill (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk page banner/geology sub-banner for this project

I'd like to add this project as a subproject to the WikiProject Geology banner, to put all purely rock and mineral articles into one group? (See, for example, the WikiProject Africa country groupings.) Comments? --Kleopatra (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Support/Opppose

Support --Kleopatra (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Support - There are probably more than 400 minerals now. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Classification of minerals

I'm trying to built up the Classification of minerals - Non silicates and Classification of minerals - Silicates articles. They should complement the List of minerals (complete) and List of minerals. The idea is that many minerals are just a small variation of the same crystal cell. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Unknown red mineral

Hi. Please see the RefDesk discussion about an unknown mineral. I'd like to have the image added to the relevant article if possible. Additionally, I am considering creating Ice (mineral) as a separate article, as ice is often considered a mineral or would it be more suitable to list a mineral infobox and details on the ice article itself? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 19:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Although ice has a Nickel-Strunz code (04.AA.05), it is never good to have two articles about the same on wikipedia. It doesn't work. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Pyrochlore supergroup

Note, Pyrochlore supergroup: IMA/CNMNC discredited many minerals in this group 2010.

  • Discredited minerals, Nickel-Strunz group 04.DH.15: Bariomicrolite (of Hogarth 1977), Bariopyrochlore (of Hogarth 1977), Betafite (of Hogarth 1977), Bismutomicrolite (of Hogarth 1977), Ceriopyrochlore (of Hogarth 1977), Jixianite, Natrobistantite, Plumbomicrolite (of Hogarth 1977), Plumbobetafite (of Hogarth 1977), Strontiopyrochlore (of Hogarth 1977, rejected), Stannomicrolite (of Hogarth 1977), Stibiobetafite (of Černý et al), Yttrobetafite (of Hogarth 1977), Yttropyrochlore (of Hogarth 1977), Bismutopyrochlore (of Chukanov et al)
  • Discredited mineral, Nickel-Strunz group 04.DH.20: Bismutostibiconite
  • Formula: A(2-m) D2 X(6-w) Z(1-n)
  • There is no Pyrochlore and Microlite mineral anymore. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Citation: "Hogarth (1977) defined betafite as a uranium-rich Ti-dominant pyrochlore, hence the origin of calciobetafite, a calcium-dominant Ti-rich pyrochlore (Mazzi & Munno 1983). However, all published analytical data on (non-defect) betafite have Ca in excess of U (except the mineral from the Moon studied by Mokhov et al. (2008), which is oxyuranobetafite); consequently, by current standards, betafite is defined as a calcium-rich and Ti-dominant pyrochlore. This renders the name calciobetafite redundant, and has the added effect of bringing members of the betafite group in line with the other groups (furthermore, type calciobetafite is Nb-dominant, not Ti-dominant, and belongs to the pyrochlore group)." (Mindat.org)
  • Abstract: "A new scheme of nomenclature for the pyrochlore supergroup, approved by the CNMNC–IMA, is based on the ions at the A, B and Y sites. What has been referred to until now as the pyrochlore group should be referred to as the pyrochlore supergroup, and the subgroups should be changed to groups. Five groups are recommended, based on the atomic proportions of the B atoms Nb, Ta, Sb, Ti, and W. The recommended groups are pyrochlore, microlite, roméite, betafite, and elsmoreite, respectively. The new names are composed of two prefixes and one root name (identical to the name of the group). The first prefix refers to the dominant anion (or cation) of the dominant valence [or H2O or ] at the Y site. The second prefix refers to the dominant cation of the dominant valence [or H2O or ] at the A site. The prefix "keno-" represents "vacancy". Where the first and second prefixes are equal, then only one prefix is applied. Complete descriptions are missing for the majority of the pyrochlore-supergroup species. Only seven names refer to valid species on the grounds of their complete descriptions: oxycalciopyrochlore, hydropyrochlore, hydroxykenomicrolite, oxystannomicrolite, oxystibiomicrolite, hydroxycalcioroméite, and hydrokenoelsmoreite. Fluornatromicrolite is an IMA-approved mineral, but the complete description has not yet been published. The following 20 names refer to minerals that need to be completely described in order to be approved as valid species: hydroxycalciopyrochlore, fluornatropyrochlore, fluorcalciopyrochlore, fluorstrontiopyrochlore, fluorkenopyrochlore, oxynatropyrochlore, oxyplumbopyrochlore, oxyyttropyrochlore-(Y), kenoplumbopyrochlore, fluorcalciomicrolite, oxycalciomicrolite, kenoplumbomicrolite, hydromicrolite, hydrokenomicrolite, oxycalciobetafite, oxyuranobetafite, fluornatroroméite, fluorcalcioroméite, oxycalcioroméite, and oxyplumboroméite. For these, there are only chemical or crystal-structure data. Type specimens need to be defined. Potential candidates for several other species exist, but are not sufficiently well characterized to grant them any official status. Ancient chemical data refer to wet-chemical analyses and commonly represent a mixture of minerals. These data were not used here. All data used represent results of electron-microprobe analyses or were obtained by crystal-structure refinement. We also verified the scarcity of crystal-chemical data in the literature. There are crystal-structure determinations published for only nine pyrochlore-supergroup minerals: hydropyrochlore, hydroxykenomicrolite, hydroxycalcioroméite, hydrokenoelsmoreite, hydroxycalciopyrochlore, fluorcalciopyrochlore, kenoplumbomicrolite, oxycalciobetafite, and fluornatroroméite. The following mineral names are now discarded: alumotungstite, bariomicrolite, bariopyrochlore, bindheimite, bismutomicrolite, bismutopyrochlore, bismutostibiconite, calciobetafite, ceriopyrochlore-(Ce), cesstibtantite, ferritungstite, jixianite, kalipyrochlore, monimolite, natrobistantite, partzite, plumbobetafite, plumbomicrolite, plumbopyrochlore, stannomicrolite, stetefeldtite, stibiconite, stibiobetafite, stibiomicrolite, strontiopyrochlore, uranmicrolite, uranpyrochlore, yttrobetafite-(Y), and yttropyrochlore-(Y)." (Atencio, D., Andrade, M.B., Christy, A.G., Gieré, R., Kartashov, P.M. (2010). "Nomenclature of the pyrochlore supergroup of minerals" (PDF). Canadian Mineralogist. 48: 673–698.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link))
  • --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Afghanite

Short check: does anybody disagree with these images? The descriptions are in French, I'm afraid :[ --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Afghanite on the left, Lazurite on the right.
Afghanite viewed under ultra-violet light. Calcite emits rose light as Afghanite, Lazurite doesn't emit visible light.

Minerals

I'm trying to update List of minerals (complete), it's a time sink. I hope to get it to an end 2011. As I was approaching 150 kBytes, its download was slow, so I split it even more apart.

There is only a small group editing: Vsmith, DuncanHill, Tillman, Strickja, Archaeodontosaurus (fr.wikipedia), Ra'ike & Reinhard Kraasch (Commons & de.wikipedia), Danim, Qfl247. Plant Kingdom & Animal Kingdom seem to be better organized.

Although you can always search a page with the search function of your browser, my aim is to know which minerals are relevant, historic, encyclopedic; overview their editing and to know which ones have an article. I'm pasting a WP template, categorizing one liners here. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Kesterite

is in trouble. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Paulscherrerite

Paulscherrerite is a new article that needs a review. Safiel (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2

Robert B. Ferguson

Can someone put together an article on Robert B. Ferguson, the University of Manitoba mineralogist for whom bobfergusonite and the Robert B. Ferguson Museum of Mineralogy are named? Cheers! bd2412 T 00:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Bobfergusonite (IMA 1984-072a) 08.AC.15 [1] [2] [3] --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Possible source: [4] Chris857 (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Commons

Commons:Category:Mines by country got many images of minerals. They should be sorted as (Category:Minerals of XXX mine), as an subcategory of (Category:XXX mine) and (Category:Minerals of location YYY) (a subcategory of Commons:Category:Minerals by country). Any help is welcome ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Zinnwaldite

Zinnwaldite is a discredited mineral, it's a series between siderophyllite and polylithionite. It doesn't need an article. Moving the page to polylithionite seems reasonable to me. Any comments? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC) I think that I'll move it to siderophyllite–polylithionite series --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems zinnwaldite has entries on Mindat, Webmineral and the Handbook of Mineralogy. Siderophyllite and polylithionite are the Fe and Li endmembers, but I assume intermediate composition samples exist so the name zinnwaldite is valid for intermediate samples even if officially discredited by IMA. An analogous example is the annite–phlogopite series for which biotite remains as acceptable for describing intermediates or a general term for dark mica (maybe not to IMA folks). I'd say keep the zinnwaldite entry - needs a rewrite perhaps for clarity regarding its "intermediate" status - and simply create the missing polylithionite article. Vsmith (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Seems a wise procedure to me. But I'd still rename both, biotite to biotite–phlogopite series with biotite as redirect, and zinnwaldite to siderophyllite–polylithionite series with zinnwaldite as redirect. The names biotite and zinnwaldite are wrong, series is better. I assume the ideal end member composition isn't found in nature, only the intermediate members do really exist. So we get in the end, a similar procedure as with the chlorite group. You use annite–phlogopite series, mindat.org uses biotite–phlogopite series, which way? Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Further discussion on my talk in case others are watching.
Back in Dec. 04 I wanted to write an article on the mineral chlorite as none existed, however the chemists had already claimed chlorite. So I thought chlorite group would work, as there exist a bunch of varieties (and I dislike the chlorite (mineral) construct or just didn't think of it). In analogy, zinnwaldite should work as an article name for the siderophyllite–polylithionite solid solution series - as the common name. Likewise the biotite article represents the annite–phlogopite series as well as other dark mica series (currently siderophylite is included in the biotite article as an Al rich endmember). Keep the common name to refer to the series and describe the series as well as the common uses of the name. Vsmith (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the biotite case, it's an accepted name. The zinnwaldite name is obsolete, though. There is no hurry, the decision can get ripe. When in doubt, don't change page's title and its categorization on Wikipedia. We don't need to change names n titles, as the question is only which is the article's title, which names get redirects. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
The difficulties arise too because the mineral systematic on Wikipedia isn't worked through. There are mineral stubs with "no wikilinks". The life sciences systematic gets worked through top-down. Clade: Monocots, clade: Commelinids, order: Poales, family: Poaceae, genus: Poa, plant: Poa pratensis, for instance. So the mineral Nickel-Strunz systematic would be, for instance: Nickel-Strunz 09.: silicates (germanates); Nickel-Strunz 09.C?.: cyclosilicates; tourmaline group (more or less Nickel-Strunz 09.CK., [Si6O18]12- 6-membered single rings, with insular complex anions); Nickel-Strunz 09.CK.05 group; dravite–elbaite series, elbaite-schorl series, elbaite-liddicoatite series; mineral: elbaite. (",) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
The notable person gets a page on Wikipedia. The notable person was honored with an mineral name and the mineral gets a stub, for instance. It isn't good enough. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia

A template on Wikimedia got sandbox status, it might get born (",) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Tourmaline group

Moved to talk:tourmaline. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Join geology?

I have been assessing a lot of articles on minerals for Geology recently, and Geology covers pretty much all the articles that Rocks and minerals covers. Perhaps it might be advantageous to join Geology as a task force. This would have the advantage that the project banners on talk pages could be combined, and Rocks and Minerals would inherit the assessments of Geology articles. Since the contributors to this project do not have much interest in assessment (the statistics table wasn't even working until I fixed it), that would be a good thing. Otherwise, not much would change - you could continue doing your excellent work on infoboxes. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope, we are just few
The administration is a bit easier if they are kept separated (WikiPro Geology, 8,318 articles against WikiPro Rocks and minerals, 1,160 articles), but we could assess both project banners at the same time
The administration of the mineral article stubs needs the WikiPro Rocks and minerals banner
WikiPro Rocks and minerals has a WikiPro Gemology and Jewelry bent
Sorry that the statistics table wasn't working
Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
When I wrote my comment, I didn't realize that you had recently created the statistics table. I thought that it had gone unfixed for a much longer period. If you are interested in doing the assessments for this project, more power to you. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm only a drop in the ocean ;) I just wanted to know which articles are out here, and which ones are relevant and notable. I'm just fixing/ updating the list of minerals (complete), trying to ... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little unclear on whether your answer is yea or nay. I wouldn't worry about the administration. Once the initial setup is done (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/Task_forces#Converting_existing_projects_to_task_forces), it should be easier. The banners can all be converted using a bot. If the geology assessments are inherited, a lot of the assessment backlog could be cleared in a hurry! RockMagnetist (talk) 06:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I think that WikiPro Geology with 8,318 articles is quite big, WikiPro Geology should only have the relevant minerals. It makes easier for the fireman searching for the articles needing review to have "WikiPro Geology" divided in parts. I don't know about task forces, but we're a half a dozen anyway. It's just format. I think that you shouldn't waste too much time on formalities. Leave it, it's working now, the editing capacity of greater WikiPro Geology is low. I know that it's nice to use sandboxes and to test tools on Wikipedia/ Wikimedia, but take care. WikiPro Rocks and Minerals was founded on February 4th, 2004, at‎ 17:46 by Elf; there is a reason to survive more than seven years. Note: Vsmith used the WikiPro Geology banner on minerals. I wanted to find the mineral stubs more easily, so I added the WikiPro Rocks and Minerals banner on the mineral articles. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Not sure what "join" means, but this seems a natural sub or daughter project of geology. Seems when I started working on stuff around here many of the members were gemology focused rather than geology. However, most were or have become inactive and the project was rather "dead" until Chris started working on it again. Seems the gemology and pretty rocks folks didn't care much about the geology end. My main interest was in rock forming minerals and ore minerals, so I'm more interested in the geology end. All that said, yes this should be a daughter project (if it isn't already and whatever fiddling that entails :). Seems there is also a mining project which is also closely related. Don't really pay that much attention to project stuff. Vsmith (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I believe that a daughter project is simply a project that resides in a subcategory of the parent project (for example, Category:WikiProject Earthquakes is a subcategory of Category:WikiProject Geology). That's about all there is to it. I am suggesting that it become a task force to combine the assessment tasks, but of course I won't do anything without the full support of the members of this Wikiproject. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Daughter project?

Making this a daughter project is trivial. I just need to change the parent category from Category:Science WikiProjects to Category:WikiProject Geology. Anyone have any objections to that? RockMagnetist (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't think so. But I want the assessments separated. So one can call all mineral stubs. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Done RockMagnetist (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Manganvesuvianite

I've got an interesting dilemma with an article I'm working on about manganvesuvianite. Ostensibly, it wasn't discovered until 2002. However, this name and the apparently synonymous manganidocrase are referenced in 1884, 1895 (p. 26), 1889, and 1926. Does any one know what's up with this? Chris857 (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Manganvesuvianite (IMA 2000-040) belongs to the Vesuvianite group, idocrase and manganidocrase seem more synonymous of vesuvianite on a broader sense. I'd advice you to stick to RRUFF database, mindat.org and Mineralientlas Lexikon. The determinations nowadays are more precise. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks like it was either considered a variety or simply not recognized as a valid species prior to the Kalahari discovery. The previous usage as a Mn variety of vesuvianite or idocrase could be included in the article as historical discussion. The Funk article on Langban minerals lists it as one known by "more or less superficial examination". Vsmith (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The ref from 1889 cites a journal article (G. Flink, Bihang Vet. Akad. Handl. XII, 2, 57). Do either of you have access to it? Chris857 (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't think so. I'd assume that in the XIX century, the state-of-art only determined mineral groups (vesuvianite group, apatite group... ). Armbruster only solved some manganese minerals in the year 2002.
Armbruster, Thomas (2002). "Revised nomenclature of högbomite, nigerite, and taafeite minerals" (PDF). European Journal of Mineralogy. 14: 389–395. doi:10.1127/0935-1221/2002/0014-0389.
Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
After looking at a 2000 article that is now in the draft, I agree that there has been a wide variety of poorly defined minerals that are vesuvianite and contain manganese. Chris857 (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Mineralpedia

Would it be alright if I began linking to Mineralpedia for their respective mineral entries? It is a photographic database of a significant number of rare minerals searchable by locality. The MSA and several other organizations link to it already as a resource.

Thanks,

Sincosite (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with that. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that it is a commercial site looking for $$$. Their info comes from The Handbook of Mineralogy ... so why not use that? The site has some good images, but see their copyright note at the bottom of the page. So simply no, not a WP:RS. Vsmith (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Citing Handbook of Mineralogy

A lot of articles cite the Handbook of Mineralogy with just a web link and the name of the handbook. For anyone who would like to improve these citations, here is a template. Just replace the title and url fields:

{{cite encyclopedia|url=http://rruff.geo.arizona.edu/doclib/hom/acanthite.pdf |title=Acanthite |encyclopedia=Handbook of Mineralogy |editor1-first=John W. |editor1-last=Anthony|editor2-first=Richard A. |editor2-last=Bideaux|editor3-first=Kenneth W. |editor3-last=Bladh|editor4-first= Monte C. |editor4-last=Nichols |publisher=Mineralogical Society of America|location=Chantilly, VA}} RockMagnetist (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
If I'm right, the Handbook of Mineralogy belongs to Mineralogical Society of America, the University of Arizona is just a mirror site ;)
  • John W. Anthony, Richard A. Bideaux, Kenneth W. Bladh, and Monte C. Nichols, eds., Handbook of Mineralogy, Mineralogical Society of America, Chantilly, VA 20151-1110, USA. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Melaconite and Tenorite

I think a merge of Melaconite into Tenorite is in order, given that melaconite is a synonym of tenorite, unless there is a compelling reason to keep them separate. Chris857 (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes - same stuff, just archaic 1911 EB name, hadn't noticed that one before. Looking at what links there ... more cleanup needed, see Black metal (mineralogy). Go for it :) Time for sleep here. Vsmith (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Redirected to tenorite after merging a bit of content there, wasn't much to merge. Deleted the black metal (mineralogy) stub as basically nothing there. Vsmith (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Notable minerals

As I update the list of minerals (complete), I reached the conclusion that the real notable minerals:

  • Aren't involved in a controversy, their existence isn't questionable or doubtful.
  • Their crystal structures were solved.
  • They were found in more than three localities worldwide (mindat.org).
  • They or their solid solution series were known at least before the foundation of the IMA (1958) or known in 1915 or before.
    • More or less so, mogánite is quite a hidden mineral.
  • --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

IMA master list

There is a new list available: IMA. There are many redefined hypothetical amphiboles (2012 s.p., special procedure). Cummingtonite, glaucophane, anthophyllite, hastingsite, arfvedsonite, barroisite, eckermannite, edenite, gedrite, grunerite, hollandite, holmquistite, joesmithite, kaersutite, magnesio-hastingsite, magnesio-riebeckite, nybøite, pargasite, richterite, riebeckite, tremolite, tschermakite, winchite and more got redefined. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Meteorite minerals

Greetings,

Over at Category:Meteorite minerals there is a list of ~33 minerals of which a few lack {{Infobox mineral}}. Would someone knowledgeable kindly add it to each. I'd do it myself but lack the required technical understanding. The minerals in question:

  • Brianite, IMA status: IMA1966-030, Na2CaMg(PO4)2
  • Hapkeite, IMA status: IMA2003-014, Fe2Si
  • Haxonite, IMA status: IMA1971-001, (Fe,Ni)23C6
  • Niningerite, IMA status: IMA1966-036, MgS
  • Xifengite, IMA status: IMA1983-086, Fe5Si3

-Arb. (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Additions to List of meteorite minerals also welcome. -Arb. (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for adding those Infoboxes Chris. I've continued the discussion at User_talk:Chris.urs-o#Meteorite_minerals. -Arb. (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Bensonite

Is bensonite actually anything? I moved benstonite out of my userspace today and found this. It seems to be somewhere between a joke and actually benstonite. Perhaps it simply should be deleted. Chris857 (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems a title typo, benstonite in its WP:Lead is correct. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Redirected to benstonite as it seems no mineral named "bensonite" exists and a carbonate is not a "colloidal clay". Vsmith (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Meteorite minerals

Over at WikiProject Geology/Meteorites we're having a month long focus to eliminate redlinks either by starting new articles or by finding appropriate link targets within existing articles. We'd be very glad of WikiProject Rocks and minerals' help with any of the following:

-Arb. (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Minerals with few locations aren't really worth it. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
What does "few locations" mean in this context? IANA geologist. -Arb. (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'd say those with only 1 or 2 locations (or maybe < twenty?) would be hard to justify when those like pseudobrookite was there (just started that one :) - unless there is something significant (notable) about them. I see browneite was just approved in 2012 and only occurs in a single meteorite (and not mentioned in that article) ... so who wants to work it up? It is interesting as a Mn analogue of sphalerite ... but only known from one meteorite... So ... are we shooting for comprehensiveness? Basically, I don't know. Vsmith (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Half a dozen microprobes (locations), just some "dust-size" particles. It means low priority, because there is so much else to do ... Wikipedia had 56,000 editors in 2007, and 35,000 in 2012, the to do list/ editor proportion is huge. Wikipedia's editors have almost only one sweet, they are free to choose what they want to do "today". --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
For sure, Chris, one can only ask. The other way of slicing the pie is by how many incoming wikilinks each has (click on a redlink then its "what links here"). Top of the meteorites hit list is Carlsbergite with five. Any takers? -Arb. (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
You should know Arb. I never started a mineral article, I was always the guy with the mop ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Just to add some humor to this discussion I'm going to say that mineralogy is what happens, if you stare at a rock for too long :). --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Note: if a mineral was found on one locality, only; then it was probably found by one team, only. If the team did a mistake, the mineral might get discredited in the future. Minerals with formula with ranges, as in perryite, might get reviewed (perryite was described 1965, rejected 1968, finally it got a redefinition based on synthetic perryite, 1991). One locality isn't notable enough under "normal conditions". Notability can be weighted by number of wikipedia links (main space), number of images on Commons and number of locations on mindat.org. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Tasks

Some nickel and nickel-bearing phyllosilicates need a review, but the scientific literature is confusing anyway.
(Smectite group/ Rruff: aliettite, bannisterite, beidellite, brinrobertsite, corrensite, dozyite, ferrisurite, ferrosaponite, hydrobiotite, kulkeite, lunijianlaite, montmorillonite, nontronite, pimelite?, rectorite, saliotite, saponite, sauconite, stilpnomelane, surite, swinefordite, tosudite, vermiculite, volkonskoite, yakhontovite, zincsilite).
(Kaolinite-serpentine group/ Rruff: allophane, amesite, antigorite, berthierine, brindleyite, chrysotile, cronstedtite, dickite, fraipontite, greenalite, halloysite-10A, halloysite-7A, kaolinite, kellyite, lizardite, manandonite, nacrite, népouite, odinite, pecoraite).
(Kaolinite subgroup/ Rruff: antigorite, chrysotile, dickite, halloysite-10A, halloysite-7A, kaolinite, lizardite, nacrite, odinite)
We have falcondoite (IMA1976-018), stevensite (questionable/ doubtful, 1853), garnierite (generic name for a green nickel ore in laterite; lateritic weathering of ultramafic rocks (serpentinite, dunite, peridotite)), népouite (serpentine group, 1907), pimelite (discredited, a re-validation research project exists, 1938), willemseite (1968), lizardite (1956), antigorite (1954), sepiolite (1847), ferrisepiolite (IMA2010-061), palygorskite (1962), talc (1948), serpentine (kaolinite-serpentine group), vermiculite (1824), chrysotile (1953), chrysoprase (quartz var., tiny inclusions of Ni-bearing layers silicates).
--Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Halloysite

Halloysite (1826) to halloysite-7A, Al2Si2O5(OH)4
Endellite (1943) to halloysite-10A, Al2Si2O5(OH)4·2H2O
  • Name changes, halloysite-7Å and halloysite-10Å: Bailey S W (1980) Summary of recommendations of the AIPEA nomenclature committee, The Canadian Mineralogist 18, 143-150
--Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Others

Gold, platinum, tungsten and osmium

There is a new sequence of events, as the Earth's silicate mantle has up to 1,000 times more gold than anticipated:
Big Bang
Stars: generation of elements up to iron
Supernova explosions: generation of elements heavier than iron


  • Solar system
    • Pre-stellar molecular clouds: a dozen refractory minerals.
    • Chondrules and calcium-aluminium inclusions: around 60 different mineral phases.
    • Achondrites: around 250 different minerals.
    • Proto-Earth: accretion 4.55 billion years ago.
    • Iron core formation (including heavy metals) within just a few million years.
    • An Mars (Theia) sized body impacts with the Earth forming the Moon (Giant impact hypothesis)
    • Late Heavy Bombardment (LHB) around 3.9 billion years ago delivering gold, platinum, tungsten and osmium etc.
    • Initial mineral evolution of Earth's crust: around 1,500 minerals.
    • Eoarchean Era (around 3.85–3.6 Ga): banded iron formations.
    • Paleoproterozoic "Great Oxidation Event" (around 2.2–2.0 Ga).
    • Intermediate Oxygen levels during around 1 Ga (Intermediate Ocean or "Boring Billion").
    • Around 800 Ma: Rodinia.
    • Next 200 Ma or so: Rodinia breaks up and the Earth cycles two or four times between a Snowball and a Hothouse.
    • At the end of the last big glaciation: vigorous and widespread coastal algal blooms. 5 Ma later first multicellular organisms. Protective stratospheric ozone layer develops.
    • About 460 Ma: first true land plants (mosses).
    • 10 Ma later: rise of the vascular plants.
    • Coleoptera and polinization by them, up to 299 Ma
    • Lepidoptera and polinization by them, about 190 Ma
  • I only saw now that it is 2011. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC) and --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • References:

Wikidata task force

Just if anybody hasn't noticed there is a Mineralogy related task force on Wikidata. Probably a good idea to stay in contact with the people working there as they are also working on the mineral infobox:

d:Wikidata:Mineralogy_task_force --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Which edition of Strunz classification should Wikidata use? Discussion @ d:Wikidata_talk:Mineralogy_task_force/Properties --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
We could use some feedback for the properties "twinning" and "habit". d:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Term#Mineralogy --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Fixed the links ;) Please vote for twinning, habit, fracture, cleavage and how Strunz and Dana should be organized. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I made a userbox that should help to increase the visibility of the Wikidata task force. I'm still hoping that a few more people can help out or pay the occasional visit: --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata
Mineralogy Task Force

 
 
 

Amphiboles

I did a first sight of the changes on the amphibole supegroup
Major change is that the prefixes of the mineral name are in the same order as its chemical formula now
  • w(OH, F, Cl)-dominant amphibole group
    • Calcium amphibole subgroup: Chromio-pargasite (2011-023 ehimeite), Magnesio-fluoro-hastingsite (2005-002 fluoro-magnesiohastingsite), Potassic-chloro-pargasite (2006 chloro-potassicpargasite), Potassic-chloro-hastingsite (2005-007 chloro-potassichastingsite), Potassic-ferro-ferri-sadanagaite (1997-035 potassic-ferrisadanagaite), Potassic-fluoro-hastingsite (2005-006 fluoro-potassichastingsite), Potassic-fluoro-pargasite (2009-091 fluoro-potassic-pargasite), Potassic-sadanagaite (1982-102 magnesiosadanagaite)
    • Lithium amphibole subgroup: Clino-ferri-holmquistite (2001-067a ferri-ottoliniite), Ferro-fluoro-pedrizite (2008-070 Fluoro-sodic-ferropedrizite), Fluoro-pedrizite (2004-002 fluoro-sodic-pedrizite)
    • Magnesium-iron-manganese amphibole subgroup: ok
    • Sodium amphibole subgroup: Ferri-fluoro-leakeite (2009-085 fluoroleakeite), Ferri-leakeite (1991-028 leakeite), Ferro-ferri-fluoro-leakeite (1993-026 fluoro-ferroleakeite), Fluoro-leakeite (2009-012 fluoro-aluminoleakeite), Magnesio-fluoro-arfvedsonite (1998-056 fluoro-magnesio-arfvedsonite), Mangano-arfvedsonite Mangano-ferri-eckermannite (1968-028 kôzulite), Potassic-magnesio-fluoro-arfvedsonite (1985-023 fluoro-potassic-magnesio-arfvedsonite), Potassic-mangani-leakeite (1992-032 kornite)
    • Sodium-calcium amphibole subgroup: Potassic-ferro-taramite (2007-015 Potassic-aluminotaramite), Potassic-fluoro-richterite (1986-046 fluoro-potassicrichterite)
      • Ferro-taramite (2006-023 aluminotaramite), Taramite (2006-024 magnesio-aluminotaramite), Fluoro-taramite (2006-025 fluoro-alumino-magnesiotaramite)
        • Oberti, R., Boiocchi, M., Smith, D.C. & Medenbach, O. (2007) "Alumotaramite, alumino-magnesiotaramite, and fluoro-alumino-magnesiotaramite: Mineral data and crystal chemistry". American Mineralogist 92: 1428-1435
      • Ferri-taramite is now ferro-ferri-taramite
      • Katophorite is now ferro-katophorite
      • Magnesiokatophorite is now katophorite
  • w(O)-dominant amphibole group: Ferri-obertiite (1998-046 obertiite), Ferro-ferri-obertiite (2009-034 ferro-obertiite), Mangani-dellaventuraite (2003-061 dellaventuraite), Mangano-mangani-ungarettiite (1994-004 ungarettiite)
  • Problems are bigger here:
    • Sodium-calcium amphibole subgroup
    • Ferri-pedrizite (1998-061 sodic-ferripedrizite by Oberti et al., 2001-032 ferripedrizite by Caballero et al.), renamed to sodic-ferripedrizite (2003 s.p.)
    • Sodic-ferri-clinoferroholmquistite (1995-045 clinoferroholmquistite by Caballero et al., 1998; discredited on rruff.info, 2013):
      • Lithium amphibole subgroup, ☐{Li2}{Fe2+3Fe3+2}(Si8O22)(OH)2
      • Mineralienatlas.de: clino-sodic-ferri-ferro-holmquistite (IMA 1995-045)
        • Na0.5Li2(Fe3+,Fe2+,Mg,Li,Al)5Si8O22(OH,F)2
    • Clino-ferro-ferri-holmquistite (2001-066 by Oberti et al., 2003):
      • Clino-holmquistite series, lithium amphibole subgroup, ◻{Li2}{Fe2+3Fe3+2}(Si8O22)(OH)2
      • Mineralienatlas.de: clino-ferro-ferri-holmquistite (IMA 2001-066)
        • ☐Li2(Fe3+,Fe2+,Mg,Al)2Si8O22(OH,F)2
    • Mineralienatlas.de: sadanagaite (2002-051 magnesiosadanagaite by Banno et al.); potassic-ferro-sadanagaite (1980-027 sadanagaite), renamed potassic-sadanagaite (1997 s.p.)
Rruff.info isn't up to date yet. I'll have to check mineralienatlas.de as well. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
It's a major mess :[ I'm updating list of minerals (complete) and classification of minerals – Silicates#Amphibole supergroup (chemical formulas aren't updated yet). --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Rocks and minerals, history

Newly created and misspelled: Chalveticeite. Needs wikification. --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Even worse: Hidalgoite and Natromontebrasite --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Guyanaite --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Eveslogite, Ephesite, Hubeite, Hiärneite, Gordaite, Greifensteinite, Gugiaite, Farneseite, Ferrogedrite, Ferronigerite-2N1S, Franklinphilite, Chatkalite, Bicchulite --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Dr. Snow's GEOL 3370 class project deadline has occurred. Tweaked chalveticeite a bit and started on guyanaite ... needs serious work. Natromontebrasite ... major problem is the incomplete references. Added 'em to my watchlist ... and loong to-do list. How many more are awaiting discovery? Vsmith (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It needs a check. I'd like to check List of minerals (complete) up to 'IMA 2013-NNN', with IMA Master list (January 2014) and Handbook of Mineralogy. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles of minerals created in 2012

User:Mw27luvkerrang: Weeksite, Becquerelite, Uranocircite, Mundite, Billietite, Soddyite, Vanuralite, Parsonsite, Liebigite, Haiweeite, Sklodowskite, Demesmaekerite, Guilleminite, Bayleyite, Derriksite
User:Chris857: Arsenoclasite, Benstonite, Bobfergusonite, Caryopilite, Collinsite, Diaboleite, Gatehouseite, Georgerobinsonite, Huemulite, Junitoite, Leucophoenicite, Magnesiopascoite, Manganvesuvianite, Messelite, Motukoreaite, Paramelaconite, Rapidcreekite, Ruizite, Sarkinite, Shigaite, Sonolite
User:Hectonichus: Pascoite, Tarbuttite, Bultfonteinite, Sérandite
User:Vassto: Kostovite, Strashimirite, Ardaite
User:Flergeron: Olgite, Amakinite
User:Chris.urs-o: Bassanite
User:Strickja: Pearceite
User:Tobias1984: Daubréeite, Daubréelite, Tetrataenite
User:Vsmith: Rosickýite, Narsarsukite, Oldhamite, Geikielite, Groutite, Cryptomelane, Antarcticite, Spertiniite
Others

Articles of minerals created in 2013

John Mortimore: Tyuyamunite, Tangeite, Urusovite, Zincolivenite, Brezinaite, Poudretteite, Grandidierite, Mawsonite
User:Chris.urs-o: Djerfisherite
User:Strickja: Brianyoungite, Ianbruceite
User:Tobias1984: Ixiolite, Carlsbergite, Synchysite, Merrillite
User:Vsmith: Uricite, Valleriite, Eskolaite, Hemihedrite, Pyrophanite, Pseudobrookite, Pickeringite, Pharmacolite, Lindgrenite, Ferrimolybdite, Carpholite, Cornwallite, Brockite, Syngenite
Others

Redirects to inorganic substances

Update: Bunsenite (Nickel(II) oxide), Tausonite (Strontium titanate)

Other issues

2014: Rodalquilarite (Vsmith)
Organic substances: urea, acetamide, guanine, simonellite
Other redirects:, axinite, lepidolite, lithiophilite, segelerite, alunite, népouite, talc, gibbsite, chamosite, antarcticite, tetrahedrite and Reginald Claude Sprigg, mainly
Pages created by Eudialytos: Altisite, Althupite, Althausite, Alsakharovite-Zn, Almarudite, Alluaudite, Alleghanyite, Allargentum, Eudialyte group, Alluaivite, Allactite, Allabogdanite, Aleksite, Aldermanite, Albrechtschraufite, Alacránite, Galkhaite, Thioarsenite, Aktashite, Krieselite, Conichalcite, Duftite, Biehlite, Andyrobertsite, Reinerite, Arsenite minerals, Akrochordite, Kampfite, Tienshanite, Mayenite, Mohrite, Boussingaultite, Efremovite, Sulfate crust, Godovikovite, Millosevichite, Fougerite
Pages created by Ping, inorganic chemistry, mainly: Zharchikhite, Zircophyllite, Zirconolite, Zincochromite, Zincobotryogen, Zincmelanterite, Fraipontite, Zimbabweite, Ziesite, Kukharenkoite-(Ce), Zanazziite, Zhemchuzhnikovite, Zhanghengite, Zakharovite, Zaherite, Zaccagnaite, Zabuyelite, Whitlockite, Tschermigite, Tiemannite, Terlinguaite, Tarapacaite, Stromeyerite, Stolzite, Stichtite, Steacyite, Shattuckite, Stilleite, Seligmannite, Segelerite, Sauconite, Pollucite, Mendozite, Lorándite, Rambergite, Kolbeckite, Hutchinsonite, Grunerite, Geigerite, Delessite, Cylindrite, Sodium dichromate, Sodium arsenite, Sodium stearate, Hellyerite, Zaratite, Wagnerite, Triploidite, Tachyhydrite, Saussurite, Mineralization, Mesolite, Mercury(II) cyanide, Melilite, Phoenicochroite, Meionite, Libethenite, Hisingerite, Haidingerite, Glauberite, Gaylussite, Fergusonite, Ecrasite, Nitratine, Cronstedtite, Condurrite, Clinozoisite, Chondrodite, Ceylonite, Kerolite, Cerite, Carpolite, Cancrinite, Brushite, Boulangerite, Berthierite, Aikinite, Bellite, Babingtonite, Calcareous, Calcareous sinter, Anthraconite, Zietrisikite, Yttrocerite, Copiapite, Domeykite, Whewellite, Warwickite, Volborthite, Vauquelinite, Fluocerite, Tyrolite, Tungstite, Thuringite, Thomsenolite, Tasmanite, Sepiolite, Scorodite, Purpurite, Polyhalite, Polybasite, Pelite, Parent rock, Palagonite, Pagodite, Nerine, Muntz metal, Miargyrite, Mellite, Melinite, Lithiophilite, Liroconite, Linarite, Lherzolite, Leucophanite, Loellingite, Leadhillite, Lazulite, Laurite, Laumontite, Lanthanite, Lanarkite, Knebelite, Jeffersonite, Jamesonite, Elbaite, Hydromagnesite, Hopeite, Homilite, Herderite, Hausmannite, Hauerite, Harmotome, Gossan, Gmelinite, Glaciated Rocks, Geocronite, Gahnite, Freibergite, Fiorite, Fichtelite, Fengite, Plumosite, Halotrichite, Fassaite, Barytocalcite, Fault scarp, Paleoseismology, Botryoidal, Dutch metal, Diadochite, Delvauxite, Danburite, Limestone pavement, Wave-cut platform, Stonemasonry
Pages created by Ixfd64, inorganic chemistry (Nov.-Dec., 2006 only): Agrellite, Aksaite, Akdalaite, Akatoreite, Ameghinite, Aliettite, Kalininite, Weilite, Argutite, Arcubisite, Alamosite, Baotite, Arctite, Artroeite, Alloclasite, Sabinaite, Saneroite, Vaesite, Uricite, Upalite, Umbite, Ulrichite, Cafetite, Cabriite, Santite, Alarsite, Kaatialaite, Rynersonite, Nelenite, Ahlfeldite, Aheylite, Aguilarite, Agrinierite, Sabatierite, Uklonskovite, Uchucchacuaite
User:Merovingian, (Aug., 2005 only, incomplete): Jadeite-Aegirine, IMA1999-020, IMA1990-007, IMA1991-054, IMA2003-030, Admontite, Adelite, Adamsite-(Y), Acuminite, Yu-stone, Abswurmbachite, Abhurite, Abernathyite, Abenakiite-(Ce), Abelsonite, Menachite, Aeschynite-(Ce), Aeschynite-(Nd), Aeschynite-(Y), Agardite, Afwillite, Afghanite, Aerugite, Aerinite, Aenigmatite
User:Magnus Manske redirects, inorganic chemistry: User:Magnus Manske/Chemicals
List: A • B • C • D • E • F • G • H–I • J • K • L • M • N–O • P–Q • R • S • T • U–Z

WikiProject Rocks and minerals, status

C&P from Talk:Greifensteinite: ..."Perhaps this should be combined with other roscherite group members and turned into a group article? Zanazziite article exists ... Vsmith (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)"
I think that we don't need to merge the minerals of the 'roscherite mineral group' (rruff.info/ima):
It can stay as it is, we could leave it so.
On the other side, the aeschynite homologous mineral series should be merged. I think that homologous mineral series are not notable enough for separated stand alone articles:
The londonite-rhodizite mineral series redirecting to borate minerals isn't ideal.
Gymnite, antigorite (Y: 1840) var. redirects to serpentine group#antigorite. It isn't ideal.
Feruvite (IMA 1987-057); olenite (IMA 1985-006); rossmanite (IMA 1996-018); rubellite, elbaite (Y: 1913) var.; tourmaline#schorl (Y: 1562); tourmaline#dravite (Y: 1884) redirect to tourmaline. It isn't ideal.
The chlorite structural group redirects aren't ideal, as well.
The ferronigerite minerals shouldn't have separated stand alone articles (ferronigerite-2N1S, ferronigerite-6N6S)
Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)/ --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rocks_and_minerals/Archive_1&oldid=1137367144"