Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and Minerals/Taxobox discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] For starters...

... i have a few comments on the proposed taxobox...

  • The mineral box seems very complete and comprehensive. Nice work!
  • The rock box cannot follow the same principles, because rocks dont have the same properties. I propose for the rock box:
    • Name (obvious)
    • Type (metamorphic/igneous/sedimentary)
    • Tectonic environment
    • Economic use
  • Now the problem begins because the parameters change with the type.

To do this in the proper way probably will imply a lot of work in related articles. The whole geology section is a mess. I, for myself, dont feel the energy to do it quickly and efficiently because i already think about geology most for the day. Muriel 15:30, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Varieties

I personally dont think a good idea to place the varieties in the box, because it will, in same cases, become too big. Muriel 15:33, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad we have you on board! I'm much more familiar with the classification of minerals, so that's where I'll likely be focusing my efforts. I've went ahead and created sodalite with the new facto/infobox. I included "Major varieties" within it; but this wasn't really an issue here, as there's only one to mention.
I think I'll also make crystal system a pipe link to crystal structure in the table (but also make it a redirect), as it appears the systems (all seven!) are described there. Excellent diagrams by Mav, too. At some point I'll have to work on fusibility and streak.
Does anyone know if it's possible to completely eliminate the white space within the sodalite picture's table? I've only been able to minimize it. Hadal 20:01, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Moreover, putting vareties in the box will mean either an article for each variety, or a description. For something like Rock crystal, it's pretty redundant to have it's own article, but somewhere it needs to say it's just clear quartz. Either way, it ends up hugh, or having to be repeated elsewhere - neither is a good thing from my point of view. Syntax 23:43, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

From the sample one on Quatrz:

Refractive index 1.544-1.553 - DR +0.009 (B-G interval)

Now, it's fair to say I'm skilled beyond the average in such matters but I don't know what all the annotation after the number is, nor is it defined in the linked article on refractice index. (I'm guessing that B-G interval is blue-green interval, DR I can't place). I suspect that's a relatively standard format for such things in minerological circles, and so it aught to be explained somewhere.

As an aside, I whipped up a list from the List_of_minerals. There's a lot to go through... Syntax 02:54, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As I'm the one who filled out the sample table, I suppose I should answer you (I didn't see the question until now; there'd been no discussion here for so long that I've been forgetting to check :\). Anyway, DR is short for double refraction, a synonym of birefringence. And you're right, B-G stands for blue-green (it's important to note, as there are other intervals used). The + indicates a positive optic sign. Quartz is also uniaxial (optic interference figure), but so are all minerals in the tetragonal, hexagonal and trigonal systems.. so whether it's prudent to mention that, I don't know.
If you think there's a possibility of confusion, we could change "DR" to "Biref." Also, we may want to consider breaking up the "General" section into two sections:
  • Optical properties, including colour, transparency, lustre, RI, DR, pleochroism, luminescence, etc..
  • Physical properties, including hardness, streak, cleavage, fracture, fusibility, solubility, etc.
And as a final note, the RI numbers I've been using are all measured using monochromatic sodium light, wavelength 589 nanometres. This appears to be standard in both gemmology and mineralogy, but mention should probably be made somewhere, eh? Hadal 08:55, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think that the best place for that data would be in the article on refractive index. It's already linked, and it seems intuative that explanation of the terms in the both would be under the article on that heading. I don't think that DR or Biref is much better than the other - in that both require explanation somewhere. If that's the standard form of the description, it's best to stick to that and explain it. Syntax 16:14, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] new infobox for minerals

I've just created the template {{infobox mineral}} for articles on minerals. It kinda sucks, so anyone is welcome to improve it. :) --Ixfd64 00:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Rocks_and_Minerals_Taxobox_discussion_2748.html"