Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocks and minerals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Template:SampleWikiProject

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

[edit] Browser problems with taxobox

Both Opera and IE have problems with images beside or forced right below the taxobox. See Talk:Sodalite for details. -Vsmith 01:08, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] notice

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

[edit] requested pictures

Is there a list of minerals needing pictures?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Proposed infobox

On w:es there's been some discussion about creating an infobox roughly similar in structure to that used for tree of life articles. The slightly more difficult usage may be compensated by ease of fragmentation (that is, the possibility of using only some sections of the box, in case others are unknown or irrelevant). The global structure would be approximately


<!-- Header -->
{{Geobox begin | color = | name = }}          – name, and colour to distinguish
                                              igneous/sedimentary/metamorphic;

<!-- Image -->
{{Geobox image | image = | caption = }}       – image & caption

<!-- Classification -->
{{Geoobox begin general | color = }}          – classification section
{{Geobox category entry |  }}                 – mineral, igneous, sedimentary, etc.
{{Geobox subcategory entry |  }}              – intrusive, volcanic, clastic, hydrothermal, etc.
{{Geobox classification entry |  }}           – mafic, felsic, etc.
{{Geobox end general}} 

<!-- Chemical composition -->
{{Geobox composition | color = | formula = }} – Chemical composition

<!-- Physical properties -->
{{Geoobox begin identification | color = }}   – physical properties section
{{Geobox color entry |  }}                    – color
{{Geobox luster entry |  }}                   – luster
{{Geobox streak entry |  }}                   – streak
{{Geobox habit entry |  }}                    – crystalline habit
{{Geobox system entry |  }}                   – crystalline system
{{Geobox hardness entry |  }}                 – hardeness
{{Geobox cleavage entry |  }}                 – cleavage
{{Geobox fracture entry |  }}                 – fracture
{{Geobox specific gravity entry |  }}         – specific gravity
{{Geobox melting entry |  }}                  – melting point
{{Geobox solubility entry |  }}               – solubility
{{Geobox magnetism entry |  }}                – magnetism
{{Geobox radioactivity entry |  }}            – radioactivity
{{Geobox end identification}}

<!-- Optical properties -->
{{Geobox begin optics | color = }}
{{Geobox index entry | }}                     – refraction index
{{Geobox birefringence entry | }}             – birefringence
{{Geobox pleochroism entry | }}               – pleochroism
{{Geobox orientation entry | }}               – optical orientation
{{Geobox angle entry | }}                     – optical axis angle
{{Taxobox end optics}}

<!-- Varieties -->
{{Geobox section varieties | color = | varieties = }} &ndah; Varieties, if any;

{{Geoobox end}}

Any ideas? It'd be great if a common scheme could be adopted simultaneously by all (or at least several) wikis, so that copy-and-pasting infoboxes would be easier (all it would take is to tailor identically-named templates to each specific language, and a little adjustmente in parameters to have a working translation). Taragui 10:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Template:Infobox mineral

Comment/help is welcome and thanks to user:Ixfd64 for starting this. I'm not an expert of rocks and minerals, but I can help with the wiki-technical details (I'm a software geek :-). I think a template to replace things like the hardwired box on Xenotime would be good. I've started to convert a couple of these boxes to use CSS class="infobox" (which is defined in MediaWiki:Common.css), but a template would be much better (encapsulates future changes in a single place). --Ligulem 20:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Infobox Color

I have looked through both Wikiprojects, Gemology and Jewelry; Rock and Minerals, and have found no consensus for a specific color for the infoboxes. At this point the large majority of Mineral articles that have infoboxes use the default ?lilac? purple. At the same time the Gem articles are rather sporadic and seem to follow the color of the Gem in question. I would suggest having a discussion regarding a specific color for all mineral articles, but seeing as how the R&M group is not very active, I think I'm about the only one that is doing anything, It is probably best for the G&J project to take the initiative for standardization. In the interim I shall change alternate color boxes back to default in preparation for an end result. (also cross posted to both projects talk pages --Kevmin 22:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Image:Mineral schema.jpg

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