Category talk:Native element minerals

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject iconGeology Category‑class
WikiProject iconCategory talk:Native element minerals is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
CategoryThis category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconRocks and minerals NA‑class
WikiProject iconCategory:Native element minerals is part of WikiProject Rocks and minerals, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use rocks and minerals resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Rocks and mineralsWikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsTemplate:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsRocks and minerals articles
NAThis category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Definition

Is there a definition for this group?

In particular, what about oxides? Recent additions have been iron, aluminium and titanium. I can't see how any of these can be said to be findable as "native" minerals, as copper or gold can. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: you can find native deposits listed in webmineral.com. Doc Taxon (talk)
@Chris.urs-o: And what about this: "Comments: Specimen of volcanic rock containing dark gray grains of native Iron. This locality is one of the very few known localities for terrestrial native iron. Location: Disko Island, Greenland. Scale: Picture size 1 cm." Ref: webmineral.com Doc Taxon (talk) 03:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just have seen your comment on my talk page. Thank you, Doc Taxon (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: webmineral is not ideal as it is not being updated; mineralienatlas, mindat, handbook of mineralogy and rruff.info/ima are sometimes better. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definition of this group: template:Strunz, native metals and native element minerals (N/S identifier #1). Minerals are organic minerals (N/S identifier #10) or halide minerals (N/S identifier #3) or sulfide minerals (N/S identifier #2) or oxygen bearing minerals. Oxygen bearing minerals are silicates (N/S identifier #9) or sulfites (N/S identifier #4.JE.) or carbonates (N/S identifier #5) or nitrates (N/S identifier #5.N) or borates (N/S identifier #6) or sulfates (N/S identifier #7) or phosphates (N/S identifier #8) or oxyhalides (N/S identifier #3.D). More or less so. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, "It can be found" is not the same as sourcing it, per WP:BURDEN. Nor are noting broad website homepages in an edit summary the same thing as citing challenged content on the page. These are exceptional claims, per WP:V. They need to be demonstrated clearly.
If we accept that the existence of any elemental mineral, no matter how obscure or how tiny a quantity of it exists, then how is that category distinct from the periodic table? Native copper can be found and worked as is. Native aluminium cannot. That is a more significant distinction at that level than the distinction between "all elements ever identified by microscope" and "all elements". What about zinc? Or carborundum? Zinc is listed on mindat from specks found at a mine site, which I strongly suspect was a smelter. The rainbow-hued acicular carborundum beloved of rock shows is known from depositions on the inside of smokestacks, not the natural world. If these are in, then what isn't there? Marie Curie's drainpipes could probably turn up a spot of radium if we looked closely enough - is that going to be a "native element" mineral too?
Mostly I'm concerned about elements being categorized here without being explained in the text. A century of RS geology textbooks will say "aluminium or titanium are not found in native masses". If we are to contradict that, we have to do it with some clarity. If something is only findable by electron microscopy, then it is findable (although the pedagogy of including that in an encyclopedia is dubious). As is if it has only been identified in meteorites. But simply adding it, unsourced, as a cat does not clarify anything.
It is possible to include everything broadly into this category. But I don't think it's useful, and losing the distinction between gold and titanium loses the potential value of this cat. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim of a new natural mineral is reviewed by the IMA-CNMNC comission. List of minerals (complete) and IMA-CNMNC Master List are followed. The IMA-CNMNC comission reviews its natural origin. Ferdinand Frederick Henri Moissan found moissanite (carborundum) in the Canyon Diablo meteorite. Titanium (native) has 11 ocurrences, aluminium (native) has 16 ocurrences and steinhardtite occurs in the Khatyrka meteorite (mineralienatlas.de). You could write two stubs, if you prefer it. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this: Titanium (native) is a good move, and moving the categorization to that article. It records the native existence of titanium, without confusing the main article. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Category_talk:Native_element_minerals"