Talk:List of minerals

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

earlier comments

I think it would be quite a good idea to standardise the various mineral pages so that they all present roughly the same information in the same way. An example of a layout that I think works is actinolite. If anyone wants to help go through the current list of minerals and tidy them up a bit... :) cferrero 17:35 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rocks_and_Minerals. Syntax 04:42, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I completely agree, there is currently no standardization in the articles. I also don't like the way that some mineral names have (not a valid species) next to them. It doesn't look right to me and conveys the idea that the list is full of invalid names for minerals......

Dlloyd 07:23, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If someone wants to put in a list of only valid mineral names, then they can take the list from:

http://www.mindat.org/ima.php

That gives a list of only valid mineral names. I would add it in, but feel that would be best done by the original creator of this page.

--217.169.9.126 16:46, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Numbered list

The recent additions to the A list by Heron prompted the question: How many? So I answered it with numbered lists. Any comments? What about the invalid ones, synonyms, and group names? Move them to separate lists after each letter or at the end? -Vsmith 05:56, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have been playing with the lists from Mindat.org and using a macro to semi-automate formatting for Wiki listing. Just uploaded some of my experimenting on my user page: User:Vsmith/experimental. Using the lists creates a lot (the majority) of red links as in the A listing. I'm thinking of having a double listing: the complete one with all that red and another list with only the minerals for which we have articles (blue list). A similar concept is in use at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and Minerals/Worklist. When a new article is produced - move or copy link to the blue list. -Vsmith 19:33, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also I have started a classified mineral listing, Silicate minerals, and plan to expand this to include all the mineral classes following basically the Dana and/or Strunz systems. -Vsmith 19:33, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Complete mineral list is up. 3970 mineral names listed. Still needs a bit of fixing - later. Also have modified this list - moved varieties and others to end of each section. Plan more here as I get time to compare this with the complete one more, there are some that have an article not listed here. They show up on the big one. Later - gotta go grade astronomy tests now. -Vsmith 02:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wow. Lots of minerals. I think there should be a key for synonyms and invalid species, etc. Perhaps as subcategories under the ones they are supposed to represent. --DanielCD 14:28, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The big list is supposed to be all valid (from: mindat.org) but, I'm a bit skeptical about a few of them - well haven't looked at ALL of 'em. I've started separating the varieties and odd ones from the little list. Lots to do :-) -Vsmith 00:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Synonyms

I found in the A section a mineral's synonym in the original list. However, a synonym was taken out later. Are the synonyms in or are they out?

It is hard to tell

Should this list be at the WP Rocks and Minerals or is it dead? the WP? SatuSuro 09:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been rather inactive for quite awhile. Vsmith (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potash

I'm wondering if we could add potash to the list. According to Category:Potassium minerals potash is a mineral. I'm not knowledgeable in mineralogy so I'm not sure.--Lorikeet (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... it doesn't seem to be on mindat after a search, and seems more like a common name for a chemical compound. Perhpas it should be taken off of the "minerals" categorizations? Awickert (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Potash is not a mineral in it's own right thus should probably not be included on the minerals list. It is a common name for a mixture of salts, usually halite and sylvite, and potassium carbonate. It can also sometimes (rarely) be used to refer to potassium feldspars (potash feldspars). Turgan Talk 04:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I thought even before doing the search. I'll remove it from the list and categories - thanks. Awickert (talk) 05:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, perhaps the confusion was that one link was to the USGS list of minerals. Awickert (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aetites

Why is this listed here when it is defined ...the aetites (singular in Latin) or aetite (anglicized) is a stone used to promote childbirth. The stone is said to prevent....? --Tranletuhan (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gone, thanks. Vsmith (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Peridot?

Where is Peridot? Not here for some reason.Mocha2007 (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the olivine article, peridot is gem-quality olivine. Mikenorton (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Representative images?

I wanted to float the idea -- could we include a small representative image for all the minerals that have one? Currently the page seems a lot like a category listing with a few images floating around on the side. One possibility would be to do a somewhat more condensed, two-column version of List of sandwiches. There's a few obvious drawbacks -- some minerals have several very different-looking forms and we may not have images for all the ones listed on this page. Overall, I think it could be an improvement. Any thoughts? a13ean (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should be up to date

A list of articles in those subcategories of Category:Minerals where minerals should reside, but that are not currently in this list, can be found here. There shouldn't be any IMA-valid mineral species in the list, but there will be a few groups that could be added, and a fair few "varieties" of varying "notability" that, depending on how variety is being defined here, could be added. There's also a small number of poorly categorized articles in need of recatting. Dong, where is my automobile? (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missing minerals (e.g., IMA CNMMN Newsletter no. 37)

Protoenstatite, ferro-tschermakite, batagayite, greenlizardite, aurihydrargyrumite, hydrokenopyrochlore, katerinopoulosite, ferrobobfergusonite, ferrovorontsovite (and vorontsovite, from one of the previous newsletters), levantite, betpakdalite-FeFe (and all other betpakdalite-group species), garmite, schmidite, sharyginite, chlorellestadite, piccoliite; examples from older newsletters: odigitriaite, mendeleevite-(Ce), mendeleevite-(Nd) Eudialytos (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information, but please note that this article is a list of mineral articles present on Wikipedia, not a complete list of all minerals (which is at List of minerals (complete)). GeoWriter (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of mineraloids

I suggest that mineraloids should be removed from this list article because they are not minerals. (They are, however, listed in the mineraloid article). Comments? GeoWriter (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the mineraloids. GeoWriter (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

aluminum/aluminium is an element, not a mineral - why is it listed here?

Why is aluminimum/aluminum in this list of minerals? It's an element (atomic number 13), not a mineral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.233.56.35 (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wikipedia's own page for minerals, "a mineral or mineral species is, broadly speaking, a solid chemical compound with a fairly well-defined chemical composition and a specific crystal structure that occurs naturally in pure form." Native aluminium, while rare, is solid, a chemical compound, definitely has a well-defined chemical composition and has its specific crystal structure as a metal. It has occurred naturally in pure form, as seen in the Billeekh intrusion. Hence it is a mineral, as well as a chemical element. IceBlaeze (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of a mineral is not actually universally agreed, therefore the words "broadly speaking" are significant - there are various exceptions e.g. for historical reasons that override chemistry. In the three most widely used mineral classification systems (Nickel-Strunz, Dana, IMA/CNMNC), there is a class for element minerals, but only some elements qualify as minerals. Aluminium is a mineral because it is a naturally occurring solid element with a specific crystal structure. (It is not a chemical compound because it is an element and therefore cannot also be a combination of elements). GeoWriter (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous errors and obsolete character

This list is obsolete and with numerous systematics/nomenclature errors. For instance, antitaenite is listed even though it is not a separate mineral species (it's just a variety); apophyllite: non-existent as a mineral - this is a group; ampphibole is NOT a group - it is a SUPERgroup, within which there are numerous groups, and within them - subgroups. The correct data is to be found at https://mineralogy-ima.org/ and www.mindat.orgEudialytos (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More:
"analcite" is not a correct name (the IMA regards such synonyms as uncorrect names);
andorite: "IV" and "VI" - no longer; "IV" is now quatrandorite (see https://www.mindat.org/min-11345.html); "VI" is now senandorite (see https://www.mindat.org/min-29150.html);
"alum" is not a variety...... it is a group name;
argentite is not a "high temperature form of acanthite" - it is a high-temperature natural crystalline form of Ag2S (argentite and acanthite are polymorphous);
brewsterite: not a "series of zeolites", but a subgroup - known as brewsterite subgroup - within the zeolite group
"barite" - no, baryte; "barite" is the former, non-recommended (by the IMA) name
"boehmite" - no such mineral... the correct name is böhmite
"Crossite (not approved by IMA)": true (then why is it in the approved species list?)
"Elbaite (type of multicoloured tourmaline)" - not a type, but a species within the tourmaline group; also, not all elbaites are multi-coloured
"Feldspathoid (mineral group)" - not true: no such group of minerals is recognized in the nomenclature; it is a family of minerals (https://www.mindat.org/min-47865.html)
"Fluororichterite": non-existent; correct name: fluoro-richterite
"Franklinite (spinel group)" - nope; spinel subgroup, that belongs to oxyspinel group, that belongs to spinel supergroup
"Ferronigerite-2N1S": polysomes are (usually) not treated as separate species; on the other hand: why the other polysomes are missing here?
Garnet (mineral group): yes; but also a supergroup, with more than just silicates
"Hornblende (series of amphiboles)": not true; there's no such a mineral "hornblende"; this is synonymous with 2 species
"Hatchettite (a paraffin wax)": not a variety, and not a mineral at all: this is a wax, and as such (non-crystalline) can't be a mineral; this is a mineraloid
"Hydrogrossular (series of garnets)" - not true; this is a variety of grossular; the correct series name is grossular-katoite series.
...and so on...
There are almost 6000 mineral species (see http://forum.amiminerals.it/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=30&sid=ec4686e9e8d04d4364a4a3647cfc1a7b&start=300), and a lot is lacking here. Full listing may be found under the aforementioned websites.
Btw, some years ago I began tidying-up the mineralogical articles in Wiki, but I stopped doing this simply because this was a waste of time here: there's no use in updating & correcting when some other users go into the "I know better just because so" mode, and there was a large misunderstanding of the fact that mineralogy is a separate science and - as chemistry - has its own, proper, decisive commission.Eudialytos (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_minerals"