Talk:List of minerals recognized by the International Mineralogical Association (N)

Link Problem: Nixonite links to page for Richard M Nixon, the former president. Nixonite has nothing to do with Richard M Nixon, but was named after Peter Nixon, per the link attached to the Nixonite entry on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.219.24.2 (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

External links in the article body

There are lots of embedded links in the article body. They look bad within the article body. As per Wikipedia:Citing sources# Embedded links, they should not be in the text space and should be moved to the refs section. Thanks.-MangoWong ^ℳ 09:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... the list has some 635 items, each with links to the three sources of info for that entry. The mind boggles at the resulting mess should your suggestion be followed. Methinks the valid inline links are more useful here and the other complete list of ... articles. Vsmith (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This list is from 29 April 2005, there's a lot of voluntary work in it and the update isn't complete yet. There are other problems around, leave the beauty sleeping, please. The lists are needed for the maintenance of articles on minerals. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course almost all of the work on WP is voluntary. I am not suggesting taking down this article. I appreciate it very much. As for the sheer number of links, it is manageable. If you look here [1], they have a tool called "Automatic reflinks". If we move all the links to the refs sections as individual refs, this tool can add headers to all/most of them in one go. While trying to experiment with it, I found that I became logged out temporarily. So, one needs to copy the code it gives, then backtrack a bit to be logged in again, and then open the edit window and copy in the code which it provided. It will give us a horribly long ref section. But that can be fixed by formatting the refs section into columns. Should we try that out?-MangoWong ^ℳ 06:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It has 110,680 Bytes already, and the update isn't finished yet. I don't think that it's a good idea. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

At the beginning (if I'm right), a page shouldn't get over 32 kB, then the limit was 32 kB per section, now it's difficult to edit a section with more than 100 kB, in my opinion. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You want to make an easily accessible list more difficult to use and much larger in size (therefor a strain on systems with slow connections) for what reason exactly? 'Cause there's this neat whiz-bang thingy that you want to play with? I'm aware that embedded bare links within article prose are discouraged (and agree with most of the reasoning), however this is a long list - no prose to break up with "ugly" number links - so nothing to gain there. The current "complete list of.." has been broken into a number of segments to avoid being too long ... and now you want to double-triple the length and make it more difficult to use. No. Vsmith (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of minerals (complete) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of minerals approved by IMA which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)