Talk:Organic mineral 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
Organic mineral 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
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
A fact from Organic mineral appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 September 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that carbon-carrying minerals are known as organic minerals, except for some that were considered inorganic before 1828?
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Per WP:CITEVAR I know I should have left this alone. But it is a new article, and I believe SFN formatting is better for the books at least. And better for the readers. I was WP:Bold. Revert it if it offends you. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎)23:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I should have read this before commenting on your page. It doesn't offend me, but I'm not sure it's likely to be needed, so I'd prefer to revert (without any prejudice against reinstating it if the article grows a lot). But I appreciate the effort you're putting into this article. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
And thank you for the QPQ. I did look at the articles with a mind to reviewing one, but none are remotely near to my areas of interest. I do have a couple of unused QPQ's in my other identity, but wasn't sure if people would accept them for this identity. I'll pay it forward as you have done. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
I defer to your professional judgment. Especially on WP:CITEVAR, which gives you precedence (I still think that WP:SFN works better. But anything I write in Wikipedia is (IMO) a suggestion. More than one way to skin a cat.
The article is better when we collaborate. Glad that you found some of my edits helpful.
