Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocks and minerals/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

International Year of Crystallography 2014

UNESCO proclaimed the "International Year of Crystallography 2014". It can be an important opportunity for wikipedians to contribute in an international initiative, spreading the scientific knowledge, in particular about crystallography.
These are my proposals to participate to this event:

• to create the page International Year of Crystallography 2014 in all the Wikipedias
• to improve substantially during this year the page Crystallography, Crystal and other important pages about crystallography, in all the Wikipedias
• to create and translate pages related to crystallography
• to create a Portal:Crystallography
• to organize better the pictures in commons:Category:Crystallography and encourage the creation of new pictures
• to contact all the Wikipedias, other Wikimedia projects, Wikimedia Foundation and the organizing committee of the "International Year of Crystallography 2014" (here you can see their contacts) to communicate our adhesion to this initiative.

Do you have any other opinion or suggestion? --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 10:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Something which is really missing from all the Wikipedias, are pages for the point groups and the space groups. All of them could contain information about symmetry operations, substances that have the symmetry. Some physical properties are confined to certain symmetries. Creating those 16 + 230 pages would require quite some effort. Maybe the UNESCO could recruit some students to help out with this :) --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

One article on point groups and one on space groups is enough. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

@Chris.urs-o: Currently we don't seem to have the resources to create that many articles, but I do think that the individual space groups are noteworthy. I just stumbled across a lot of articles about polyhedra (e.g. 5-cell_honeycomb). Similar to the space groups the different geometries have a lot of interesting details that are most easily explained in individual pages. In any case I am not proficient enough in crystallography to start the pages. Maybe the creator of the polyhedra pages, @Tomruen:, could weigh in what he thinks about the space- and point groups. --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm approaching symmetry groups from a polytope-perspective (and the 3D convex uniform honeycomb or cubic ones architectonic and catoptric tessellation), and avoided space groups for a long time since there were so many. I recently expanded Fibrifold which has John Horton Conway's notation specifically for the 36 cubic groups since I was interested in subgroup relations. I'm looking at a few books on the crystallographic perspective. Steven Dutch's website has a lot of cool information, although also some mistakes, and he didn't reply by email [1]. I may be able to help some, but I agree we need someone who already knows this. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

We'd need a list of the most common space groups. A databank with all homologous mineral series, all mineral groups, all textbook minerals, all gemstone minerals, all decorative stone minerals, all rock-forming minerals, all minerals known in 1915 or before, and all minerals of at least some economic importance. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There must be references for this, but outside my personal scope. I'd suggest incrementally expanding common minerals as new sections on each crystal class page, and then split the pages if it gets too long. Tom Ruen (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

@Chris.urs-o: But in this thread we are just talking about the representation of crystallography on Wikipedia. I don't think we have the resources for any major campaigns. The least we can do for the occasion is getting this article in good shape: International Year of Crystallography. A lot of notable things are happening around the globe especially in big museums and scientific institutions. Enough material to keep this page alive in my opinion. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

We have Space groups, Wikidata, webmineral.com/crystall.shtml and rruff.info/ima for a beginning and the 14 bravais lattices. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I might use sk:Zoznam minerálov for an Exel table. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 09:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC).

Minerals (silicate minerals) on Wikidata - Overview/ brainstorming

Strunz 8 ed organisation:

Elements (class I), Sulfides (class II) and Halides (class III): No oxygen, mainly

Others, containing oxygen: ...

Strunz 8 ed organisation: Carbonates, Nitrates and Borates (class V)

Better following "Carbonates and Evaporites" journal title

• Carbonates and Nitrates, Halides and Borates

Strunz 8 ed organisation: Zeolites → Tectosilicates → Silicate minerals

Better following the multi-volume work "Rock-forming Minerals" and Dana: Framework silicates (tectosilicates and silica family) → Silicate minerals

Inosilicates, Strunz 8 ed organisation: Pyroxenes, Amphiboles, and others

Better: 'Single chain inosilicates' and 'Multiple chain inosilicates'

Dana, tectosilicates: Feldspars, Al-Si Framework Feldspathoids (nephelines, leucines, sodalites, helvites and cancrinites) and Zeolites (narrow sense)

Better based on International Zeolite Association (IZA):

• Framework silicates

• Silica family: tetrahedral [SiO₂]_n polymers and not SiO₂ oxides
• Tectosilicates, strict sense

• Feldspars
• Zeolite frameworks, broad sense

• Zeolites, strict sense

Prehnite

• Strunz 8 ed: VIII/G.07-30 (Intermediate between chain- and layered silicates)
• Nickel-Strunz 9 ed (mineralienatlas.de): 09.DP.20 (Transitional ino-phyllosilicate structures)
• Nickel-Strunz 10 ed: 09.DP.20 (Transitional ino-phyllosilicate structures)

A handbook follows nature, a handbook is a summary and nature doesn't follow any handbook.

Transitional silicate structures:

• 09.EH. (Transitional structures between phyllosilicate and other silicate units)
• 09.DP. (Transitional ino-phyllosilicate structures)
• 09.DQ. (Modular inosilicate-sorosilicate structures)

--Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Interface:

• Booklet I: non white streak, mainly; density higher than silicates

• Metals and intermetallic alloys → elements, sulfides, oxides

• Booklet II: white streak, mainly; density higher than ice/ water

• Ice → zeolites, strict sense → zeolite frameworks → tetrahedral units (strict sense: nesosilicates, phosphates and sulfates) and silicate polymers

• Booklet III: "carbonates and evaporites" (carbonates and nitrates, halides, borates)

• "Soluble", for practical purposes; white streak, mainly.

• "Soluble" in: water or acetic acid or sulfamic acid or citric acid or hydrochloric acid.

• Others (inorganic minerals): hydrotalcite supergroup, for instance.
• Organic compounds (minerals): density lower than water; combustible.

Silicate minerals on Wikidata:

• Germanate minerals (wikidata:Q13033669), unclassified silicates (wikidata:Q15727337), nesosilicates[2], sorosilicates[3], cyclosilicates[4], inosilicates[5], phyllosilicates[6], transitional silicate structures[7], framework silicates[8]

--Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

List of minerals (complete)

I'd like to split List of minerals (complete) a bit.

From: A • B • C • D–E • F–G • H–J • K–L • M • N–O • P–R • S • T • U–Z

To: A • B • C • D • E • F • G • H–I • J • K • L • M • N–O • P–Q • R • S • T • U–Z

Wikidata compatibility would be improved. Any comments? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd say - do it :) Vsmith (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Splitting sounds good. If interwiki links can be improved that is even better. --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

~(:D --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

List of minerals (complete) 'II'

I'd like to modify list of minerals (complete) similar to de:Liste der Minerale

Example:

1. Yttrotungstite homologous series 04.FD.20
   1. Yttrotungstite-(Ce) (1970-008) 04.FD.20 [9] [10] [11]
   2. Yttrotungstite-(Y) (Y: 1927, 1987 s.p.) 04.FD.20 [12] [13] [14]
   3. Yttrotungstite-(Nd)^N (Y: 2004) 04.FD.20 [15]

• Any comments ??? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Putnisite

I read this article today and I see we don't have an article. I don't have the science background to write this article. Anyone up for it?--v/r - TP 23:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The Popular Science blurb linked above is rather sketchy. The Mineralogical Magazine article abstract provides a bit more solid data, but I don't have access to the full article. I see both Mindat and Mineral Atlas have some info about it along with a nifty image. It was only recently discovered (IMA Commission on New Minerals, Nomenclature and Classification, IMA No. 2011-106 p810) and recognized and only known from a single locality in Western Australia. Could put together a short article based on those sources. Note the Pop. Sci. and other newsblurbs returned by a Google search are rather too sketchy and perhaps "sensationalised" to make good references. Vsmith (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Move request

There's a move request at Talk:Halite#Requested move that may be of interest to members of this project. Deor (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC).

Amphiboles II

I updated the chemical formula units of the amphiboles. I used the chemical formula units on IMA Master List (March 2014). I think it is a good compromise and a good summary.

The correct definition is based on atoms per formula unit (apfu), so you need a graph as with feldspar, but there is no place for a graph in the infobox.

Illustrations: File:Feldspar series.jpg [16] [17] [18]

Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Rocks and minerals articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Rocks and minerals articles needing attention has 104 items. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata

Wikidata has now its valid minerals sorted after:

• Back, Malcolm E. (2014). Fleischer’s Glossary of Mineral Species (11 ed.). Tucson AZ: Mineralogical Record Inc. p. 434.
• Note: c. 96 pages in 7 weeks.

The structural groups after 'rruff.info/ima' and the zeolite frameworks after the International Zeolite Association (IZA) complicate the matter.

As I dream of an 'Identification Handbook' in five booklets, I follow this category tree in the background (virtual):

Inorganic minerals, section I (c. 1,150); white streak (mainly): mainly "silicate-like, polymeric"

Density (g/cm³): quartz (2.6-2.7), plagioclase (2.62-2.76)

• Zeolite frameworks: zeolites, strict sense and cancrinite-sodalite structural group
• Other framework silicates (excluding zeolite frameworks): silica family and feldspars (mainly)
• Other phyllosilicates (excluding zeolite frameworks)
• Other inosilicates (excluding zeolite frameworks)

• Other single chain inosilicates (excluding zeolite frameworks)
• Multiple chain inosilicates
• Unclassified inosilicates

• Cyclosilicates
• Sorosilicates
• Transitional silicate structures (Nickel-Strunz IDs 9.EH., 9.DP. and 9.DQ)
• Polyvanadates, Nickel-Strunz oxide and phosphate class
• Polyphosphates, polyarsenates; polymolybdates, polyniobates, chalcoalumite-cyanotrichite, etc.

Inorganic minerals, section II (c. 1,385); white streak (mainly): "silicate-like, non polymeric"

Density (g/cm³): olivine (3.2-4.4), apatite (3.2)

• Structural groups (isolated tetrahedral units, mainly)
• Nesosilicates and nesogermanates
• Sulfates, broad sense (excluding structural groups; polymolybdates, polyniobates, etc.)
• Other phosphates, arsenates and vanadates (excluding structural groups, polyphosphates (broad sense) and zeolite frameworks)

Inorganic minerals, section III (c. 750); white streak & "soluble" minerals (mainly): "carbonates" and "evaporites" (mainly)

Density (g/cm³): halite (2.17), calcite (2.6-2.8)

• Structural groups
• Carbonates and nitrates (excluding hydrotalcite supergroup)
• "Evaporites", halides
• "Evaporites", borates
• Hydroxides
• Hydrotalcite and högbomite supergroups

Inorganic minerals, section IV (c. 1,215); non white streak (mainly)

Density (g/cm³): corundum (4.0), hematite (5.0-6.0)

• "Native Elements"
• Sulfides, broad sense

• Metal sulfides, broad sense (sulfide alloys and metal sulfides)
• Sulfosalts
• Other sulfides

• Oxides, strict sense (excluding arsenites (broad sense), hydroxides, hydrotalcite and högbomite supergroup)
• Arsenites, broad sense; iodates

Miscellaneous (c. 75), section V

• Minerals with tellurite (Te⁶⁺O₆) and similar building blocks
• Organic compounds and fossil fuels: combustible compounds
• Other minerals
• Non minerals
• Meteorites
• Fossils
• Stratigraphy
• Rocks and facies

Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC), --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC) and --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Images

Hi everybody, greetings from Barcelona! I'm managing the WikiProject of Minerals in catalan language and actually I'm trying to increase the number of images in commons. Is anyone here doing a similar task? --Yuanga (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

RRUFF database/images on Wikipedia

Hi WikiProject rocks and minerals,

For the Wiki Education Foundation's 2016 Wikipedia Year of Science campaign, we're going to be working and/or coordinating some projects to improve science content on Wikipedia.

One such project is to get RRUFF images and data up on Commons and Wikipedia. They're interested, but I'm hoping to get your feedback before moving forward. Mainly, since we at Wiki Ed are not actively involved in editing articles in this topic area, I want to make sure there aren't important considerations we might not be taking into account. I'll leave that open-ended. Assuming we do move forward with it, it would also be helpful to get some guidance about any applicable rocks and minerals-specific best practices we should keep in mind (either now or, if some are interested, in the future or on an ongoing basis).

Thanks for your time. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

In the hope of starting to move forward with this, I'll just bump it this once and ping a few recently active WikiProject participants to see if anyone has thoughts: @Chris.urs-o, Vsmith, Tobias1984, Yuanga, GeoWriter, and RockMagnetist: Thanks. Unless I hear otherwise, we'll probably start planning soon. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Right now, I do not see a problem. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. Let's move forward.--Yuanga (talk) 08:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ryan (Wiki Ed): Will we also get data that we can put on Wikidata? We currently put a lot of work into Wikidata in order to generate infoboxes with accurate data for Wikipedias with smaller communities. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The Terms and Conditions on the RRUFF website state "By accessing this database, users consent to use this database and software solely for informational purposes. Selling, distributing, publishing, circulating, or commercially exploiting the data in this database without the express written permission of the owners of the data is expressly prohibited." which is not compatible with Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons rules on copyrighted material. Are the people at RRUFF really clear that any material they put on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons would have to have a CC-BY-SA licence, and do they understand that this would include commercial use? I hope such a licence will be acceptable for them because they have some good graphs and mineral sample photos that would be very useful and welcome for Wikipedia articles. I hope copyright does not prove to be a problem for them and I look forward to positive developments with this data source. GeoWriter (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for these responses. @Tobias1984: That sounds like a good idea to me, though I don't have a whole lot of experience working with Wikidata. Would you be willing to provide some guidance/best practices? @GeoWriter: A very good point. We'll definitely want to be sure they're aware of what licenses are compatible. My understanding is that they are, but it's worth double-checking. We would get written permission before starting to upload, though. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Help request: Potential problem with Infobox Mineral

See Template talk:Infobox mineral § Reference field encouraging ref-laziness? Thanks! — Geekdiva (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Titanomagnetite

Something that came up in a copyedit request on Coropuna: Is titanomagnetite its own mineral and does it need a page, or should it be covered in some other article? Mineralogy is not something I am well versed in.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Titanomagnetite is a synonym for titaniferous magnetite, a titanium-rich variety of the iron oxide mineral, magnetite. Iron oxide and titanium oxide mineralogy includes some solid solution series. The endmembers of these solid solutions (magnetite, ulvöspinel, hematite and ilmenite) are regarded by the International Mineralogical Association (IMA) as minerals, but the intermediate compositions (titanomagnetite and hemoilmenite) are not in the IMA's list of minerals. (This is in contrast to intermediate members of e.g. the plagioclase feldspar solid solution series, which are included as separate minerals in the IMA's list). Therefore, I suggest that titanomagnetite should be included in the magnetite and ulvöspinel articles, not as a separate mineral. GeoWriter (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Rock (geology) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Rock (geology) to be moved to Rock. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Commons Challenge about rocks and minerals

Please take a look in commons:Commons:Photo challenge/2016 - November - Rocks and Minerals, starting next month. We could need some help to verify the description of picture upload by professional photographer who might make some mistake in the identification, or simply be too generic. Also feel free to join as a participant or to vote at the end of the challenge.--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Blue quartz

The redirect Blue quartz, which currently points to Quartz, has been nominate at RfD. Your input to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 7#Blue quartz is invited. Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Portal?

I'm thinking of starting a portal for this WikiProject, like Portal:Earth sciences but more specific. There would be a lot of potential here, look at articles like diamond or limestone. Thoughts? Laurdecl ^talk 10:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is here, so to speak. WikiProject Rock and minerals and WikiProject Meteorites is just a part of WikiProject Geology. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Chris.urs-o, I know that WP Geology is the parent project, but what is the purpose of another WikiProject existing if no one uses it? Would this proposal be better on the TP of Geology? Laurdecl ^talk 07:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

A Portal is not good without maintenance. It does not feel good to me. I think that this proposal is in the right place. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The mathematics portal (for example) hasn't been edited since 2015. I don't think Portals need maintenance. I feel there is a gap for rocks and minerals articles. For example, in which portal do we put the Limstone article? Earth sciences deals mainly with weather events and earthquakes. Laurdecl ^talk 21:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, the Volcano WikiProject has its own portal and it's a sub project of Geology. Laurdecl ^talk 21:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Help please

Please can anyone identify this mineral as I would like to label it properly on Commons. I have no idea where it came from but it seems metallic and someone did mention it might be boron based. Thanks,  Philg88 ^♦talk 18:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Unknown

@Philg88: I'm no expert, but that looks like it might be an artificially made bismuth crystal, rather then any sort of mineral. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Bismuth - see the images at Bismuth#Characteristics. Vsmith (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks guys!  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Museum für Naturkunde: rename suggested

Hi. Please, have a look at this discussion. The German name is ok... but not if used as the main title for our Wikipedia article. The article has to be titled in English and, in the body of text, this museum also has to be mentioned by an English name... isn't that obvious? Please go to the discussion and share your views. Thank you. Kintaro (talk) 08:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Scientific images from WSC2017

Please take a look in here about newly uploaded scientific images on commons during Wiki Science Competitions 2017.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Mineral hashemite

A new article was created Mineral hashemite. Hashemite is already occupied. From other topics I know that the form of The Hobbit (1977 film) is a common way to get around. Is this also common in this project? So a move to [hashemite (mineral)] might be a possibility? --Stone (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Assessment criteria

A discussion at Talk:Paramontroseite led to the idea that it might be possible to define a list of information that should be included in the article about any mineral for it to be assessed as Class C (useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study). Per WP:ARTASS the casual reader is not the average Joe. They have some interest in the mineral or they would not have clicked on the link to the article or entered it as a search term. But they are not a serious student or researcher. Presumably they are just looking for basic information about the subject. A standard set of information should be enough to satisfy the casual reader. User:Graeme Bartlett has suggested this would include:

• Refractive index
• Formulas for the way this mineral forms
• Whether or not it dissolves in water
• Common impurities

This is just a partial list. In addition, if there are any special characteristics of the mineral that the casual reader would be expected to be aware of, they should also be described. Perhaps the mineral is commercially valuable, wars have been fought over it, it is used in jewelry, found only on the moon, whatever. But if the article covers the standard information and the widely known special characteristics, and meets basic standards of sourcing, formatting etc. as defined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and minerals/Assessment#Quality scale, it should be assessed as at least C class. If not, it should be assessed as Start or Stub. Any comments on the general concept, which may also apply to other projects? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually that was on top of what was already there. So there should be a formula, a description of what it is and its appearance. But not all this is compulsory, just that the total amount of information should fill up my monitor screen. A picture is good but not required for C rating. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

We would want a definition of how large the monitor screen is. The iPhone6 750x1334 pixels seems a reasonable standard. If it fills up that screen, regardless of what information is provided it is C class. That is a simple and objective measurement, and could be applied to all projects. I like it. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hydroxylapatite listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hydroxylapatite to be moved to Hydroxyapatite. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Portal and navbox

I have created Portal:Minerals and {{Minerals}}. I added the latter with some trepidation, since navboxes have a way of creeping upward in size. But with the current way of designing portals, it seemed the best way of creating a short list of topics for the portal. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

geology intro class

Nice to be able to view a geology style project, that has many good citations as well as important easy to access information. Would however like to know if the project is still going on or if it ended (if so when did it end?) Michailaolbey (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Akaganéite listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Akaganéite to be moved to Akaganeite. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Uranpyrochlore (of Hogarth 1977) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Uranpyrochlore (of Hogarth 1977) to be moved to Uranpyrochlore. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

List of minerals (complete) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of minerals (complete) to be moved. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Fluororichterite listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Fluororichterite to be moved to Fluoro-richterite. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Melanocratic mineral listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Melanocratic mineral to be moved to Melanocratic rock. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Kernowite

I've nominated the new Kernowite article at WP:ITNC. It could benefit from some attention by members of this Wikiproject. Mjroots (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

List of minerals approved by IMA listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of minerals approved by IMA to be moved to List of minerals approved by International Mineralogical Association. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Category:Rocks and minerals articles needing expert attention has been nominated for discussion

Category:Rocks and minerals articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Neuburg Siliceous Earth listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Neuburg Siliceous Earth to be moved to Neuburg siliceous earth. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Uranpyrochlore (of Hogarth 1977) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Uranpyrochlore (of Hogarth 1977) to be moved to Ellsworthite. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 06:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Titanium Featured article review

I have nominated Titanium for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Scratch hardness

I need someone to weigh in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scratch hardness and determine the notability of this term, as well as the other two non-Mohs scales being compared to the Mohs scale in this article. I was unable to find anything at all to suggest that either scale, Wooddall's or Ridgway's, are notable or worth comparing to Mohs. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Tellurite listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Tellurite to be moved to Tellurite (mineral). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 12:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

The Mineralogical Record

Resolved

Has anyone here got access to The Mineralogical Record 2015? It doesn't seem to be in the Wikipedia Library and I'm reluctant to buy a back issue for $18 plus postage, but I'd love to see Éléonore de Raab expanded with info from the 2015 article about her collection which is mentioned there. The 2009 report from the same authors describes their discovery of it in a castle and promises further update. If you can access their 2015 article, please update our page - or point me to any online access I haven't discovered. Have also posted at WPP Geology. Thanks. PamD 06:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

A helpful editor has pointed me in the direction of WP:RX, which has come up trumps: I now have a copy of the article. PamD 07:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

FAR for iridium

I have nominated Iridium for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 15:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

GAR for Shelby Gem Factory

There is a Good Article Reassessment that has become stalled as it needs input from someone with a passing understanding of the creation of gemstones. It would be great if someone could have a look. Gusfriend (talk) 08:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Bismuth

Bismuth has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ¹⁴¹Pr 19:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Antimony

Antimony has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ¹⁴¹Pr 20:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Aluminium listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Aluminium to be moved to Aluminum. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Accessibility of Infobox rockunit

Notification of a discussion that may be of interest to this wikiproject - I have made a suggestion here: Template talk:Infobox rockunit#Possible change for colour accessibility, about a possible change to the infobox. Any comments on this would be helpful. EdwardUK (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Mercury (element)

Mercury (element) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Should calomel be split into two pages?

The page Calomel is currently a mix of a rocks and minerals page and a page about a historical medical substance. This is really confusing - should these be two separate pages? I am very much not an expert on rocks and minerals, but also wonder whether calomel and Mercury(I) chloride should be merged? Lijil (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)