Talk:List of minerals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

earlier comments[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

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

Potash[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
Done, perhaps the confusion was that one link was to the USGS list of minerals. Awickert (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Aetites[edit]

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)

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

Where is Peridot?[edit]

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

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

Representative images?[edit]

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)

Should be up to date[edit]

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)

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

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)

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)

Removal of mineraloids[edit]

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)

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

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

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)

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)
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)