Talk:Leucite

Encyclopedia Britannica
This page is a perfect example of why it is not a good idea to copy anything straight from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. As I discuss at 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, scanning errors alone are enough reason not to do so, but other reasons are exceedingly lengthy paragraphs, an opaque, outmoded prose style, and the strong likelihood that the information, particularly in scientific articles, has been superseded. This article is simply not very useful to the 2004 inquirer. There are many, many web pages with better, clearer information, such as the top of the Google list, http://mineral.galleries.com/minerals/silicate/leucite/leucite.htm.

I offered to help with articles using the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica by looking up articles in one of my two hard copies to help clear up confusion. Incidentally, this also protects Wikipedia against complaints that we simply take stuff from the poorly scanned HTML version (see 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica). That said, I'd much rather provide this service after someone has at least tried to clear up some of the worst problems in the copied material. A chemist, which I am not, could probably do this. By the way, the web page I cite above says the main use of Leucite is as a "mineral specimen", so this is hardly the most important article in the world.

I'm hoping the major perpetrators of this article, User:Magnus Manske and User:Rmhermen will join in this discussion. (Rmhermen asked me to fix the scanning typos, which I did to the best of my ability.) Ortolan88 04:09, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)  The article doesn't even reference or distinguish Lucite, which wasn't around in 1911, but has achieved a certain prominence since.
 * I will note that my contributions were only adding wikilinks and correcting a half-dozen or so scanning errors that I noticed and could decipher. And as a chemist, I would recommend a geologist to help this article. Of course a geologist obviously wrote it in the first place so maybe an English major is required. Rmhermen 04:25, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm an English major, and I shouldn't have used the words perpertrator or chemist, I should have said contributor and geologist, and I apologize, but my main point is unchanged. Ortolan88 04:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I admit I should have taken more care in cleaning up the scanning mess, which I usually do when copying from the 1911 encyclopedia. Also, I usually copy only topics which are not likely to have changed much since 1911. A mineral seemed to fit this perfectly, although I don't know much about minerals...
 * Concerning other web sources, you are right, there are better ones; but, the link you gave has this nagging copyright notice ;-) --Magnus Manske 08:16, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Needs a total modern re-write by a geologist (maybe me, if I get around to it). The leucite rock section needs to be separated out into a petrologic article. Maybe someday I'll do it. -Vsmith 17:12, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)