Template talk:Infobox mineral/Archive 1

Note
See WikiProject Rocks and minerals --Ligulem 20:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Example
From Xenotime:

Reference field
Added a reference field just before varieties for inclusion of tags supporting the listed characteristics. Individual items can still be ref tagged if differing from the overall references. Used in the Benitoite article as an example. Vsmith 22:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Crystallographic data
This could use some more crystallographic information. Ideally the full chembox amount of information would be useful, however, just including the structural information would be great. The other language wikipedias (esp. French) seem to have a significant bit more of the geochemical information for minerals such as barite, saponite, etc. It would be great if we could combine this with the chembox template. 130.39.188.24 (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed additional fields for crystallographic data would be helpful. Don't need the full chembox though - maybe just borrow relevant fields. Vsmith (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Spelling
I've adjusted the template to allow colour. J IM ptalk·cont 14:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm... ok, how 'bout luster/lustre? Vsmith (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. J IM ptalk·cont 17:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

More lines
I'd like an entry "group" and one entry "subgroup" under category :p. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the infobox should be rearranged:
 * Crystal after :
 * Crystal system, crystal class, space group (2/3 lines together)
 * Mineral category: IMA/CNMNC mineral class and mineral group (2 lines together)
 * --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree. Maybe move Crystal system up above symmetry and unit cell data. Been thinking 'bout doing that for a while.
 * Also the molweight line seems rather useless considering formula variability and solid solution in most minerals. Vsmith (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah ... It's difficult to calculate the molweight of various solid solutions. Mindat.org is more pragmatic and preferes to give a chemical formula range, the RRUFF Project on the other side preferes to give the chemical formula of the ideal crystal cell. In a way, both approaches are right; on the other side, the chemical formula should be of the end member of the solid solution. Maybe, unit cell, crystal cell volume, molweight range and specific gravity range should be together too. They last three are linked together, you can calculate one from the other two. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: specific gravity - although it can be calculated, the average reader who even has heard the term likely sees it as a physically measurable property used in mineral identification if they've had Geol 101 or refer to popular mineral collecting guides. So, the current format of the infobox has general data up top with identification data below which is reasonable; unit cell etc. is above as should be molar mass. Still thinking ... Vsmith (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I agree cell volume and mol weight have low priority, as they can be calculated from the chemical formula and unit cell dimensions. The luster, specific gravity, streak colour and hardness are important for the first identification. Eating carrots for a better sight, the infobox helps the lead, it's quite ok as it's now. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Examples of the chemical formula problem
--Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Radovanite
 * Mindat.org: Cu2Fe3+(AsO4)(HAs 3+O3)2 · H2O
 * RRUFF Project: Cu2Fe3+AsO4AsO2(OH)2 · H2O
 * Cupromakopavonite
 * Mindat.org: Ag3Cu8Pb4Bi19S38
 * RRUFF Project: Cu8Pb4Ag3Bi19S38
 * Chabazite-Ca
 * Mindat.org: (Ca,K2,Na2)2[Al2Si4O12]2 · 12H2O
 * RRUFF Project: Ca(Si4Al2)O12·6H2O

Formula
The formula seems a determination of crystallographers. If the molecule has a repeating unit, then the formula seems to be the smallest repeating unit of the smallest crystal cell. I'd suggest to define formula as the formula of the smallest repeating unit and molweight as the molecular weight of the smallest repeating unit for inosilicates and cyclosilicates. Examples:
 * Nickel-Strunz id 09.DH.05 (inosilicates with 4-periodic single chains, Si4O12)
 * Leucophanite (NaCaBeSi2O6F)
 * Nickel-Strunz id 09.CD.05 (cyclosilicates [Si3O9]6- 3-membered double rings)
 * Moskvinite-(Y) Na2KY[Si6O15]
 * Nickel-Strunz id 09.CE.30d (cyclosilicates with [Si4O12]8- 4-membered single rings);
 * Lemmleinite-K (Na4K8Ti8(Si4O12)4(O,OH)8·8H2O)
 * Nickel-Strunz id 09.CJ.15a (cyclosilicates with [Si6O18]12- 6-membered single rings).
 * Litvinskite (Na3ZrSi6O13(OH)5)
 * --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Correction: it seems ok. The true average molecular weight seems to be a multiple, cyclosilicates seem to have a smaller network as phyllosilicates. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a problem with aperiodic minerals, which do not have a repeating unit. This especially holds for icosahedrite. Current entry: Formula (repeating unit) Al63Cu24Fe13. The term formula is fine and the formula itself is fine, too, but the term "(repeating unit)" is always shown. Is this "(repeating unit)" part of the template necessary? Or can it be replaced by just "Formula" for the (rather few) exceptions?

Reference field encouraging ref-laziness?
It seems to encourage ref-laziness; in effect, it's the same as putting refs directly in the Reference section without enough inline citations. I know that people can use inline citations of such refs elsewhere in the Infobox, but in practice, many won't take the "extra" step.

How can readers verify a particular fact in the article without knowing which reference is being used to support it? The nature of WP makes this all the more important.

There's a difference between how something is designed to be used and how it is used in practice. If its use in practice is not achieving the purpose it was designed for and especially if it's making another situation worse, it's better to scrap that thing and refocus on the purpose itself.

So, what was this field's purpose? If the Reference field's purpose is to avoid cluttering the source wikitext in the template, I've recently seen that done by placing refs with names in the refs section... But I can't remember in which article, how exactly that was done to avoid entry duplication, or even if it did. Editors could first cite the refs in the body text and use the name of the refs in the Infobox fields.

Of course, if we are better off without this field, we'd need to create a process to move the contents to something like a Sources sub-head in the Reference section. But I think we could immediately remove the field from the documentation to discourage its use. If you decide to keep it, I suggest explaining its purpose better in the documentation, and perhaps even changing its name to something like Infobox References or whatever would better 1. establish its purpose and 2. distinguish it from the References section.

However, I am not an expert in this area, nor do I edit articles in it very often, so I leave that decision to you, and I plan to contact Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocks and minerals. Dickite is what I'm currently in the middle of editing, and it's what inspired this post. I originally used Template:Refimprove in Dickite before I realized that in practice, because of the Reference field and the gracious plenty of refs stuck into it, the article functionally needed Template:Inline because those inline refs weren't actually inline.

Sorry all I can do is point things out, but my real-life limitations are getting in the way of doing more myself. If someone works on this, would you use the notification system to please let me know when it's done or you want my opinion on something? I'm very interested, although I truly can't be relied upon, as I explain on my user page. Thanks in advance! — Geekdiva (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)