![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2020 and 9 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Klm10.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
To the absolute beginner the first line of this article is confusing. The title of the article Is "Feldspar" then Feldspars plural are defined. Beginners think Feldspar is either a rock or at best a single mineral. Feldspar is the name given to a group of minerals made up of the Feldspars. Ruskin ( talk) 04:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
What does pegmatite dikes mean?
Can someone help me out with the geological definition of dike at dike? Extend it to a dike (geology) page if you like... Thanks. dave 17:18 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Done - or at least started. Dike (geology) -- Vsmith 03:16, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Funnily enough, on the German Wikipedia page for Feldspar the first part of the word Feldspat "feld" is explained to have its origin in the Swedish language with "fjäll" meaning hill, mountain. I'm also not so sure about your explaination for "spat" as well. I think I heard that its origin might be German ("spalten") with the meaning cleavable. Alex, Austria
Seriously, "spar" comes from german "spat" which means cleavage. A lot of minerals have "spat" in their german names (mainly synonymes) like baryte ("Schwerspat" = heavy spar), fluorite ("Flussspat"), calcite ("Kalkspat"). They are all synonyms for minerals with good cleavage. Baryte for example is an important Ba-ore. I never heard about the ore-interpretation. I'm a german mineralogist.
I am going to fix this. An etymology is how a word originated, not what it currently means. Spat means flake or mineral that cleaves into flakes, says the German Wikipedia with attribution. Rp ( talk) 07:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Please can someone give an idea of size, such as a scale bar. This is very basic stuff. Not including these is bad practice and makes the images of very little value.
This looks wrong. Each circle is said to represent a % of the top producer. The top producer is given as one country (Italy) but a number of circles of given for single countries (for example 9 in China) Surely the map should be based on countries aolone, or individual companies alone. The present design is a mess.
Please can someone give an idea of size, such as a scale bar. This is very basic stuff. Not including these is bad practice and makes the images of very little value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.64.39 ( talk • contribs)
Could some explain what "This map is consistent with incomplete set of data too as long as the top producer is known" actually means? As it is presently written it is jibberish. For example if it is acknowledged there is an incomplete set of data then it would be better not have anything - remember no data is preferable to bad data. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.30.48 ( talk) 05:57, August 23, 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It does not make a great deal of sense to me. Also data should not be published if it is incomplete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.127.176 ( talk) 21:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
My name is Jessica M. and i'm doing a recearch on a few different rocks but I need the type of info. that tells you where\how it was formed..please help 70.225.129.44 ( talk) 13:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Currently the quartz page says that quartz is the second most abundant mineral (in the earth's crust) after feldspar. The silica page (quartz is a type of silica) says that silica is the most abundant mineral.
These claims are not necessarily contradictory. But it is terribly unscientific! One should avoid ever giving a bare ranking like this, because it depends on the implicit yet arbitrary choice of categorisation scheme. For example, if the earth were 36% feldspar, 34% quartz, 10% opal and 20% sand then clearly feldspar ranks first (36%>34%) but still silica also ranks first (64%). Also, by being more discriminating (say, considering separate types of feldspar, and specific types of quartz) we can make sand be the third most abundant or the first most abundant.. you see these rankings mean nothing at all, which is why the only scientific thing to do is to state the percentage (not the comparative rank) and be done with it.
In this case it would be compounded even worse: it also depends on whether the ranking is by weight or by volume or by number or atoms!
Worse, in this case, one of the pages is actually wrong (and not just implying an inconsistent categorisation). The crust (geology) page has a table saying that silica makes up 60% of the crust. But this article says that feldspar makes up 60% of the earth's crust. These are mathematically contradictory unless one counts the silicon and oxygen in the feldspar as if they were not chemically bound to anything else (but doing so would negate the whole point of comparing mineral abundances rather than elemental abundances).
Recommend a separate page for mineral abundances, and duke citations there. Cesiumfrog ( talk) 04:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Reference 2 is a rotten link to http://www.ima-na.org/about_industrial_minerals/feldspar.asp and it's cited in five places in the article. I don't know how to remove all the references so am flagging it here for some caretaker's consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.237.197.79 ( talk) 02:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
The side bar lists several colors, but there's no mention in the article (that I can find) of what causes the different colors--impurities, different amounts of Na/K/Ca? (The article on granite suggests that it's the K feldspars that have a pink color.) And that to me is one of the most interesting properties--easily observed in different kinds of granite. Maybe someone could add an explanation of the color? Mcswell ( talk) 01:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Is there any reason why pure K-feldspar should not be referred to as "orthoclase" in the Compositions section? This is always what I've heard it referred to, and it seems that calling it potassium-feldspar might be confusing with other intermediate K-Na compositions, which are more often called "K-feldspars" or "alkali feldspars." Thoughts? Schlockading ( talk) 21:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Feldspar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Feldspar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
An entry in List of colors: A–F contained a link to this page.
The entry is :
I don't see any evidence that this color is discussed in this article and plan to delete it from the list per this discussion: Talk:List_of_colors#New_approach_to_review_of_entries
If someone decides that this color should have a section in this article and it is added, I would appreciate a ping.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 14:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm adding to the section on weathering with information about chemical weathering. Klm10 ( talk) 03:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2020 and 9 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Klm10.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
To the absolute beginner the first line of this article is confusing. The title of the article Is "Feldspar" then Feldspars plural are defined. Beginners think Feldspar is either a rock or at best a single mineral. Feldspar is the name given to a group of minerals made up of the Feldspars. Ruskin ( talk) 04:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
What does pegmatite dikes mean?
Can someone help me out with the geological definition of dike at dike? Extend it to a dike (geology) page if you like... Thanks. dave 17:18 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Done - or at least started. Dike (geology) -- Vsmith 03:16, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Funnily enough, on the German Wikipedia page for Feldspar the first part of the word Feldspat "feld" is explained to have its origin in the Swedish language with "fjäll" meaning hill, mountain. I'm also not so sure about your explaination for "spat" as well. I think I heard that its origin might be German ("spalten") with the meaning cleavable. Alex, Austria
Seriously, "spar" comes from german "spat" which means cleavage. A lot of minerals have "spat" in their german names (mainly synonymes) like baryte ("Schwerspat" = heavy spar), fluorite ("Flussspat"), calcite ("Kalkspat"). They are all synonyms for minerals with good cleavage. Baryte for example is an important Ba-ore. I never heard about the ore-interpretation. I'm a german mineralogist.
I am going to fix this. An etymology is how a word originated, not what it currently means. Spat means flake or mineral that cleaves into flakes, says the German Wikipedia with attribution. Rp ( talk) 07:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Please can someone give an idea of size, such as a scale bar. This is very basic stuff. Not including these is bad practice and makes the images of very little value.
This looks wrong. Each circle is said to represent a % of the top producer. The top producer is given as one country (Italy) but a number of circles of given for single countries (for example 9 in China) Surely the map should be based on countries aolone, or individual companies alone. The present design is a mess.
Please can someone give an idea of size, such as a scale bar. This is very basic stuff. Not including these is bad practice and makes the images of very little value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.64.39 ( talk • contribs)
Could some explain what "This map is consistent with incomplete set of data too as long as the top producer is known" actually means? As it is presently written it is jibberish. For example if it is acknowledged there is an incomplete set of data then it would be better not have anything - remember no data is preferable to bad data. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.30.48 ( talk) 05:57, August 23, 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It does not make a great deal of sense to me. Also data should not be published if it is incomplete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.127.176 ( talk) 21:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
My name is Jessica M. and i'm doing a recearch on a few different rocks but I need the type of info. that tells you where\how it was formed..please help 70.225.129.44 ( talk) 13:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Currently the quartz page says that quartz is the second most abundant mineral (in the earth's crust) after feldspar. The silica page (quartz is a type of silica) says that silica is the most abundant mineral.
These claims are not necessarily contradictory. But it is terribly unscientific! One should avoid ever giving a bare ranking like this, because it depends on the implicit yet arbitrary choice of categorisation scheme. For example, if the earth were 36% feldspar, 34% quartz, 10% opal and 20% sand then clearly feldspar ranks first (36%>34%) but still silica also ranks first (64%). Also, by being more discriminating (say, considering separate types of feldspar, and specific types of quartz) we can make sand be the third most abundant or the first most abundant.. you see these rankings mean nothing at all, which is why the only scientific thing to do is to state the percentage (not the comparative rank) and be done with it.
In this case it would be compounded even worse: it also depends on whether the ranking is by weight or by volume or by number or atoms!
Worse, in this case, one of the pages is actually wrong (and not just implying an inconsistent categorisation). The crust (geology) page has a table saying that silica makes up 60% of the crust. But this article says that feldspar makes up 60% of the earth's crust. These are mathematically contradictory unless one counts the silicon and oxygen in the feldspar as if they were not chemically bound to anything else (but doing so would negate the whole point of comparing mineral abundances rather than elemental abundances).
Recommend a separate page for mineral abundances, and duke citations there. Cesiumfrog ( talk) 04:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Reference 2 is a rotten link to http://www.ima-na.org/about_industrial_minerals/feldspar.asp and it's cited in five places in the article. I don't know how to remove all the references so am flagging it here for some caretaker's consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.237.197.79 ( talk) 02:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
The side bar lists several colors, but there's no mention in the article (that I can find) of what causes the different colors--impurities, different amounts of Na/K/Ca? (The article on granite suggests that it's the K feldspars that have a pink color.) And that to me is one of the most interesting properties--easily observed in different kinds of granite. Maybe someone could add an explanation of the color? Mcswell ( talk) 01:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Is there any reason why pure K-feldspar should not be referred to as "orthoclase" in the Compositions section? This is always what I've heard it referred to, and it seems that calling it potassium-feldspar might be confusing with other intermediate K-Na compositions, which are more often called "K-feldspars" or "alkali feldspars." Thoughts? Schlockading ( talk) 21:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Feldspar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Feldspar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
An entry in List of colors: A–F contained a link to this page.
The entry is :
I don't see any evidence that this color is discussed in this article and plan to delete it from the list per this discussion: Talk:List_of_colors#New_approach_to_review_of_entries
If someone decides that this color should have a section in this article and it is added, I would appreciate a ping.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 14:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm adding to the section on weathering with information about chemical weathering. Klm10 ( talk) 03:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)