![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and minerals -- Ligulem 20:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
From Xenotime:
Xenotime | |
---|---|
![]() Xenotime from the Poços de Caldas alkaline massif,
Brazil | |
General | |
Category | Mineral |
Formula (repeating unit) | YPO4 |
Crystal system | Tetragonal |
Identification | |
Color | Brown, brownish yellow, gray |
Crystal habit | Prismatic, aggregate, granular |
Cleavage | Perfect, two directions |
Fracture | Uneven to irregular |
Mohs scale hardness | 4.5 |
Luster | Vitreous to resinous |
Streak | White |
Specific gravity | 4.4–5.1 |
Refractive index | 1.720-1.815 ( DR +0.095) |
Pleochroism | Dichroic |
Added a reference field just before varieties for inclusion of <ref>...</ref> 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)
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)
I've adjusted the template to allow colour. JIMp talk· cont 14:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd like an entry "group" and one entry "subgroup" under category :p. --
Chris.urs-o (
talk)
19:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
-- Chris.urs-o ( talk) 09:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
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:
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?
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and minerals -- Ligulem 20:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
From Xenotime:
Xenotime | |
---|---|
![]() Xenotime from the Poços de Caldas alkaline massif,
Brazil | |
General | |
Category | Mineral |
Formula (repeating unit) | YPO4 |
Crystal system | Tetragonal |
Identification | |
Color | Brown, brownish yellow, gray |
Crystal habit | Prismatic, aggregate, granular |
Cleavage | Perfect, two directions |
Fracture | Uneven to irregular |
Mohs scale hardness | 4.5 |
Luster | Vitreous to resinous |
Streak | White |
Specific gravity | 4.4–5.1 |
Refractive index | 1.720-1.815 ( DR +0.095) |
Pleochroism | Dichroic |
Added a reference field just before varieties for inclusion of <ref>...</ref> 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)
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)
I've adjusted the template to allow colour. JIMp talk· cont 14:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd like an entry "group" and one entry "subgroup" under category :p. --
Chris.urs-o (
talk)
19:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
-- Chris.urs-o ( talk) 09:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
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:
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?
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)