ColorEdit

Hi Chris! I saw your comment at Wikidata:Property_proposal/Term#Color and think your comment for color as a string (e.g. #00FF00) is under the other request which is color as an item (color = red, where red needs to be a wiki-article or something with a Q-number). I was thinking that mineral and streak colors should probably get an item-color where we use and create items like red, dark-red, brownish-red, light-red (multilingual item of course). The qualifiers would serve as explanations for the color? What do you think? --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, we have quartz, calcite, fluorite and so on, that can have 'almost all colors', 'almost all colors' would be the property color. Or at least the main color range (two colors). The colors series would be: almost all colors → white → grey → yellow → green → cyan → blue → magenta → red → brown → black.
File:Farbkreis Itten 1961.png - Color circle (Johannes Itten, 1961), subtractive color mixing
File:Colour wheel (small).JPG - Color wheel
A color as wiki-article only is a too narrow scope.
I don't know if I understood your comment well enough. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure that I'm not describing it very well. Maybe we should just leave the colors away for now and find an easier property to fill in. We are anyway in no rush as most of the things are still being developed. The most astonishing fact is probably that there is still no property to add a birthday for a person :) --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

IMA NumberEdit

IMA Number is now available. Filling in the numbers can probably be done by a bot Wikidata:Bot requests. ;) --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice. How about using the same format as IMA Master List and mindat.org: IMA1975-013 instead of 1975-013. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
We could do that. I can add the prefix to the documentation. --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
The IMA Master List has the special procedures (s.p.) through IMA reports. There are the IMA decisions too, but this should be a part of IMA status. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Lower caseEdit

Hey. Just so you are aware, on Wikidata we only capitalise the first letter of English labels if they are a pronoun. Please see Help:Label for details. Cheers! Delsion23 (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok :p --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

InterleavingEdit

Do you have time to review Wikidata:Property_proposal/Term#interleaves_with_.2F_verzahnt_mit_.2F_FRENCH_.2F_RUSSIAN_.2F_OTHERS? Thank you ;) --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for all the reviews. By the way: Did you see this news piece: --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Thx. I'm not an expert on stratigraphy --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Crystal systemEdit

Can you take a look at Wikidata:Property_proposal/Term#Crystal_system. --Tobias1984 (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

And we also need some votes for or against: Crystal habit, Twinning, Fracture, Cleavage:(link) --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I added point and space group to the proposals. We're making nice progress on the mapping of infobox :). Thank you for putting so much work into the tag-tree.--Tobias1984 (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Thx ;) You really, really learned it only; when you are able to express it ;) Do not propose more properties now. We have work for the next decade right now ;) And I'll have a look at your properties, I have a flu right now ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Hope you feel better soon. I added point and space group, because the chemistry task force added crystal system. I think they have to be proposed together. We do have work for the next decade :). It is good that we can request a bot to fill in the information. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

SubscriptEdit

Hi, can you say me how you format subscript when typing in the interface ? Thanks Snipre (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Unicode (Q3513021) – [αβγδφωλμπ][-₀₁₂₃₄₅₆₇₈₉][⁰¹²³⁴⁵⁶⁷⁸⁹][⁺⁻]·☐
I just copy and paste. Somebody else did it, I just followed him. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Grant proposal about WikidataEdit

Hello, I am preparing a grant proposal with the title "m:Grants:IEG/Understanding Wikidata". I would be very grateful if you could have a look and comment. Ziko (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Space groupsEdit

I forgot to send you this very useful link. Wolfram Alpha also knows the space groups (but not any minerals that have that space group). E.g. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=space+group+122 --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

[1]
Ok thx --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

use of "subclass of" (P279)Edit

Hello! I was curious if you could fill me in on your use of the "subclass of" property. My understanding is that "A is a subclass of B" if every instance of A is an instance of B. So it makes sense, for instance, that "Aquamarine" should be a subclass of "beryl". However, you use this property in ways that do not agree with this understanding. For example:

  • Handbook of Mineralogy (Q15222041) ‎ (‎Created claim: subclass of (P279): Mineralogical Society of America (Q1936599))
  • rruff (Q15222042) ‎ (‎Created claim: subclass of (P279): University of Arizona (Q503419))
  • rruff (Q15222042) ‎ (‎Created claim: subclass of (P279): International Mineralogical Association (Q268771))
  • rruff (Q15222042) ‎ (‎Created claim: subclass of (P279): Category:Online databases (Q6700407))

I might go through and change some of these. Please let me know if you think I misunderstand the meaning of P279, or your intended use. Thanks! --Kine (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Merging itemsEdit

Hallo Chris.urs-o,

For merging items, you may want to use the merge.js gadget from help page about merging. It has an option "Request deletion for extra items on RfD" to automatically place a request to delete the empytied page. This way of nominating makes it a lot easier for the admins to process the requests.

With regards, -      - (Cycn/talk) 10:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try it. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Q17326780Edit

Just you you are aware, an item you created is being discussed at project chat. Cheers. Delsion23 (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Q3843913 (Malhmoodit)Edit

Hallo Chris, beim o.g. Mineral gibt es ein Problem. Es hat eigentlich zwei IMA-Nr., da es zunächst unter falsch geschriebenem Namen mit der IMA-Nr. 1992-001 anerkannt wurde und der Name später unter der IMA 2002-D korrigiert wurde. Wie lässt sich das im Datensatz lösen? Gruß -- Ra'ike (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hoi Ra'ike. Aktuell bleibt nur die letzte IMA-Nummer. Wir benützen "start time", "end time". Gruss --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep track of all mineralsEdit

Hi, I have difficulties to keep track of all minerals: I used to get list from http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/tree.html?q=7946&rp=279 but it doesn't works because for example högbomite supergroup (Q3977910) or alunite supergroup (Q3977905) are not a subclass of mineral (Q7946). In my humble opinion a mineral group is an instance of mineral group (Q1936581), not a subclass of it. --Sbisolo (talk) 10:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, let it be instance of mineral group. But the supergroups are only a very small group (12 supergroups), 13 if you count aluminofluorides. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
There are only 12 supergroups but they contains probably 200-300 minerals (amphiboles are more than 100). I did a first check against last IMA Master list and I found more then 800 mineral missing from wikidata. After some check I discovered that many of them were part of supergroups. --Sbisolo (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Re-reading my message, probably was not so clear. I try to explain my idea with an example: alunite supergroup (Q3977905) should be a subclass of mineral (Q7946) and an instance of mineral supergroup (Q3977918); beudantite mineral group (Q3777629) should be a subclass of alunite supergroup (Q3977905) and an instance of mineral group (Q1936581). It makes sense? --Sbisolo (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Express yourself with more care, please (mineral supergroup (Q3977918) 'has part' of 'mineral', it is enough). Mineral supergroups have mineral groups which are an instance of 'mineral groups'. We have hundred new minerals every year. We should only care of the 3,500 more important minerals (gemstone mineral, rock-forming mineral, textbook mineral, mineral of economic importance, specimen for mineral collections and class, subclass, division, supergroup, group, subgroup and series members). 5,000 valid minerals, their varieties and groups (broad sense) are too many items for us two. Please, don't use disambiguation pages for mineral series; please, follow en.wikipedia.org, de.wikipedia.org, fr.wikipedia.org and nl.wikipedia.org. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Note (IMA status): Sbisolobot updated grandfathered and approved minerals. Some valid minerals with status Q, Rd and Rn are missing. I'm going to fix it. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Questionable minerals were reviewed. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Sbisolobot didn't update minerals with "A ?" status. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Minerals with status "A ?" were reviewed. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

p2695Edit

type locality (geology) (P2695) is ready. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion about the usage going on here: Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Conflict_resolution_p2695. I am involved in the conflict, so I am hoping others can settle the dispute. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

New minerals from august and september 2016Edit

Hi, I've started creating articles in catalan wikipedia about new minerals approved in august and september 2016 (http://minmag.geoscienceworld.org/content/gsminmag/80/6/1135.full.pdf) but there aren't any register in wikidata yet. I've start creating quijarroite but I think that you may create all of them with a bot or something similar. Isn't it? Thanks in advance. --Yuanga (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

No. I do it manually (Wikidata:WikiProject Mineralogy/IMA number references#Mineralogical Magazine) ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
P.S.: minerals with a full description and a picture available are more interesting. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Unused propertyEdit

This is a kind reminder that the following property was created more than six months ago: pseudo crystal habit (P2156). As of today, this property is used on less than five items. As the proposer of this property you probably want to change the unfortunate situation by adding a few statements to items. --Pasleim (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not know that this property was approved. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

named after: mineral seriesEdit

Hey Chris.urs-o, there is a larger amount of claims named after (P138) mineral series (Q24241569) (see this query), and it appears that you created a good part of them. Since mineral series (Q24241569) is basically an empty item: what’s the meaning of these claims? Right now it looks as if they should either be modified or removed. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello.
  1. Wikidata is not descriptive. I have only data items available
  2. We have mineral classes (Strunz), subclasses (Strunz), divisions (Strunz), families (Strunz), supergroups, groups, rootname series, homologous series, solid solution series (mischreihen) and name series
  3. Epidote-(Sr), for example: it is named after a mineral series of epidote and strontium (strontium analogue of epidote)
    1. Epidote, calcium dominant: Ca(Ca51%:Sr49%)(Al2Fe3+)[Si2O7][SiO4]O(OH)
    2. Epidote-(Sr), strontium dominant: Ca(Sr51%:Ca49%)(Al2Fe3+)[Si2O7][SiO4]O(OH)
  4. I wanted to use Q24241569 for name series, but I think that it does not work
  5. Q24241569 is instance of many items: mazzite, paulingite, heulandite, etc.
  6. I would like to count how many minerals are named as a mineral series
  7. It was my way to solve the named after property
I'll review them.
The use of the named after property for minerals is under review, it is still under construction. It needs one man x year. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. If I understand correctly, you would like to know which items are named after something which is a mineral series. For instance: garronite-Na (Q21029153) is named after garronite (Q45163524), which itself is an instance of a mineral series. Correct? —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
No, thx. I think that it is not important, I am using your query. Could you modify your query to show the mineral name, please? Thx.
Mineralienatlas.de groups mineral subgroups and mineral series together: Reihe/Gruppe/Serie/Folge (status) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I hope this is what you are looking for:
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel (GROUP_CONCAT(?namedAfterItemLabel; separator=', ') AS ?namedAfter) WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P138 wd:Q24241569; wdt:P138 ?namedAfterItem .
  OPTIONAL {
    ?namedAfterItem rdfs:label ?namedAfterItemLabel .
    FILTER(LANG(?namedAfterItemLabel) = 'en') .
  }
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language 'en' }
} GROUP BY ?item ?itemLabel
Try it!
It includes: all items that have a named after (P138) mineral series (Q24241569); Columns: item Q-ID, item label, comma-separated list of English labels the item is named-after (per P138). If you need something else, don’t hesitate to ask :-) —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Thx --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Note, there is a hierarchy: science, exact sciences, earth sciences, geology
Earth > Earth's crust > geological unit > geological formation > rocks > mineralogy (minerals & nonminerals; mineral classification) > mineral classes & subclasses (Strunz) > mineral supergroups > mineral groups > mineral subgroups (mineral series), minerals, mineral polytypes & varieties. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

named after toponymEdit

Hello, what is the reason of using naming country (Q26710944) as named after (P138) for minerals? For example, it is sufficient (and necessary) to have surinamite (Q2388671) named after (P138) Suriname (Q730). --Infovarius (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, there was a time when nobody cared. I used 'Autolist 2' to count the 'naming locality', 'naming region' and 'naming country'. Now 'Autolist 2' does not work anymore and ca.wikipedia use these items in the infobox. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
An item is a number. One number is not enough, an explanation is needed too, sometimes (naming locality). Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Do you believe that there is a crucial difference between 'naming locality', 'naming region' and 'naming country'? Why should we count them? Why just not to use instance of (P31) of an object after which mineral was named (like country (Q6256) in Suriname (Q730))? --Infovarius (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
'Named after' needs a description. A number (item) is not enough. A complementary explanation is needed: acronym, compound lexeme, mineral series, naming locality, naming region. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I deleted organisation, deity, male, female, naming country. 'ca.wikipedia' infobox retrieves the 'named after' items. If it is not 'named after' a human it needs a complementary explanation. One number only is not enough. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Slower reading is sometimes wiser. I am wanting to add the scientists on 'Handbook of Mineralogy' only, excluding questionable minerals. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Can you show me where the statement "surinamite (Q2388671) named after (P138) Suriname (Q730)" is used (in cawiki?) ? --Infovarius (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Surinamite does not have an article on ca.wiki but indialite does: ca:indialita --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually I meant the statement "surinamite (Q2388671) named after (P138) naming country (Q26710944)". And I see that you've deleted it. So should we delete all such statements? --Infovarius (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
No. The names repeat themselves. A pioneer comes to a land. His name is his farm's name. Later, his name is the town's, the hill's and the mine's name. Ethnic group, naming locality, naming region are needed in the infobox, if it is not a human name. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok. If 'naming locality' is repeated, then it is not needed: bay, mount, district, county, mine, quarry, deposit, etc. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I meant that: if there is more exact value then P138 naming country (Q26710944) and similar should be deleted. --Infovarius (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Circular named afterEdit

Hi,

Right now there is a circular information:

and

Only one must be true but which one? Could you take a look (there is a reference but point to a committee not a publication so I can't check myself).

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for that one. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 18:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 01:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 00:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Mineral speciesEdit

I see that you now created a class-item for mineral species. However, it's correct to say that mineral species, like aikinite (Q404955), is an instance of mineral species (Q55076514), not a subclass of it. Alkanite is a kind of mineral (hence belongs to subclass tree of mineral (Q7946)), and it's a particular example of mineral for which the classification rank is "valid mineral species" (hence "instance of" a use of this rank). 90.191.81.65 15:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

ok, last time. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Mineralien ohne ItemEdit

Hallo Chris. Magst du dich in Zukunft um die Mineralien ohne Item kümmern? --Leyo 21:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Hoi Leyo. Das ist kein Problem mit Internet. Es sind ja nur einige wenige. Gruss --Chris.urs-o (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Danke. Es werden immer wieder neue dazukommen. ;-) --Leyo 21:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

BlockedEdit

 
You have been blocked for a period of 31 hours for intimidating behavior on the Administrators' noticeboard. Once this block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest it by editing this page and adding the following template with a suitable reason: {{unblock|1=<the reason for your unblock request>}}. If you are logged in, and the option has not been disabled, you may also email the blocking administrator (or any administrator from this list) by using this form.

English | беларуская (тарашкевіца) | বাংলা | Deutsch | español | français | galego | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | Nederlands | português | русский | українська | 中文 | +/−

⁠ Mahir256 (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Systematik der MineraleEdit

Hallo Chris.urs-o, Du kennst Dich doch mit Wikidata bestimmt viel besser aus als ich. Könntest Du Dir daher mal den o.g. Datensatz anschauen? Laut Versionsgeschichte wurden da wohl zwei Datensätze zusammengeschoben, aber jetzt passen verschiedene Aussagen und Interwiki-Links nicht mehr zur Definition des Wikidata- bzw. de-Wikipedia-Lemmas de:Systematik der Minerale. Die "Systematik der Minerale" ist vor allem nicht identisch mit den Systematiken nach Strunz, von denen es in de-Wikipedia zwei Artikel gibt. Kriegt man das irgendwie wieder auseinander dividiert? Gruß -- Ra'ike (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Das Zusammenschieben (merge) kriegt man nur währen 48 Stunden wieder auseinander oder so. Glaube ich.
Mineral Classification: Systematik der Minerale
Drei Items, ist doch in Ordnung. Möchtest Du eine vierte Systematik (Wissensstand nach besten Wissen und Gewissen: rruff.info/ima, mineralienatlas.de und Glossary of Minerals)? Interwiki-Links sind Sache der einzelne Sprachen. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Nein, es müssten streng genommen eigentlich sogar 5 Items sein:
  1. Die allgemeine Definition, was eine "Systematik der Minerale" bzw. "Mineral classifikation" überhaupt ausmacht und wie sie aufgebaut ist oder werden kann = de:Systematik der Minerale
  2. Strunz Classification of Minerals (8 ed) = de:Systematik der Minerale nach Strunz (8. Auflage)
  3. Nickel-Strunz Classification of Minerals (9 ed) = de:Systematik der Minerale nach Strunz (9. Auflage)
  4. Nickel-Strunz Classification of Minerals ("10 ed") -> gibt es in de-Wikipedia nicht
  5. Dana's System of Mineralogy = de:Systematik der Minerale nach Dana
Zu 1) Entsprechend der Definition dürfte Q928461 (Systematik der Minerale) auch nur Interwikilinks auf Sprachversionen enthalten, bei denen die Systematik genauso allgemein erklärt wird, wie im deutschsprachigen Artikel (z.B. bg:Класификация на минералите). In diesem Item sind aber Sprachversionen eingefügt, die Bezug auf die spezielle Mineralsystematik nach Strunz nehmen.
Die allgemeine "Systematik der Minerale" hat auch keinen Namensgeber, die Aussage benannt nach (Strunz) ist hier also falsch,. Benannt nach Strunz sind nur die Systematiken 2 bis 4. Ebenso ist die Hauptkategorie "Kategorie:Mineral nach Mineralklasse (Strunz)" falsch, denn Q928461 gehört zu Q8983828 (Kategorie:Klassifikation (Geowissenschaften)).
Wie gesagt, da scheint einiges durcheinander geraten zu sein, was vermutlich zu Q3679719 (Nickel–Strunz Classification) gehört. Gruß -- Ra'ike (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Ich hoffe, dass Du damit zufrieden bist. Schönes 2019. Gruss --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Hallo Chris.urs-o, Danke für die Mühe. Ich habe die Beschreibungen noch etwas angepasst, aber es sieht jetzt auf jeden Fall besser aus.
Dir auch einen guten Rutsch ins Neue Jahr 2019 und viele Grüsse -- Ra'ike (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 17:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 19:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

discredited mineral species (Q72084637)Edit

I think this doesn't work well as classification unit on Wikidata. Items are generally expected to be about concepts, not mere synonyms (or other words), e.g. see Wikidata:Lexicographical data on that. Separate item should be for something that is defined as different (or, perhaps, defined as part of different classification). E.g. ankangite (Q429614) as a separate item, per mindat.org, can be considered as a variety of mannardite, discredited or not. On the other hand, if eggonite (Q72116825) (apparently eggonite, not eggotite) is the very same thing as kolbeckite (Q3816233) (not really its subclass), then there probably shouldn't be a separate item. I'd expect synonyms to be provieded as aliases and/or some property values then. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:2422:5F5C:FD11:582F 13:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. The current knowledge status changes. A valid species might be discredited, afterwards it might be revalidated. An archive has to preserve the deprecated history of a label. The reason of a discreditation can be invalid type material, mineral variety, redundant name, polytype and so on. Kolbeckite is the valid species; a polytype, a variety and a redundant label would be a subitem of the valid species.
I do not want to merge the deprecated labels. If the item has an article on Wikipedia, I even can not merge it. I think that the data structure is better this way. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Alright, if it was proposed or once approved as different mineral species, then it probably warrants a separate item. However discredited mineral species (Q72084637) being used still confuses me. You now changed its label from "redundant name" to "discredited mineral, redundant name". If something is its instance, then which is it, a name or a (discredited) mineral species? If you can change label like that then this suggests that it's an add hoc class, rather than an actual class/rank used outside Wikidata. Generally using IMA status and/or rank (P579) seems enough to show IMA status. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:2422:5F5C:FD11:582F 16:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, a valid mineral species is a concensus. Before IMA-CNMNC, the status was not so clear cut.
Discredited mineral, mineral variety; discredited mineral, polytype; discredited mineral, redundant label are istances of discredited mineral. But I changed the label again. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
The meaning of current "redundant mineral label" and "redundant name" seem pretty much the same. Using this as P31 value still suggests that item is about word rather than about concept. Item should be classified as a concept, not as a word.
If item is a variety or a polytype by P31 value then it's clear what it is as a separate concept, regardless of IMA status. If it's neither variety or polytype, but was considered a different mineral species, and some P31 value is desired, then I suppose mineral species (Q12089225) could be used as P31 value, perhaps as having deprecated rank set, or some qualifier clarifying the discredited status. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:2422:5F5C:FD11:582F 17:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Can you register, please; an IP number is unfair.
A valid mineral species is a dynamic status; it is not so clear cut.
Examples: imogolite was discredited on formal grounds and revalidated. IMA2018-B (May 2018): schizolite had priority issues and was renamed. IMA2014-J: betalomonosovite revalidation failed two times, I think.
Tetranatrolite was discredited, possibly an error:
Lee Y, Hriljac J A, Parise J B, Vogt T (2006) Pressure-induced hydration in zeolite tetranatrolite. American Mineralogist 91, 247-251
Lee Y, Ahn D, Vogt T, Lee Y (2017) Dehydration studies of natrolites: Role of monovalent extra-framework cations and degree of hydration. American Mineralogist 102, 1462-1469
Seryotkin, Yu,V. & Bakakin, V.V. (2007): The reversibility of the paranatrolite-tetranatrolite transformation. European Journal of Mineralogy, 19, 593-598. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I get that IMA status can change. For example you have set two different IMA status and/or rank (P579) values for vondechenite (Q28122913). It makes sense and there probably isn't a problem with that.
It becomes problematic where discredited mineral species (Q72084637) is used as instance of (P31) value. Generally, the difference between concept (idea) and word is that single concept can be denoted by multiple words, and single word (term, name, syonym, label etc.) can denote multiple concepts. This distinction is important as Q-items on Wikidata are generally about concepts, not words. So labels/descriptions or use of properties shouldn't suggest that it's the opposite.
You can edit Wikimedia projects both ways, as a registered user and without being logged in (see terms of use). 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:6D39:3511:9A50:7CD6 13:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
A mineral species should have only one normal ranked status, the others should be deprecated.
I do not want to merge or delete these items, so I am using now subclass of. I think that the data structure gets better this way. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, I now notice that you moved discredited mineral species (Q72084637) uses from P31 value to P279 value. However this only adds further confusion (mineral species are particular objects that are discredited, mineral samples are not).
I think it would be better if "Q72084637" is labeled as "discredited mineral species" as supposedly that's what other items that you intend to use this item for are. And then use it as P31 value, not P279 value. I'm going to do that.
Though, if such item is being used, then it still remains a question if separate items should be created for other IMA statuses as well and basically if IMA status and/or rank (P579) and instance of (P31) values should be always duplicated for some unclear reason. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:6D39:3511:9A50:7CD6 13:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
IMA status and/or rank (P579) is based on IMA-CNMNC, master list of minerals/ CNMNC Newsletters, no flexibility. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
'Discredited mineral species' is too general, only the mineral name got deprecated. The mineral species is still valid. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
If there is a separate item for discredited object then it should have been considered (proposed, approved) as different mineral species at some point. Then the deprecated name may denote two different concepts: 1) mineral that was thought to be different species, and 2) mineral that is still considered as valid species.
Wikidata also includes items for historical entities (e.g. historical administrative entities) or fictional items. These items are also generally classified as what they used to be, or what they are said to be, not as names.
However, if name was always considered a synonym, it was never used for a concept that was considered different, then having different Wikidata item for only a synonym is still problematic (I don't know if you intended to use Q72084637 for such mineral names too). 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:6D39:3511:9A50:7CD6 14:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Halogenid MineralEdit

Das sollte auf Deutsch wohl "Halogenid-Mineral" heißen. Ich bin aber nicht sicher, ob "Mineral aus der Gruppe der Halogenide" evtl. doch besser klingt. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Okidoki. Ich versuche es zu "Mineral aus der Gruppe der Halogenide" ändern. Danke u Gruss --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Danke. Die Frage ist halt, wo sich noch in ähnlichen Ausdrücken de:Leerzeichen in Komposita finden. Auf die Schnelle finde ich da schon "Sulfosalz Mineral" und "Selenid Mineral". Gäbe es da eine Liste? Zur Korrektur würde ich übrigens TABernacle verwenden, eventuell sogar QuickStatements. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Die Klasse der Halogenide ist klein. Die Subklasse der Sulfosalze ist grösser. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Ändert das etwas daran, wie man davon spricht? Ist "Mineral aus der Gruppe der Sulfosalze" mineralogisch falsch? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Im Prinzip. Es ist die Auslegung nach Nickel-Strunz (Q15205595) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Danke für die Liste. Ist es denn jetzt korrekt, "Mineral aus der Gruppe der Sulfide, Sulfosalze, etc." für alle diese Klassen von Mineralien zu sagen? Dann könnte ich den Fehler schnell überall korrigieren. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 06:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Das ist nur eine Beschreibung. Ich muss user:Ra'ike fragen. Übrigens, kannst Du Queries programmieren? Wikidata:WikiProject Mineralogy/Queries --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Das kommt darauf an, wie kompliziert sie sind, aber alle Mineralien mit " Mineral" in der deutschen Beschreibung kann man so finden: https://w.wiki/dxd. Da sind zwar auch ein paar false positives dabei, aber man kann die Fehler ja getrennt nach Mineralgruppen abarbeiten. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Eingentlich. Ich wollte die Authoren (Property:P50) von Artikeln mit Subjekt (Property:P921), Typen Beschreibung (Erdwissenschaften) (Q56241591). Sortiert nach Erwähnung. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Ich verstehe nicht, was unter "Zypen" gemeint ist, aber ich würde lieber zunächst das ursprüngliche Thema der Diskussion klären. Wie steht denn nun Ra'ike zu der vorgeschlagenen Änderung der deutschen Beschreibungen? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Sry, Typo. User:Ra'ike macht Wikipedia frei am Sonntag. Gruss --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
"Mineral aus der Gruppe der Sulfide, Sulfosalze, etc.": Ra'ike hat keine Einwände. Ich habe die Liste etwas geändert. Gruss --Chris.urs-o (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Super, ich werde die Beschreibungen im Laufe der nächsten Tage korrigieren. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Notiz: Die Deutsche Beschreibungen durch Ra'ike dürfen nicht geändert werden. D.H., praktisch alle Mineralien mit ein deutschen Artikeln. Gruss --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Das habe ich jetzt nicht verstanden. Warum darf die Rechtschreibung nicht korrigiert werden, wo der Text von einem bestimmten Nutzer eingetragen wurde? Niemandem gehört ein Datenobjekt, vgl. auch en:WP:OWN. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Nur ein Rat. Die Deutsche Beschreibung durch Ra'ike ist gut, es ist Schade sie zu verlieren. Sie ist de.admin (57.4k de.wikipedia edits). Sie editiert die Mineralien in de.wikipedia u ich hier (241k edits wikidata). Gruss--Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

We sent you an e-mailEdit

Hello Chris.urs-o,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Placer occurrences (Yanshan meteorite) (Q34724893)Edit

I'm hoping to add Meteoritical Bulletin Database ID (P824) to the meteorite items. The item, Q34724893, isn't in the database and I cannot expand my search since there's so little info there. Trilotat (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

"Placers in the Yanshan area (which are otherwise composed of chromite, ilmenite, zircon, gold, PGE minerals, etc.) have been found to contain abundant spheres of "iron", typically 0.1-0.5 mm in size, which consist of an outer shell of magnetite, wüstite and maghemite and an inner shell of kamacite and taenite. In addition, some spheres have a core which is composed of gupeiite and xifengite"
"Yu Z (1984) Two new minerals gupeiite and xifengite in cosmic dusts from Yanshan, Acta Petrologica Mineralogica et Analytica 3, 231-238"
Only "iron" spheres are available. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

IMA status before 1959?Edit

Special:Diff/1429569532/1430198681 also makes little sense. Earlier I wrote a more throrough comment on IMA statuses at Property talk:P579#Review current values. It'd make more sense to use described by source (P1343) to make reference to older sources. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:71ED:3030:AE9C:66C8 08:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you register a nickname, please. Well, there was a consensus before IMA. Changing 2k minerals is a lot of edits. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you refer to by "rruff.info procedure" (e.g. Special:Diff/1434768643)? I can't find any references to barytocalcite related procedure in 2007 from rruff.info database. IMA no. such as "IMA2007 s.p." is defined in preface of newer versions IMA mineral lists. You now changed reference (Special:Diff/1434768736) to older version that doesn't include IMA numbers at all. All these IMA no. qualifiers under grandfathered status seem dubious, as well as "start time" qualifiers. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:347B:88DB:9F56:4142 08:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

'IMA/CNMNC List of Mineral Names (March 2007)' is the first IMA/CNMNC mineral list, rruff.info refers to it as 'IMA2007 s.p.'. This was an effort by Ernst A. J. Burke and Ernest Henry Nickel and IMA/CNMNC, it is the origin of most grandfathered (G) minerals. They combined the approved (A), redefined (Rd) and discredited (D) updated mineral list with the grandfathered (G) and questionable (Q) new mineral list. A grandfathered (G) mineral does not have an IMA nummer. Stop reverting. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Where exactly on rruff.info you find "IMA2007 s.p." for barytocalcite? I find 42 minerals having "IMA2007 s.p." as IMA number on rruff.info, barytocalcite not among these. I also figure that a grandfathered mineral doesn't have an IMA number, but then why you add qualifier that states otherwise?
I understand that lists weren't published in such form before 2007, but statuses nonetheless were applied before.
As explained in edit summary, I reverted only as the qualifier doesn't match the given source and so it seemed to be an obvious mistake (which is still the case). 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:1D0B:548B:EC43:DD2E 10:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
True. 'IMA2007 s.p.' is used by rruff.info, but not for barytocalcite, yet. But barytocalcite was included by 'IMA/CNMNC List of Mineral Names (March 2007)', anyway.
True. Some minerals were grandfathered by IMA1962 s.p., IMA1967 s.p., IMA1968 s.p., IMA1971 s.p. and IMA1980 s.p., for instance.
It is not a mistake. 'IMA/CNMNC List of Mineral Names (March 2007)' (IMA2007 s.p.) is the default for grandfathered minerals. Have respect to voluntary work, stop trolling. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I also voluteer here and I intend to provide data that is accurate and not misleading. I write in your talk to ask and clarify. As such, I think it's unfair to be accuse me of "trolling".
I'm sorry, but you still haven't provided a source backing your claim that "IMA2007 s.p." for barytocalcite (and other grandfathered minerals) isn't a mistake. Even if reference material (2007 list) was confusingly numbered as "IMA2007 s.p." somewhere, then number of a reference material is different from number of a mineral, and IMA Number, broad sense (P484) is meant for number of a mineral. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:1D0B:548B:EC43:DD2E 11:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, you do not register, you edit anonymous. You do not believe me that most grandfathered minerals were grandfathered through 'IMA/CNMNC List of Mineral Names (March 2007)', there was nothing before it. As I understand IMA was needed after WWII because of many phases discovered by electron microprobe. Minerals lists were administrated by Dana's System of Mineralogy and Strunz Mineralogical Tables, mainly. 'IMA number, broad sense' is used on Wikidata for IMA numbers, IMA special procedures and IMA/CNMNC meeting decisions. I can not prove a default, you can not prove that barytocalcite was not grandfathered by special procedure 'IMA2007 s.p.' Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Why should I prove anything? You are the one proposing addition of unverifiable data, not me. As far as I can see your claim is simply misleading, considering that per IMA/CNMNC list and per rruff.info "IMA2007 s.p." is applied to exactly 42 minerals, but not to minerals in question. Since when exactly barytocalcite has grandfathered status is another matter. If you suggest that it had different status before 2007 then this is again dubious and should be backed by relevant source, if such claim was (re)added to item. PS Anonymous editing is allowed. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:1D0B:548B:EC43:DD2E 12:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Because I am editing minerals since 2013 and you contest barytocalcite. IMA/CNMNC special publication 'IMA2007 s.p.' is the first to cite barytocalcite as grandfathered. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Firstly, I don't see any indication that "IMA2007 s.p." stands for a publication (IMA/CNMNC List of Mineral Names (March 2007) (Q20645057)). As said, in actual (newer) sources "IMA2007 s.p." is associated to a few redefined minerals in this publication.
IMA statuses were applied before 2007 as well, and a grandfathered mineral by definiton is considered grandfathered since the time of grandfathering (i.e. 1959). While it's probably possible that someone forgot to list some grandfathered mineral in some earlier and relevant IMA associated publication, then the status may be applied retrospectively as well. In any case, publication time doesn't equal the time when status became applicable. Also, it anyway isn't evident that IMA number is provided in relation to time when status was given. In that relation, and if it's really known that status changed, it's more clear to use "start time" qualifier.
I have worked on minerals for quite some time as well, though of course it isn't an argument. Some mistake can be longstanding, this doesn't make it less a mistake, though. I'm not contesting only barytocalcite, I also contest several others (see query link and property talk link above). 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:B14C:EEFB:73EB:3DD6 14:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

It is always a publication. A approved mineral becomes a type description. A special procedure has a approved publication. The master list of minerals lists the year of publication, not the meeting decision. The other meeting approved decisions are published too. Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

This is inaccurate. See explanation for "IMA No. / Year" in preface of IMA list. IMA number generally relates to a publication, but it still refers to mineral(s), not to a publication. IMA number like "IMA2007 s.p." may be used in relation to several special procedures (publications) in given year. Neither did publication in IMA list in 2007 overwrite IMA numbers for other minerals that have older year in their IMA number. What you claim is in no way evident. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:B14C:EEFB:73EB:3DD6 15:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok. A IMA2007 s.p. can refer to many publications and many minerals. It changes the status of a mineral. From no status to grandfathered, for instance. Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

IMA/CNMNC meeting approved decisions IMA2015-B, IMA2015-E, IMA2015-F, IMA2015-G, IMA2015-H, IMA2015-I, IMA2015-L, are all IMA2015 s.p. in the IMA Master List of Minerals Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

In case of those 42 minerals that carry IMA number IMA2007 s.p., yes, their status changed. In case of barytocalcite sources give no IMA number on the other hand, and, as said, it can't be said that its status changed or it had no status without source where it is explicit. Also as said, by definition of grandfathered status, it probably can be said with much greater confidence that this status is applicable since year 1959 for all grandfathered minerals.
What's the source for IMA numbers such as "IMA2017-H"? 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:C597:C763:A4F8:419A 18:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Nowadays, CNMNC Newsletter. Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
IMA/CNMNC uses the year of publication in the IMA Master List of Minerals notation. To make things easier, I suppose. So 'IMA2007 s.p.' for 'IMA Master List (March 2007)' is correct. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
It's still unclear what notation and where exactly are you referring to. "IMA2007 s.p." is present in IMA Master List of Minerals, but next to particular minerals, as already pointed out repeatedly. Take for example the latest version. It provides "2007 s.p." as IMA No. for minerals like ceruleite, francevillite, renierite etc., while for barytocalcite, as it doesn't have IMA No., year 1824 (original description) is given instead. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:ACAE:A02F:46D3:17FC 14:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
IMA/CNMNC members are university professors. They mentor students, PhD students and have administration tasks in the university. Sometimes they are editors of a scientific journal. Only early retired Ernest Henry Nickel had the time to list the accepted grandfathered minerals. Is a mineral grandfathered it is listed on 'IMA2007 s.p.', 'IMA1962 s.p.', 'IMA1967 s.p.', 'IMA1968 s.p.', 'IMA1971 s.p.', 'IMA1980 s.p.', or 'IMA1987 s.p.'. The default is 'IMA2007 s.p.'. IMA Master List of Minerals notation for special procedures is the publication year. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Remarks on (retired) university professors seem irrelevant to previous discussion.
Your claims on "IMA2007 s.p.", "IMA1962 s.p." contradict their usage in IMA mineral lists (e.g. see the last version linked in previous comment). If the same notation is used in different sense in some other context, then this needs to be backed by sources where this is explicit. Otherwise I must think that you make this up.
Please see Help:Sources, per which statements "should be verifiable, they should be supported by a source of information". 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:ACAE:A02F:46D3:17FC 14:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Moreover, if you intend to refer to a publication as a source, using whatever correct notation, then publication should probably given as a reference under statement, not as a qualifier to statement value itself.
Also, as already pointed out above, for minerals like corundum (Q131777) reference to IMA/CNMNC List of Mineral Names (March 2007) (Q20645057) doesn't prove that it didn't have the same grandfathered status before March 2007. This source simply doesn't say anything about previous status. As such you misuse sources, and you are making a mess by inserting misleading data. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:ACAE:A02F:46D3:17FC 14:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
This is consensus, there was no IMA/CNMNC Mineral list before March 2007. If you do not want the qualifiers, okidoki.
Fairbankite: CNMNC Newsletter 54/ March 2020, proposal IMA19-I is accepted, IMA Master List IMA2020 s.p., AM 106 (2021), 309
Dienerite: CNMNC Newsletter 52/ October 2019, proposal IMA19-E is accepted, IMA Master List IMA2019 s.p., n.d.
Coquimite: CNMNC Newsletter 52/ October 2019, proposal IMA19-F is accepted, IMA Master List IMA2019 s.p., MM 84 (2020), 275
Calumetite: CNMNC Newsletter 49/ March 2019, proposal IMA18-C is accepted, IMA Master List IMA2019 s.p., n.d.
Tsugaruite: CNMNC Newsletter 49/ March 2019, proposal IMA19-A is accepted, IMA Master List IMA2019 s.p., n.d.
Cadwaladerite: CNMNC Newsletter 49/ April 2019, proposal IMA18-H is accepted, IMA Master List IMA2019 s.p., CM 57 (2019), 827
--Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
We already went through this. I'm aware of the fact ("consensus") that these IMA master lists are published since 2007. IMA statuses however, as pointed out above, were applied before 2007, as indicated by many IMA numbers of older years in these lists, and a grandfathered mineral, as defined in prefaces of IMA lists, is grandfathered as of "the birth of IMA".
This list of examples is for minerals that were redefined, and hence actually do have IMA number in master lists, not for minerals that remain grandfathered, and are without IMA numbers. So these examples seem mostly irrelevant to previous discussion. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:ACAE:A02F:46D3:17FC 15:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I am demonstrating the IMA Master List notation for special procedure. The qualifiers I will delete later. The statement 'valid minerals before 1959 were grandfathered' is an abstract, you understand it wrongly. You are making things up. The IMA/ CNMNC log is not published. 258,238 edits, voluntary work and this. It is very difficult to find out the IMA/ CNMNC decision chain, it is not well documented. At least, the early decisions. If you want to to do minor edits, stay anonymous. But if you want to modify the databank structure, you need to register. I am doubting your good intentions. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth, I did not say "valid minerals before 1959 were grandfathered". I'm unable to clarify if you don't tell which part exactly I understand wrongly. Generally, above I've tried to rely on linked/named sources as much as possible. To be clear, I don't suggest it's necessary to instert 1959 or some other year before 2007 as start time for grandfathered status. I'm only saying that if data is inserted then it shouldn't be dubious and it should be verfiable. Registering to my knowledge still isn't necessary to contribute. I dicuss and I try to be clear in edit summries, so I don't know why you should doubt my good intentions.
As for IMA Master List notation for special procedure, what is there to demonstrate really? At the top I already pointed out myself that IMA numbers like IMA2007 s.p. and IMA2019 s.p. are used for certain minerals. Your examples though illustrate that there's a distinction between number of a proposal, like "IMA 19-E" (not "IMA 2019-E"), and number of a mineral, like "IMA2019 s.p.". So IMA Number, broad sense (P484) value in item about mineral should be the latter ("IMA2019 s.p.", not "IMA 19-E" nor "IMA 2019-E"). 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:E0E2:AA6E:5133:2CF5 17:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

We on Wikidata use IMA number, broad sense, with one format. It makes things easier. Mindat.org n rruff.info use the same, I think. It is easier to find hits on google. Next generation can change that. I still believe the notation is correct: IMA list of minerals (March 2007) is IMA/ CNMNC special procedure 'IMA2007 s.p.'. I am building this up since 7 years, mostly alone. You are bullying me. If you want to collaborate, help to built this databank up Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I do help by both clearing up items and by discussing. As I generally check things thoroughly then I get around smaller number of items, though. I generally don't do mass editing myself, but I think it's still helpful to inform others about a systematic error or a deficiency, should I notice it.
To be honest, this "broad sense" is confusing, too. I see you added it to property label at some point (Special:Diff/44062468), but it isn't evident why you did so and there's no talk page comment either. (By the way, earlier I expressed similar concern on label of P579.) Per property description it's still supposed to be "identifier for a mineral per the International Mineralogical Association", not identifier for a proposal, a publication or alike. IMA defines and provides their IMA numbers in their mineral master lists, and it's unclear why we would use IMA numbers contradictingly. As already pointed out, rruff.info uses IMA numbers in the same sense, not as short notation for a publication, but in relation to certain redefined minerals (you can download the entire list of minerals along with IMA numbers to check this out). Neither does mindat.org mention "IMA2007 s.p." in relation to barytocalcite[2].
Anyway, thanks for removing these dubious qualifiers now. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:15F6:D4DF:7F4C:D25D 19:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The IMA number is always a proposal. IMA/CNMNC approves as a new mineral n publishes it or accepts its redefinition n publishes it. I can edit 250,000 times in seven years, not more. Chris.urs-o (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

To be more precise, number is an identifier for something, either a mineral, a proposal, a publication, or something else. As mineral and proposal are conceptually different, then it should be made clear, what exactly is the number identifier for. For examples like dienerite you referred to a source explicitly showing that "19-E" is a number for a proposal, while mineral, after being redefined and listed, gets another number (IMA number as defined in master lists). I'm goint to correct IMA number value for dienerite (Q3707273) accordingly. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:807D:2C3B:B99A:15FC 14:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

'IMA Number, broad sense' is a application number in sequence to the IMA/CNMNC for approval of a new mineral or for acceptance of a redefinition. The format is being checked by format as a regular expression (P1793). --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems that currently format constraint for P484 is indeed set to allow values like "IMA 2019-E", but as explained above, it's unclear why is that if it's more straightforward and more consistent to use different numbers that are actually described in source as "IMA numbers" identifying a mineral. Value "IMA 2019-E" by the way doesn't even do as a googling aid as actually it's "IMA 19-E" in newsletter. Which is why I failed to find it earlier. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:9CC7:3783:54A0:550C 10:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding deprecated rank (diff): please note that it's meant for values that are considered erroneous, while former IMA status was mineral's valid status at some point. In such case proper use of ranks is to mark current value as preferred one, instead of marking previous values deprecated (see Help:Ranking). Also I don't quite understand why you removed end/start time qualifiers that in my opinion most clearly show what is the differece between multiple values. Above I didn't suggest that all start/end time qualifiers are problematic, but only those indicating that mineral became grandfathered after 1959. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:B5ED:CE03:DE57:EE3 06:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not have time for you. My editing capacity is limited. I wanted to have only one valid IMA status, the property has constrains. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, you had time to overturn my correction. So here I am to explain my edit. As for constraints, your edit didn't resolve any constraint violations as IMA status and/or rank (P579) doesn't have single-value constraint set. Probably single-best-value constraint (Q52060874) could be set on this property, though. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:2147:601A:ED50:99C6 10:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok I revert that at home. Remember Ernie Nickel n Ernst Burke got the status on most grandfathered n questionable minerals. The IMA administrative entry numbers r sometimes on the specific papers too. Mindat.org n rruff.info have other info chanels available. Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

"IMA2019 s.p." that you now removed (diff) is the latest correct IMA number per The IMA List of Minerals (May 2021) (Q106991437). If this removal now is due to single-value constraint on IMA Number, broad sense (P484) then the constraint should be fixed instead. One way is to switch single-value constraint to single-best-value constraint (Q52060874). 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:7895:7846:E1D4:649 17:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

IMA2019 special procedure is actually accepted redefinition IMA19-A. One option is only approved mineral IMA number n single value constraint. Or no constraint n mineral approval number n accepted redefinition numbers. I prefer IMA number identifier w single value constraint. The redefinitions are listed on IMA status. Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

If only one value is kept, then it should probably be the latest on that applies to current definition, i.e. "IMA2019 s.p.". Though, I don't see a good reason to remove previous value, Wikidata generally isn't limited to latest data and Wikidata can handle multiple values.
As for listing other values on IMA status, it isn't quite clear why these qualifiers are there, as already pointed out above. IMA numbers necessarily don't differentiate statuses, sometimes status doesn't change with new IMA number and not all minerals have IMA number. That's why IMA number as standalone statement seems more clear to me.
Well, "IMA 19-A" is again the identifier for a proposal, while explicit IMA number for mineral in sources is different. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:7895:7846:E1D4:649 18:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Check this draft: Wikidata:Mineralogy task force/"New" minerals. These are all application proposals. Ones, in the form of 'IMANN-(A-Z)' are accepted redefinition proposals. The others, in the form of 'IMANNNN-NNN' are approved new mineral proposals. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I see for some minerals you are removing start time qualifiers from grandfathered status, e.g. here, which makes sense. While for other minerals you are now readding it, e.g. here. What is the difference? The source is the same for both and I still don't see any explicit indication of status change in it for any grandfathered mineral. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:E996:BAEC:6E2D:754D 14:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

"Also I don't quite understand why you removed end/start time qualifiers that in my opinion most clearly show what is the difference between multiple values." I am not changing them, I am just keeping them. No editing capacity available. IMA2007 special procedure is the first publication of the grandfathered mineral. Stop it! You do not register, you are not an administrator, you are not my boss, I have to assume that you are blocked and you are a troll. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

As already explained above, start time qualifier makes sense for approved/redefined status if it's clear that status actually was different before given time (e.g. here). I only find start time 2007 problematic for grandfathered status. My last comment was about grandfathered status and I gave examples given in which you weren't just keeping qualifiers, but you kind of inconsitently removed this qualifier for some minerals and (re)added it for others.
As said above, I realize that master lists in this form, along with explicit grandfathered statuses for each mineral, weren't published before 2007. The issue however is that given source (master list of 2007) does not indicate that grandfathered minerals weren't/should be considered grandfathered before 2007. The year of grandfathering after all was 1959, not 2007.
It is as unnecessary as above to become personal and wonder about who's the boss and whatnot. I'm only interested in making the mineral data accurate and more usable. I'm not saying that you personally have to fix everything, I just try to outline what dissonances in current data we all could clear eventually. I'm not demanding anything in fact, that's why I discuss and explain myself. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:B4FB:33B4:BFAE:4C11 06:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Science: if it is not published, it did not happen. IMA/CNMNC Master list (2007) was the first published IMA/CNMNC list. Ernie Nickel retired early, otherwise there would be no list. March 2007 was the publication date. Seven years and it did not disturb anybody. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The merging of the ARD list with the GQN list was decision IMA06-C. Prior to that, there was only an internal ARD list. Citation, maybe a clone, original unknown: "The System of Mineralogy of James Dwight Dana and Edward Salisbury Dana" (8 ed.) was the reference of CNMNC/CNMMN's (IMA) initial work. At the Kobe 2006 general meeting, the IMA council endorsed the creation of an Internet site on minerals ('rruff.info/ima'). So a Master List was needed and the older minerals were reviewed in a document of 130 pages. The final GQN List was published (grandfathered, questionable and published without approval) after a final review of Burke E A J and Nickel E H (accepted decision: 'IMA06-C'). Not only the well established minerals before 1959 was grandfathered (G), but the minerals that could not be discredited as well. The merging of the 'ARD List' (approved, revalidated and discredited) with the 'GQN List' resulted in the first 'IMA/CNMNC List of Mineral Names'. Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

This is more or less what it says in A Mass Discreditation of GQN Minerals (Q17454227). I think I didn't claim anything contradicting it above, though. The existance of GQN list appears to be yet another indicator that certain minerals were considered grandfathered before 2007.
I'm not sure which minerals exactly you refer to by grandfathering minerals that weren't well established before 1959 and could not have been discredited. The mass discredition in 2006 concerned GQN minerals, i.e. also questionalabe minerals and those published without approval. Also, as already pointed out above, even if in some case there is reason to think that some grandfathered mineral really was overlooked around the time of the birth of IMA, then 2007 master list still doesn't say that any grandfathered mineral had different IMA status until 2007 or that IMA didn't consider it a valid species until 2007. I'm all in for claiming only what it explicitly says in published sources. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:E8BC:56CB:3A11:BC3C 08:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
International Mineralogical Association (1962): Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names (Q16271442) (IMA1962 s.p.), International Mineralogical Association (1967): Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names (Q17280946) (IMA1967 s.p.), International Mineralogical Association (1968): Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names (Q17280953) (IMA1968 s.p.), International Mineralogical Association (1971): Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names (Q17280961) (IMA1971 s.p.), International Mineralogical Association (1980): Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names (Q17280966) (IMA1980 s.p.), International Mineralogical Association (1982): Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names (Q17279648) (IMA1982 s.p.)
Procedures involving the IMA Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names and guidelines on mineral nomenclature (1987) (Q17306889) (IMA1887 s.p.), Tidying up mineral names: an IMA-CNMNC scheme for suffixes, hyphens and diacritical marks (Q17294073) (IMA2007 s.p.), {The naming of mineral species approved by the Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names of the International Mineralogical Association: A brief history (Q17398282) (Jeffrey de Fourestier), A Mass Discreditation of GQN Minerals (Q17454227) (mass GQN discreditation). --Chris.urs-o (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
What exactly should I look for in these papers? 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:2494:BD8A:2C52:DC63 08:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Almost all grandfathered minerals. Regardless of the "before 1959" sentence. If it is not published, than it does not exist, final point. Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't read your mind. What exactly you claim? Particular grandfathered mineral (which one?) had different status per some of these sources, or what?
Likely you are mininterpreating something in these sources. Note that none of these IMA numbers for special procedures are actually used for grandfathered minerals in IMA master list nor rruff.info.
Common theme to some of these older papers also is that they focus on names. Note that if this also includes acceptance of names of some grandfathered species, then acceptance of a name variant is not necessarily dependent on status of a species denoted by that name.
Or do you mean that (almost) none of grandfathered species (regardless of their former/current status) are mentioned in these papers and other known IMA-related materials before 2007? If so, then do you seriously suggest that as far as IMA was concerned, grandfathered minerals such as diamond or graphite didn't exist (weren't known to be minerals) before 2007? Or IMA was aware of these minerals and considered them statusless? As far as I can see such claims/interpretations are not backed by any sources.
I think we can leave it open since when exactly grandfathered status should be applied to particular mineral, as far as no published source exists that explicitly says that status was first applied in 1959 or 2007. Though 1959 would be likely adequate per status definition given in perfaces of IMA master lists. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:691D:A4CE:5F4F:B54D 09:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Stop editing the mineral status, immediatly. Enough, is enough. "Before 1959", is a letter of intent. Most minerals were grandfathered with the publication on March 2007. Almost nothing was decided before. Auxiliary status is a tool, I allowed to have a tool. I am using 'described by source', so stop trolling, bullying, your vandalism. Have respect to voluntary work, karma comes always back. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Edits like Special:Diff/1515416613 are definitely wrong. Given source does not say anything about grandfathered status, it cannot as it was published many years earlier than IMA statuses were first applied and so it cannot be a source for given status. I already made some corrections earlier with an explanation, e.g. Special:Diff/1514970857. So now I'm letting you know about these errors here in case you have disabled notifications. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:B9BD:6D8B:1666:707A 07:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

You are wrong. This is a type description. The type description is a part of the status. The status without description/redefinition is worthless. You are impossible. Reverting voluntary work, a pain in the neck. Burdenning the editing work. Chris.urs-o Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Please note that you did not provide this link to old publication as "part of the status", but as a *reference* for given status. Since grandfathered status cannot be verified using this publication in any way then you are simply misusing references.
Neither is it evident what you mean by "part of the status". As far as I can see, both IMA status and given publication of first reference are separate parts of mineral's description.
I see that link to given publication is valuable in given item, but the link needs to be placed properly in data structure. You already added the same link using standalone described by source (P1343) statement. I don't understand why you want to duplicate as part of a reference for pretty much random statement.
Well, I try to do my volutary work so that it could be useful to other people as well, so that statements, references etc. that I add or correct would hopefully make sense. If this makes me "impossible", then so be it. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:E5E2:BB4F:9A10:E65 11:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Mineral symbolsEdit

Hallo Chris.urs-o, vermutlich hast Du meine Pings auf der deutschsprachigen Mineralportal-Diskussion gar nicht mitbekommen, daher wollte ich Dich hier noch einmal darauf aufmerksam machen: de:Wikipedia Diskussion:WikiProjekt Minerale#Mineralsymbole
Ich würde mich freuen, wenn melden würdest und idealerweise helfen könntest, dieses neue Property zu erstellen, zumal Du Dich hier in Wikidata thematisch und technisch viel besser auskennen dürftest. Liebe Grüße -- Ra'ike (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Q76847654Edit

Hallo Chris.urs-o, kann man einen Datensatz auch verschieben? Der o.g. ist nur die IMA-Nr., aber das Mineral heißt Orishchinit (engl. Orishchinite), siehe IMA-Liste 2021-11. Viele Grüße -- Ra'ike (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hoi Ra'ike. Die Item-Nummerierung (Q76847654) bleibt für ewig in einer Datenbank (Anker). Items können fusioniert werden (Weiterleitung/ merge). Alles Andere kann editiert werden. Zum Beispiel, Namen u Beschreibung (label n description). Gruss Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Chris.urs-o, vielen Dank für Info und Hilfe! :-) Das Gleiche habe ich dann auch für Q19861215 gemacht. Qingheiit-(Fe2+) wurde umbenannt in Ferroqingheiit. Viele Grüße -- Ra'ike (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)