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 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)


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)


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. --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

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)


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 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,, and --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)


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 ( 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)

  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. 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 .
    ?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 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


Right now there is a circular information:


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). 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)


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 | 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:, 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, 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: 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 (talkcontribslogs) 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)

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

You can see my explanation here.

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