Wikidata talk:WikiProject Mineralogy/Properties/Archive/2013/09

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Amphibole supergroup

I reviewed the amphibole supergroup

See here: Wikidata:Mineralogy task force/Tag tree#Part five (amphiboles, detail)

I asked Marco Pasero (Univ. of Pisa) for assistance. He answered that the name potassic-ferro-ferri-taramite will be published on the next IMA mineral master list ('IMA 1964-003' mboziite, Rn to ferri-taramite 'IMA 1978 s.p.', Rn to ferritaramite 'IMA 1997 s.p.', Rn Rd 'IMA 2012 s.p.', syn. magnesio-ferritaramite, ferro-ferri-taramite). --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Great work! Pasero told me that next IMA master list will be published soon. --Sbisolo (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

We are now at 'Updated list of IMA-approved minerals (August 2013)'. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

IMA Number (II)

We have different groupings of minerals from different sources.

We have different chemical formulas from different sources.

I think that 'IMA Number (broad sense)' should be renamed 'IMA Approval Number (broad sense)'. And renamed mineral (Rn) (Q13406860) and redefined mineral (Rd) (Q13406872) should not be part of IMA status (Q13406837). Because a grandfathered mineral shouldn't have an 'IMA Approval Number (broad sense)', for example.

We could create a new property: 'mineral history (renamings or redefinitions or discreditations with revalidations)'.

This property would deal with these cases:

Topaz, it is presumed that it was renamed from chrysolite (Q5114846), de Boodt (1636, or earlier)

• Source: de Boodt, Anselmus; Tollius, Adrianus (1647). Gemmarum et Lapidum Historia (3 ed.). Maire. p. 576.

Schapbachite

• First publication: Kenngott A (1853)
• IMA 1982 s.p.: discreditation, Hey M H (1982)
• Revalidation and redefinition: Walenta K, Bernhardt H J, Theye T (2004)

Potassic-ferro-ferri-taramite

• Approval: IMA 1964-003
• IMA 1978 s.p.: renaming from mboziite
• IMA 2012 s.p.: redefinition and renaming from ferritaramite
• IMA 2013 s.p. (erratum): redefinition and renaming from ferro-ferri-taramite

Chlorapatite

• IMA 2008 s.p.: renaming from chlorapatite
• IMA 2010 s.p.: renaming from apatite-(CaCl)

Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

'IMA Approval Number (broad sense)' would have single values and mostly unique values.

'Chlorapatite history (renamings or redefinitions or discreditations with revalidations)' would have, for example:

• Renaming: IMA 2008 s.p.
• Renaming: IMA 2010 s.p.

Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I tried out using qualifiers with chlorapatite (Q3680919). The infobox would only use the information that doesn't have a end time (P582) set, but the history of renaming would be stored. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I added some more qualifiers to chlorapatite (Q3680919). Reconstructing the whole IMA-status history is probably difficult. The IMA itself does not really provide a helpful database of past IMA-numbers. I also made "grandfathering" into a event that coincides with the foundation of the IMA. The mineral was surely approved before that by other institutions, which could be added to the approved by (P790) property. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that the other institutions were the books on en:Timeline of the discovery and classification of minerals. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

@Tobias1984 (chlorapatite): a mineral can't be grandfathered and approved at the same time, as grandfathering was a special form of approval at the beginning of the IMA. Loranskite-(Y) (1899) was in the 'list B' (valid names), it got in the 'list A' (valid minerals) through an administrative mistake, and 'list A' got grandfathered. But loranskite-(Y) type material is probably a mixture of euxenite and zircon (mindat.org forum, unpublished). It was Soviet Union - Cold War time, and things didn't go smothly. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 02:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

IMA's administrative decisions (IMA Approval Number (broad sense)) cite always a published reference. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The IMA stuff is just very complicated and it will take a lot of effort to reconstruct all of those renamings, redefinitions, etc... To make matters worse, is that the IMA doesn't offer an online database that lists that history for each mineral. Maybe we should wait until we have all the infobox information in good shape and then revisit the IMA codes and statuses. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You are probably right. But rruff.info/IMA seems to be an insider, at least in part. Quote: "At the Kobe 2006 general meeting of the IMA, the council endorsed the development of an interactive web-site that presented the "official" IMA list of minerals". --Chris.urs-o (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

IMA Outreach Committee: mineral list group; Bob Downs, chairman; Frederic Hatert; Marco Ciriotti; Pat Mooney. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Would be great if they would be willing to collaborate and provide us with machine readable data. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I see a possible problem: grandfathered minerals don't have by definition an IMA number. A grandfathered mineral can be afterwards renamed, redefined (or discredited...) with a special procedure. Maybe we could add "grandfathered" as IMA Number, broad sense (P484) then IMA status and/or rank (P579) as "grandfathered" and as start time (P580) year 1959 in qualifiers. In this way we can have the whole history in one place. RRUFF is doing a great work to add new minerals, I'm not sure they have a DB with the whole history of all minerals, expecially fo the oldest species. --Sbisolo (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, is better to have history in IMA status using qualifiers as suggested by Tobias1984 (I did it on chlorapatite (Q3680919)). I think in this way is cleaner than using IMA number because generally "status" is something that can change. --Sbisolo (talk) 07:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If u like this idea, then we could try to do it this way. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Properties

What do you think about "Erste Erwähnung" (first published mention) and "Erstbeschreibung" (first published description, after reference on IMA Master List)?

Chrysocolla. First published mention: Theophrastus, 315 BC

• Source: Theophrastus (1956, 315 BC). Theophrastus On Stones (De lapidibus): Introduction, Greek text, English translation, and Commentary. Translated by John F. Richards, Earle Radcliffe Caley. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University. p. 238.

Aluminite. First published mention: Lerche, 1730

• Source: J.J. Lerche (1730): Oryctographia Hallensis sive fossilium et mineralium in agro Halensi descriptio.- Inaugural-Dissertation, Halle (Erstbeschreibung als "Lac lunae, terra lenis et friabilis candidissima")

Beryl. First published mention: end of Bronze Age

• Source: Old Testament. Ex 28:17-20

Dolomite. First published description/ mention: de Saussure, 1792

• Source: Saussure H B (1792) Analyse de la dolomie, Observations sur la Physique, sur l’Histoire Naturelle et sur les Arts 40, 161-173

Lime. First published description/ mention: Scacchi, 1883

• Source: Scacchi (12, 1883) (as "Calce")

--Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

--Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good piece of information we should have. --Tobias1984 (talk) 06:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Constraint violations IMA number

IMA number is currently used about 2700 times. I added more constraint to it, so we can find what minerals are still missing. For example 400 items are missing the IMA status Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P484#.22Item_IMA_status_.28P579.29.22_violations. I also added a few more which should be ready in a day or two. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Great. It takes time to update all, but the grandfathered minerals are more notable most of the time ;)

Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P484 (331 kiloBytes, wow): It is difficult to open a file or a file section with more than 120 kiloBytes on Windows XP :[ --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

My 5 year old laptop is also struggling. I pressed Strg+A and then copy pasted it into a txt file. Now I can go trough the list and delete those items I looked at. It is always nice to see that old technology has its advantages :) --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I made a similar thing with Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P579. Removed Strunz 8 ed, Dana 8 ed and Nickel-Strunz 10 ed. We include them again after another year, now we need an user friendly page. I hope that you agree with me ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Grandfathered minerals are 1,188, I'm working on the updated list that will be added soon (using bot). --Sbisolo (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that 'IMA2009-01 Update.pdf' mineral list has more grandfathered minerals. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Generally, grandfathered minerals number decreases after redefinitions, renaming, discreditations. I'm using February 2013 update (I have also the August 2013 update but is not publicly available). --Sbisolo (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It is available: 'updated list of IMA-approved minerals (August 2013)'. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Pyrochlore supergroup

IMA did it again :[

Burke E A J (2008) renamed many minerals.

• But the renamings of hydroxylapatite, fluorapatite, fluorellestadite and chlorapatite got reverted by: Pasero M, Kampf A R, Ferraris C, Pekov I V, Rakovan J R, White T J (2010). "Nomenclature of the apatite supergroup minerals". European Journal of Mineralogy 22: 163–179.

And the pyrochlore supergroup got renamed by: Atencio, D., Andrade, M.B., Christy, A.G., Gieré, R., Kartashov, P.M. (2010). "Nomenclature of the pyrochlore supergroup of minerals". Canadian Mineralogist 48: 673–698.

• But now the renamings of bindheimite, bismutostibiconite, jixianite, monimolite, partzite, stetefeldtite, stibiconite got reverted by 'IMA 2013 s.p.'

--Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

IMA 2013 s.p. reference is: Christy A G, Atencio D (2013) Clarification of status of species in the pyrochlore supergroup. Mineralogical Magazine 77, 13-20 --Sbisolo (talk) 09:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thx: received 29 October 2012; accepted 8 November 2012; published February 2013 [1] --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)