Talk:Q15278433

Pyrochlore group needs a review

Last status is Clarification of status of species in the pyrochlore supergroup (2013)

Mindat is not so good. Reference is The New IMA List of Minerals, rruff.info and mineralienatlas.

Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

As for last status, do you suggest that 2013 pending (or questionable) status is for Oxyyttropyrochlore-(Y) (Q15278433), not for Oxyyttropyrochlore-(Y) (Q100276889), or these are the same and MinDat gets if wrong? 2013 report[1] mentions both and attributes different statuses to these names/species. (Though, the wording of the latter report is disturbingly ambiguous, it writes about "names" (including synonyms) and "species" kind of interchangeably.) Mineralienatlas also has separate entries. Newer IMA lists nor RRUFF seem to have neither. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:5DA9:CD6F:2AEE:1770 09:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Mindat administrators are not so reliable. They change the status of questionable minerals. [rruff.info] has the mineral yttropyrochlore-(Y) but not oxyyttropyrochlore-(Y). You have to uncheck the 'IMA approved minerals only' box.

Yttropyrochlore-(Y), history

Kalita A P (1957) Composition of obruchevite, a hydrated uranium-yttrium variety of pyrochlore, Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 117, 117-120

Originally named obruchevite, but name changed to yttropyrochlore to preserve pyrochlore systematics: Hogarth D D (1977) Classification and nomenclature of the pyrochlore group, American Mineralogist 62, 403-410

Name changed from yttropyrochlore: Nickel E H, Mandarino J A (1987) Procedures involving the IMA Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names and guidelines on mineral nomenclature, American Mineralogist 72, 1031-1042

The name no longer represents a valid species: Atencio D, Andrade M B, Christy A G, Gieré R, Kartashov P M (2010) The pyrochlore supergroup of minerals: nomenclature, The Canadian Mineralogist 48, 673-698

My addition, the name is a questionable species: Clarification of status of species in the pyrochlore supergroup (2013)

My addition, redundant name: The mineral name is discredited, The IMA List of Minerals (September 2020)

Reference is the newest IMA list. Life gets too complicated otherwise. CNMNC publishes the last status, it has to know, it is better informed (amphiboles, pyrochlores etc.). Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I understand that original source is generally better than MinDat. But I still don't quite understand what's the problem with MinDat data in relation this particular mineral. I now found yttropyrochlore-(Y) in rruff.info/ima (thanks for the hint), but this database also tags this mineral with discredited status and also with pyrochlore subgroup. Neither does rruff tie yttropyrochlore-(Y) with the report by Atencio, Christy (2013). Which source then exactly contradicts the notion that questionable status (or "possible new species", to be accurate) in the latter source (2013) is for Oxyyttropyrochlore-(Y) (Q100276889)? The newest IMA list is The IMA List of Minerals (September 2020) (Q98828360), right? So what exactly is it the reference for? I still find neither name in it. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:54BF:FB3B:CBB4:45C9 20:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Though, IMA statuses are rather confusing indeed, especially what's presented as "IMA statuses" on Wikidata. I'll try to write a more thorough comment on this matter later. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:54BF:FB3B:CBB4:45C9 20:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems that 'Clarification of status of species in the pyrochlore supergroup (2013)' tells that yttropyrochlore-(Y) is questionable. But the last status is 'The IMA List of Minerals (September 2020)'. Wikidata: the last status should be the newest IMA list of minerals, the other status should be deprecated. Updating it needs a lot of editing time. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

"The newest IMA list is The IMA List of Minerals (September 2020) (Q98828360), right?" This is the list of all valid minerals (approved, grandfathered and questionable). If it is not here then it is an obsolete name. Remember, the IMA List of Minerals is list of references, a summary. Every claim needs a publication (CNMNC Newsletter, proceedings abstracts/ "priority", type description, renaming, redefinition, crystal structure, structural group, discreditation). --Chris.urs-o (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Correction, The IMA List of Minerals: every valid mineral name has a type material. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware of IMA newsletters, reports etc. Ealier I also replaced your former MinDat reference with one of these. I just got confused by your "reference is the newest IMA list". So it seems by "IMA list" you refer to any lists, including lists in newslatters, reports etc. Alright.

Report by Atencio, Christy (2013), that you refer to, says that yttropyrochlore-(Y) is discredited (as of 2012, page 15) and oxyyttropyrochlore-(Y) is of "possible new species" status (as of 2012, page 17). I ask again, which source and where exactly contradicts which current data on Wikidata? Or is it so that I just got it all wrong, there is no current known issue, and you just want to review things later on? 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:E953:3DF5:A7BC:3A09 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Not all is published, specially regarding amphiboles and pyrochlores. CNMNC knows always better. The reference for 'instance of' 'mineral species' is any 'IMA List of Minerals'. The newest IMA List of Minerals lists the valid mineral names with type material (earth sciences). This is the master reference, the foundation stone. The data is built around this. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Re: "Nomenclature of the amphibole supergroup (2012)" (Q15904902) and "Clarification of status of species in the pyrochlore supergroup (2013)" (Q17315128). Up to date is the last IMA List of Minerals. A possible mineral species is only a hypothetical mineral without type material. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)