Talk:Mineral
|
|
could use some help on getting dietary minerals 'fleshed out'
Quote: Trying to list all the minerals here would probably be counter-productive; maybe they can be linked from their chemical compositions.
End quote
could some shed some light on this. Ktsquare
Dana system (from James Dwight Dana, an american mineralogist). The basis of the system is the division of minerals into classes according to similarities in chemical composition. It is a system of classification coming from the Berzelius classification.
The first class, natives elements, includes minerals found as individual elements uncombined with other elements. As minerals, they are called by the name of the element. These are gold, copper, mercury...or sometimes have specific names (diamond, graphite)
The second class of simple compounds, sulfides, are metals combined with sulfure, arsenic, antimony, bismuth, tellurium, selenium. Most have a metallic luster
The third class, sulfosalts, are composed of the same elements, but with more complexe combinations
Fourth class are oxides. Rather simple compounds with oxygen (ex corindon)
Fifth class are hydroxide, oxides with water.
Then halides, are metals plus one or more of the halogen elements, chlorine, fluorine, bromine, iodine.
Other classes are carbonates, phosphates, nitrates, borates, arsenates, and sulfates
And finally silicates (the larger and most diverse class), in which silicon and oxygen form a structural unit than can bond to other elements.
Does it make light Ktsquare ???
- Good to know the Dana system. The writer of the quote means different minerals may only result from different crystal structures even with the same chemical composition. So one chemical composition could have thousands of minerals because of different structures.
No, that's not what he meant :-) There is no only in the quote. Minerals may be different due to different compositions, or for the same composition, due to different structural arrangements. For one composition, a maximum of 14 different structure are known (see Crystal structure). So for one identical composition, a maximum of 14 minerals can potentially be observed.
- But given the system, a list of all the materials will be beneficial in Wikipedia to clssify all the minerals articles. Wikipedia has exactly 402 articles (as of this morning) containing the word "mineral". Actual number of mineral-related articles may be even higher. Won't that be a mess without a list considering the ever growing number of articles?
I disagree. I don't know exactly, but imho there are about 4000 different mineral species described. I don't think a list of 4000 minerals would be very useful. And they will be even less useful if you classify them alphabetically. If someone look for a very specific mineral, dunno, sugilite, he will type the name of the mineral in the search box; and either he will find the comprehensive specific article on sugilite, or he will find it among similar minerals in terms of family (composition / structure).
I don't see a list of 4000 minerals (even with divisions of A, B, C...) as very useful. Similarly, there are about 4000 mammals known; wikipedia is classifying them along most widely accepted classification rules, based on evolution. Is there somewhere a list of the 4000 mammals on wikipedia ? This list might exist one day, but what has been considered the most useful was to describe classification, and fit there well-known species, and make specific articles on these latter. Why should not it be just the same for minerals ?
- Is this system the commonly used and how they implement it on classifying minerals? Or mineralogists have several systems depending on different criteria, just as the Acid-base reaction theories. User:kt2
This is the system the most widely used in western countries. I can't say for sure this is the case for eastern countries, but, chinese mineralogists seem to be following it. There is another system, extremely similar, used by Germans (unfortunately, the name of the guy is escaping me). It is similar to the Dana system in this that the classification is done first on the composition, then second on the structure (and usually goes from the simpler structures, to the most complicated ones). The only major difference is that Germans are classifying quartz and derivates among oxides, while english (and french ;-)) are classifying them among silicates (this would be important to note in both systems). No big deal. In any cases, for english-speaking people, this is definitly the way to go.
Both systems could coexist maybe. A huge listing, and the scholar classification system. Might also consider making a short list of "most famous minerals" or something equivalent.
- these should be (the "rock-forming" minerals): Quartz, Feldspar (Orthoclase, Sanidin, Microcline, Albite, Plagioclase), Pyroxenes, Amphiboles, Olivine, Biotite, Muscovite, Calcite, Dolomite, Garnet, Magnetite and possibly some five more.--chd
How to implement it ?
Best way would be to pick up a book of mineralogy.
For example, you could do something like (I put french name for the example)
- Elements
- diamond
- soufre...
- Sulfures
- Chalcopyrite
- pyrite
- sphalerite...
- Halogenures
- Fluorite
- Oxydes et hydroxydes
- hematite
- cuprite...
- Sulfate, chromates, molybdates, wolframates
- crocoïte...
- Silicates
- albite
- kunzite...
With a first article listing the groups (elements, silicates...), then a specific page for each group, explaining its composition specificities, then listing minerals belonging to the group.
Just ideas
In germany minerals are classified after H. Strunz (Strunz Hugo, Nickel Ernest H., Strunz Mineralogical Tables, 9th ed, Schweizerbart'sche, 2001): this classification is based on the anions. Quartz is counted among the oxides. There are nine different classes:
- elements
- sulfides
- halogenides
- oxides and hydroxides
- nitrates, karbonates and borates
- sulfates, chromates, molybdates and wolframites
- phosphates, arsenates and vanadates
- silicates
- neso-islandsilicates
- soro-groupsilicates
- cyclo-ringsilicates
- ino-chainsilicates
- phyllo-leafsilicates
- tecto-framesilicates
- organic minerals
I am not sure about the correct translations! --chd 06:10 Dec 30, 2002 (UTC)
sulfide vs sulphide etc -- OK discuss!
Quoting from: American and British English differences
"sulphur sulfur The American spelling is the international standard in the sciences, although many British scientists use the British spelling."
User:Darrien wins; User:SimonP loses.
Note: I'm not reverting in haste - request User:SimonP stop this nonsense and revert to the accepted standard; sulfide, sulfate and sulfur. Mineral is a science topic.
Vsmith 00:47, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Right. As a speaker of Canadian English and a scientist, I use the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry IUPAC recommended spelling in scientific communication even though it will always look wrong to me, and still use the "ph" spelling for any literary non-scientific context. IUPAC has spoken. Fawcett5 13:41, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
MoS violation
(note: copying the following from my talk page, it belongs here for other interested parties to read. See also SimonP's talk page this topic.) -Vsmith 23:03, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
American spelling is the international standard according to whom? English, unlike other languages, has no central authority on proper usage. There are several organizations, such as IUPAC, the OED, and others that attempt to set rules but there is no reason we must follow them. Even many scientific periodicals and journals do not follow the convention you mention, much less encyclopedias. Most UK scientific journals still seem to use British spelling, as any database search will show. - SimonP 17:39, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
- According to IUPAC and as my quote indicated according to Wikipedia policy. Standards are important for consistency and clarity. In science articles the standards should be used with notes for common names and spellings where needed. I'm not used to the standard for aluminium, and often forget in common usage, but I intend to use the standards and will support Darrien to standardize usage in Wikipedia science articles.
Vsmith 22:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Please do not provoke disputes by changing original contributor's spelling. A Google search for "sulphur site:.gov" (which is restricting itself to sites belonging to the United States Government) gives 40,000 hits. Both spellings are perfectly acceptable. What the IUPAC say has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Mintguy (T) 16:49, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Your Google search is irrelevant. US Govt. is noted for inconsistency - Wiki can do better and follow standard usage and be consistent.-Vsmith
Check the history. Original article in 2002 didn't have sulfide or sulphide. First use of either was by Anthere on 18 Dec 02, when he introduced sulfide. Major changes 04 Mar 03 by Cferrero intrduced sulfate. The first use of sulphur was by an anon user 16 Apr 04. Darrien changed this to sulfur for consistency on 11 Jul 04. Then SimonP arbitrarily changed all f's to ph's on 25 Sep 04. This started this round of silliness. Original was sulfide. Stop vandalizing with sulph- nonsense. -Vsmith 00:52, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Please don't accuse me of vandalising over spelling. OK I apologise. I read this situation wrong. The reason being that 9/10 times in these sorts of disputes, the cause of the trouble is someone changing BE spelling to AE spellings. See here (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Guerilla_UK_spelling_campaign) and [here (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gorilla_US_spelling_campaign) for a humorous take on this. BTW Anthere is a she not a he. Mintguy (T) 07:42, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)