Category talk:en:Mineralogy

RFC discussion: February 2013–April 2020
Many of the terms in this category are minerals. They should be in Category:en:Minerals instead. All it needs is for them to be identified, and the template to be changed to. I haven't checked if the same problem arises in other languages. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is already listed at WT:TODO. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Done some, then got bored. --Pickyevent (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Done all of k- minerals, some z- ones, and the beginnings of l- minerals. At my rate of 2 letters per 7 months, this should be done by November 2021 and under 13 usernames. --Genecioso (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * done to li- minerals. --Genecioso (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I helped, coming backwards at you from z-p. - TheDaveRoss  22:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Done all obvious minerals down to M. Just N and O left to do. A hundred or so minerals. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 07:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * done-ish. There may be a few things in there still which ought to move, but not many. - TheDaveRoss  12:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Unstruck. Still a bunch left to do; I finished the last few for everything up to L, but starting in M there are a bunch left (obvious ones ending in -ite, even). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 13:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert in the field, but as far as I can tell none of the -ite ending words from M onward belong in the minerals category. - TheDaveRoss  17:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. We have oligosiderite, spherite, sycite, typolite, sagenite, shergottite and semifusinite in this cat, but there probably not minerals. --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It depends on whether one uses a narrow or wide definition of mineral. Or we could rely on the various mineral databases for category inclusion. DCDuring (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * For example: pararealgar isn't visibly crystalline, but is included in at least two of the major mineral databases, at least one of which gives a crystal structure for it. DCDuring (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The point is that they shouldn't be in en:Mineralogy. Some are obviously minerals (e.g. sagenite), some are close enough that mineralogists study them (e.g. pararealgar), and some ought to be in en:Rocks or elsewhere. (I think we probably also need Category:en:Meteorites, because there are a lot of entries that could go in there.) —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So almost all the nouns are to be in the Minerals category, but the denominal adjectives will constitute the bulk of the items in Mineralology.
 * I note that some common materials like the various forms of asbestos are not now in the category. Some call coal and lignite minerals. Do we? What about ores? Forms of gravel? What is the difference between a rock and a mineral? DCDuring (talk) 03:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, there will be a PoS split. Also, *mineralogy. As for the what a rock and a mineral are, please read rock and mineral. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have also read our [[mineral]] and [[rock]], as well as Organic mineral and Biomineralization. I think we need to stand up on our hind legs and decide which of our definitions we want to follow or what other definition or authority we want to follow. Which of the following are in: petroleum, coal, limestone, marl, chalk? What about Ores? We don't have Category:en:Ores. Are all ores rocks? Aren't ores worth at least a subcategory if they are all rocks? DCDuring (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * MWOnline has six arguably relevant, current definitions: 1 ore; 2 an inorganic substance; 4 something neither animal nor vegetable; 5a : [1] a solid homogeneous crystalline chemical element or compound that results from the inorganic processes of nature; [2] broadly : any of various naturally occurring homogeneous substances (such as stone, coal, salt, sulfur, sand, petroleum, water, or natural gas) obtained usually from the ground; [5]b : a synthetic substance having the chemical composition and crystalline form and properties of a naturally occurring mineral.
 * I could see restricting our definition to 5a [1], but that would require determining whether a given named substance had a crystal structure, possibly only visible under substantial magnification. We could put ourselves through an RfV-like process of determining whether speakers in a given language used their word for mineral applied to a given substance. With either of these options we have the further choice of whether we include ores. Or we could limit ourselves to those substances which were included in at least one, two or three mineral databases. I like the last option because it relies on prevailing practice, including grandfathering, that yields category membership that is meaningful to the group of people who most use the terms used to name the substances. DCDuring (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * This was dealt with a while ago, and I have just gone back through the category and found only a few miscategorised entries (which I fixed). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)