Talk:Mineral#Ecological v. geological

{{diff2|1089555003|1089549681|May 24, 2022, 13:24}} - «partial rv, the edit introduced outright errors or MoS issues»

:{{re|Maxim}} What WP:MoS? I propose we partially keep previous edits. Especially {{t|see also}} link to abundance and formulas that correctly reflect on material: {{t|chem}}s links you have removed, which has clearly decreased this article quality. Minerals and their chemical composition is important. I suggest we revert and fix minor issues like unnecessary {{code|}} and mistypos. Best.

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

:The {{tl|see also}} link was between paragraphs; usually that template is used at the top of a section. I've placed the link on the top now. The paragraphs at the end are awkward and may need more editing. Where I stripped formulas in particular, was a discussion that made comparisons to silica tetrahedra and silicate minerals, before the substantial explanation of the concept in the following section. Because this article is likely to be read by someone with less knowledge in both mineralogy and chemistry, I think it would make sense to (1) lead with the common names of compounds as opposed to their formulas and (2) use chemical formulas sparingly, that is, not in an overwhelming way.{{pb}}

:I worked from a full revert to fix the random {{code|}} tags, a loose "1", and there was also mention of an O²⁺ species. I acknowledge that I didn't do a particularly good job of preserving your edits, but I don't have strong objections to reinstating them with the previous concerns in mind. Maxim_(talk) 14:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

::{{tqi|…someone with less knowledge in both mineralogy and chemistry}} Agreed, but the idea is to keep it for those who understands them to visually and quickly differentiate compounds. Or, in case they would search for it by an element name. I find it important to specify molar anions as in minerals they are chemically bondeded. This may not be obvious if we simply give an element name. Just to ensure for instance that oxygen allotropes like {{chem|O|2}} are not confused for {{chem|O|2-}}. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Mineral|answered=y}}

The line "In geology and mineralogy, a mineral or mineral species is, broadly speaking, a solid substance with a fairly well-defined chemical composition and a specific crystal structure that occurs naturally in pure form" should be changed to "In geology and mineralogy, a mineral or mineral species is, broadly speaking, a solid, inorganic(USGS) substance with a fairly well-defined chemical composition and a specific crystal structure that occurs naturally in pure form" to include all of the major defining features of a mineral as given by the IMA and USGS Quartzite14 (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done for now}}: I'm afraid just referencing "USGS" doesn't quite cut it for sourcing your change (which seems reasonable, by the way). Can you link to any reliable source that shows "inorganic" included as one of those major defining features? DrOrinScrivello (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}