Talk:List of minerals recognized by the International Mineralogical Association

Geology High‑importance

	Geology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rocks and minerals High‑importance

	Earth sciences portal List of minerals recognized by the International Mineralogical Association is part of WikiProject Rocks and minerals, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use rocks and minerals resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Rocks and mineralsWikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsTemplate:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsRocks and minerals
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Important

This list is now generated automatically by an export process from mindat.org.

You should NOT add new minerals on this list (well, to be fair, you can add them, but you need to be prepared to see them vanish when we next reimport). If a mineral you add is NOT listed on mindat.org please contact me (Jolyon Ralph) to make sure it gets updated on both here and mindat.org.

To update the list yourself you can retrieve the source fragment from:

http://www.mindat.org/wikilist.php

This provides data in the format suitable for this page, and it is free to use in any project you wish.--Jolyonralph 20:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

This whole page is a little misleading, as I've stated on the page, there is no 'genuine' complete list of minerals. The IMA list from mindat.org is reasonably up to date, but you will need to update this site from that list regularly. And if you think something is missing, then let me know so I can fix it here and at mindat.org, otherwise it might get wiped on the next update.

I removed Axinite because it's NOT a valid mineral name now, Axinite is a group name consisting of Ferroaxinite and Manganaxinite.

Also, at the moment you must put the date the list was taken from mindat.org

Done Vsmith 15:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If someone can come up with a clever way to import this list into wiki automatically, I'm happy to make it work. I can set up an xml export, or an rss feed, or any such thing on mindat.org --Jolyonralph 04:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That clever way to import would be neat, I imported the list into Wordperfect in chunks & used a simple macro to wikify last Nov. but it would be great for updates. I haven't checked Mindat to see how much has changed since Nov. probably needs an update? Vsmith 15:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, here's my suggestion - I write a new page on mindat.org that exports the mineral list as wiki source code with formatting, so it can be just copied and pasted straight into this page whenever we want to update (suggest at least once a month). My only concerns are (a) are the numbers of any benefit at all? I suspect not, and bullet points may be better, and (b) the page is getting rather long, shouldn't we split it into A-Z pages? --Jolyonralph 17:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The numbers are not important, I used # originaly as a simple count - not needed.
Yes, it is quite long so a sub-division might be worth doing. I did this in my preliminary work - still there User:Vsmith/experimental, but combined them all for the page move. Vsmith 04:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The page is a bit broken at the moment - seems to have been duplicated half way down. Probably my fault. Don't spend lots of time on it, I'll fix it within the next few hours. --Jolyonralph 17:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question

Since this list is created automagically with a script, would it not be possible to also create the relevant pages for the minerals with a redirect to mindat.org, as long as there are no Wikipages with original content for the minerals? Besides, I do not really see the point of duplicating in Wikipedia what is already available in Mindat.

Moumine 07:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The list is a handy ref. here as it not only lists all minerals currently recognized, but shows by the (currently rather rare) blue links the ones w/ wiki articles. Maybe an auto-created external link following each mineral name to the mindat article for that mineral?

This gives wiki based mineralogists or those interested in minerals a reference and starting point for creating mineral articles which should reference not only Mindat, but also webmineral.com and mineral.galleries as well as text references. Vsmith 15:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Possible example:

and so on... Vsmith 17:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, your suggestion is good. Would it be feasable in an automated way?

Moumine 20:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've automated the code at http://www.mindat.org/wikilist.php to produce the output as you suggest - my only concern now is that it will make the page much bigger - which is why I haven't yet pasted the output into the page - if concensus is that it's not a problem then let me know and I'll do it, or feel free to copy and use the content right now. I've only added links for mindat and webmineral.com - I thought adding a third would be overkill. --Jolyonralph 00:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Impressive! Now the size will probably be a problem. Current file checks in at 67 kb, which is longer than reccomended but no big deal with sectioning. However the linked version is more than 5 times that (saved as plain ASCII on my HD) - those links take space. So it would seem advisable to break it into sections, maybe 7?

A-B 486 minerals
C-E 547
F-J 683
K-M 697
N-R 654
S-T 590
U-Z 343

assuming my arithmetic is right. Should work out to about 60 kb ea. Any comments or ideas here? Vsmith 02:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! --Jolyonralph 02:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have just seen the result, it is impressive!, thanks for the work and all my congratulations Moumine 23:27, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Checking - I

Report

I'm checking the entries. List of minerals U-Z (complete) and List of minerals F-J (complete) are done. I didn't want to import the Mindat.org list again as the very rare minerals aren't notable enough, in my opinion. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Handbook of Minerals - Chadwickite, the file name got BAD added on the name end. Don't know what it means, so I added "bad" as well on the link. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could swear that Veatchite-A disappeared from the RRUFF Project database between May and July 2011. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind, adding almost all valid minerals after IMA Database of Mineral Properties/ RRUFF Project, but the invalid ones of the pyrochlore group, the IMA number ones and the valid names of the IMA Era intermediate members of a solid-solution series and of the hypothetical amphiboles. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other exemptions:

Fluoro-leakeite (2009-012 not 2009-085), [7]
Menzerite-(Y) (2009-050), [8]
~~Ferrikatophorite (Leake B E 1978)~~, discontinued amphibole name at Leake B E et al. (1997), after mindat.org
~~Davidite-(Y) (Zhabin A G et al. 1963)~~, doubtful/questionable status on mindat.org. It was valid (Levinson A A 1966), at this time it wasn't known that Davidite-(La) from Vishnevye Mts has Y and REE at different sites of the crystal cell. Webmineral.com redirects it to gramaccioliite-(Y)

The discredited minerals of the pyrochlore supergroup are still on the list. The revision was 2010, just too recent. PS: many discredited ones, just got renamed and redefined.

Destinezite redirects to Diadochite. Destinezite was redefined as the crystalline counterpart of amorphous Diadochite (pre-IMA: 1837), don't know if the redirect should go on the other direction.

Attention with the polymorphs:
- S: sulphur 01.CC.05, beta-sulphur 01.??, rosickyite 01.CC.05
- HgS: cinnabar 02.CD.15a, metacinnabar 02.CB.05a, hypercinnabar 02.CD.15b
- TiO₂: rutile 04.DB.05, anatase 04.DD.05, brookite 04.DD.10, akaogiite 04.??, (TiO₂ II)^N 04.??
  - tistarite, Ti₂O₃ 04.CB.05
- Al(OH)₃, doyleite 04.FE.10, bayerite 04.FE.10, gibbsite 04.FE.10, nordstrandite 04.FE.10
- Tourmaline supergroup: luinaite-(OH) (monoclinic, distorted tourmaline) and sSchorl (trigonal), 09.CK.05
- SiO₂: β-quartz (not an IMA approved mineral), quartz 04.DA.05, coesite 04.DA.35, cristobalite 04.DA.15, lechatelierite^N (amorphous) 04.DA.30, mogánite 04.DA.20, seifertite 04.DA.50, stishovite 04.DA.40, tridymite 04.DA.10
- Fe²⁺Ta₂O₆: tapiolite-(Fe) 04.DB.10 (tetragonal), tantalite-(Fe) 04.DB.35 (orthorhombic)
- Mn²⁺Ta₂O₆: tapiolite-(Mn) 04.DB.10 (tetragonal), tantalite-(Mn) 04.DB.35 (orthorhombic)

Chemical formulas:

Questionable redirects:
- Overite to segelerite (User:Ping 2006)
- Juonniite to segelerite (User:Ping 2006)
- Ferro-anthophyllite to anthophyllite (User:Ping 2006)
- Zhonghuacerite-(Ce) to kukharenkoite-(Ce) (User:Ping 2006)
- Goosecreekite to silicate minerals (User:NJA 2010)
- Ferrosilite to enstatite (User:Andreww 2004)
- Rhodizite to borate minerals (User:Nergaal 2010)

Checking - II

Nickel-Strunz class 09 - Silicates and Germanates:
- A (72), B (72), C (100), D (37), E (44), F (111), G (57), H (60), I (17), J (23), K (76), L (57), M (119), N (48), O (32), P (96), Q (3), R (38), S (107), T (75), U (9), V (25), W (23), X (1), Y (13), Z (15)
- Trend: (1,004 + 147)/ (3,448 + 147) = c. 32%
- Trend: (1,004 + 147 + 1205 * 0.32)/ (3,448 + 147 + 1205) = c. 32% (one third)
- Σ: approx. 27.5% (1330/4841)

Groupings:
- Borate minerals: Rhodizite (redirect page), Londonite (redirect page)
- Serpentine subgroup: Antigorite (redirect page), Lizardite (redirect page)
- Chlorite group: Clinochlorite (redirect page), Viridite (redirect page), Clinochlore (redirect page), Nimite (redirect page), Pennantite (redirect page), Baileychlore (redirect page), Cookeite (redirect page), Donbassite (redirect page), Gonyerite (redirect page), Odinite (redirect page), Sudoite (redirect page), Orthochamosite (redirect page)
- Tantalite: Ferrotantalite (redirect page), Manganotantalite (redirect page), Tantalite-(Mn) (redirect page), Tantalite-(Fe) (redirect page)
- Nepheline: Nephelite (redirect page), Elaeolite (redirect page), Kaliophilite (redirect page)
- Garnet: Ugrandite (redirect page), Pyralspite (redirect page), Schorlomite (redirect page)
- List of minerals (synonyms)#Pyrochlore supergroup: Yttrobetafite-(Y)* (redirect page), Yttropyrochlore-(Y)* (redirect page), Uranmicrolite* (redirect page), Uranpyrochlore* (redirect page), Stetefeldtite* (redirect page), Partzite? (redirect page), Plumbobetafite* (redirect page), Plumbomicrolite* (redirect page), Plumbopyrochlore* (redirect page), Natrobistantite* (redirect page), Monimolite* (redirect page), Jixianite* (redirect page), Ferritungstite* (redirect page), Alumotungstite* (redirect page), Calciobetafite* (redirect page), Ceriopyrochlore-(Ce)* (redirect page), Bariomicrolite* (redirect page), Bariopyrochlore* (redirect page), Bindheimite* (redirect page), Bismutostibiconite* (redirect page), Bismutopyrochlore* (redirect page), Bismutomicrolite* (redirect page), Cuproroméite? (redirect page)
  - Redefinitions: oxycalciopyrochlore (red. stibiobetafite*), hydropyrochlore (red. kalipyrochlore*), hydroxykenomicrolite (red. cesstibtantite*), oxystannomicrolite (red. stannomicrolite*), oxystibiomicrolite (red. stibiomicrolite*), hydroxycalcioromeite (red. lewisite (mineral)*)

Check 'IMA Master List (January 2014)', up to 'IMA 2012-NNN': Z, X, O, Y, U, Q, W, V, N, R, T, J, E, D, G, P, L, H, I, A, S, F, C, K, B, M
Check 'IMA Master List (July 2014)', up to 'IMA 2013-NNN': A to Z
Check 'IMA Master List (September 2014)': done
Check 'IMA Master List (September 2015)', up to 'IMA 2014-NNN': A to Z

Commons got 1,501 (1,517-16) categories (minerals)
IMA Database of Mineral Properties/ RRUFF Project lists:
- 4,741 minerals (4,499 valid species, it includes some varieties and polytypes, June 2011)
  - of which: 240 minerals aren't valid yet, 35 are just IMA numbers and 1,627 are pre-IMA minerals
- 4,773 minerals (4,532 valid species, it includes some varieties and polytypes, end June 2011)
- 4,858 minerals (4,619 valid species, it includes some varieties and polytypes, end February 2012)
- 4,913 minerals (4,663 valid species, it includes some varieties and polytypes, end August 2012)
- 4,934 minerals (4,683 valid species, it includes some varieties and polytypes, end February 2013)
- 5,029 minerals (4,858 valid species, it includes some varieties and polytypes, end September 2013)
- 5,063 minerals (4,891 valid species, it includes some varieties and polytypes, end January 2014)
- 4,962 currently valid species, 'IMA Master List (September 2014)'
- 5,166 minerals (4,962 valid species, it includes some varieties and polytypes, middle December 2014)
- 5,274 minerals (5,068 valid species, it includes some varieties and polytypes, end November 2015)
- 5,350 minerals (5,141 valid species, it includes some varieties and polytypes, end July 2016)
  - 5,144 currently valid species, 'IMA Master List (May 2016)'
- 5,525 minerals, middle November 2017 (5,291 valid species, September 2017)

Parts of the list of minerals (complete):
- A (68+149+143-0); subtotal: 360 "items"
  - First Strunz.ok, Commons.ok
  - IMA2011.ok, IMA2012.ok*, IMA2013.ok, IMA2014.ok, IMA2015.ok, IMA2016.ok, IMA2017.ok, IMA2018.
  - Simple chemical formula and final Strunz ()
- B (94+75+113+97-(brammallite, biotite series and betafite group)-0); subtotal: 376 "items"
  - First Strunz.ok, Commons.ok
  - IMA2011.ok, IMA2012.ok*, IMA2013.ok, IMA2014.ok, IMA2015.ok, IMA2016.ok, IMA2017.ok, IMA2018.
  - Simple chemical formula and final Strunz ()
- C (127+157+116+66-0); subtotal: 466 "items"
  - First Strunz.ok, Commons.ok
  - IMA2011.ok, IMA2012.ok*, IMA2013.ok, IMA2014.ok, IMA2015.ok, IMA2016.ok, IMA2017.ok, IMA2018.
  - Simple chemical formula and final Strunz ()
- D (178-0); subtotal: 178 "items"
  - First Strunz.ok, Commons.ok
  - IMA2011.ok, IMA2012.ok*, IMA2013.ok, IMA2014.ok, IMA2015.ok, IMA2016.ok, IMA2017.ok, IMA2018.
  - Simple chemical formula and final Strunz ()
- E (134-0); subtotal: 134 "items"
  - First Strunz.ok, Commons.ok
  - IMA2011.ok, IMA2012.ok*, IMA2013.ok, IMA2014.ok, IMA2015.ok, IMA2016.ok, IMA2017.ok, IMA2018.
  - Simple chemical formula and final Strunz (E)
- F (169+91+57-0); subtotal: 317 "items"
  - First Strunz.ok, Commons.ok
  - IMA2011.ok, IMA2012.ok*, IMA2013.ok, IMA2014.ok, IMA2015.ok, IMA2016.ok, IMA2017.ok, IMA2018.
  - Simple chemical formula and final Strunz ()
- G (90+150-(glauconite series)-0); subtotal: 239 "items"
  - First Strunz.ok, Commons.ok
  - IMA2011.ok, IMA2012.ok*, IMA2013.ok, IMA2014.ok, IMA2015.ok, IMA2016.ok, IMA2017.ok, IMA2018.
  - Simple chemical formula and final Strunz ()
- H (129+152-0); subtotal: 281 "items"
  - First Strunz.ok, Commons.ok
  - IMA2011.ok, IMA2012.ok*, IMA2013.ok, IMA2014.ok, IMA2015.ok, IMA2016.ok, IMA2017.ok, IMA2018.
  - Simple chemical formula and final Strunz ()
- I (84-(illite series)-0); subtotal: 83 "items"
  - First Strunz.ok, Commons.ok
  - IMA2011.ok, IMA2012.ok*, IMA2013.ok, IMA2014.ok, IMA2015.ok, IMA2016.ok, IMA2017.ok, IMA2018.
  - Simple chemical formula and final Strunz (I)
- J (107-0); subtotal: 107 "items"
  - First Strunz.ok, Commons.ok
  - IMA2011.ok, IMA2012.ok*, IMA2013.ok, IMA2014.ok, IMA2015.ok, IMA2016.ok, IMA2017.ok, IMA2018.
  - Simple chemical formula and final Strunz (J)
- K (78+88+57+73-kamacite); subtotal: 295 "items"
  - First Strunz.ok, Commons.ok
  - IMA2011.ok, IMA2012.ok*, IMA2013.ok, IMA2014.ok, IMA2015.ok, IMA2016.ok, IMA2017.ok, IMA2018.
  - Simple chemical formula and final Strunz (K)
- L (126+110-(lepidolite series)-0); subtotal: 235 "items"
  - First Strunz.ok, Commons.ok
  - IMA2011.ok, IMA2012.ok*, IMA2013.ok, IMA2014.ok, IMA2015.ok, IMA2016.ok, IMA2017.ok, IMA2018.
  - Simple chemical formula and final Strunz ()
- M (204+128+157-(melilite and microlite group)-(manganese)); subtotal: 487 "items"
  - First Strunz.ok, Commons.ok
  - IMA2011.ok, IMA2012.ok*, IMA2013.ok, IMA2014.ok, IMA2015.ok, IMA2016.ok, IMA2017.ok, IMA2018.
  - Simple chemical formula and final Strunz ()
- N (197-0); subtotal: 197 "items"
  - First Strunz.ok, Commons.ok
  - IMA2011.ok, IMA2012.ok*, IMA2013.ok, IMA2014.ok, IMA2015.ok, IMA2016.ok, IMA2017.ok, IMA2018.
  - Simple chemical formula and final Strunz ()
- O (120-0); subtotal: 120 "items"
  - First Strunz.ok, Commons.ok
  - IMA2011.ok, IMA2012.ok*, IMA2013.ok, IMA2014.ok, IMA2015.ok, IMA2016.ok, IMA2017.ok, IMA2018.
  - Simple chemical formula and final Strunz (O)
- P (130+106+58+139-(pyrochlore group)-0), Q (19-0); subtotal: 451 "items"
  - First Strunz.ok, Commons.ok
  - IMA2011.ok, IMA2012.ok*, IMA2013.ok, IMA2014.ok, IMA2015.ok, IMA2016.ok, IMA2017.ok, IMA2018.
  - Simple chemical formula and final Strunz (P, Q)
- R (83+131-(roméite group)-(rhenium)); subtotal: 212 "items"
  - First Strunz.ok, Commons.ok
  - IMA2011.ok, IMA2012.ok*, IMA2013.ok, IMA2014.ok, IMA2015.ok, IMA2016.ok, IMA2017.ok, IMA2018.
  - Simple chemical formula and final Strunz (R)
- S (70+101+140+158-(serpentine subgroup)-0); subtotal: 468 "items"
  - First Strunz.ok, Commons.ok
  - IMA2011.ok, IMA2012.ok*, IMA2013.ok, IMA2014.ok, IMA2015.ok, IMA2016.ok, IMA2017.ok, IMA2018.
  - Simple chemical formula and final Strunz (S)
- T (107+70+126-0); subtotal: 303 "items"
  - First Strunz.ok, Commons.ok
  - IMA2011.ok, IMA2012.ok*, IMA2013.ok, IMA2014.ok, IMA2015.ok, IMA2016.ok, IMA2017.ok, IMA2018.
  - Simple chemical formula and final Strunz (T)
- U (53-0), V (124-0); subtotal: 177 "items"
  - First Strunz.ok, Commons.ok
  - IMA2011.ok, IMA2012.ok*, IMA2013.ok, IMA2014.ok, IMA2015.ok, IMA2016.ok, IMA2017.ok, IMA2018.
  - Simple chemical formula and final Strunz (U, V)
- W (135-0), X (17-0); subtotal: 152 "items"
  - First Strunz.ok, Commons.ok
  - IMA2011.ok, IMA2012.ok*, IMA2013.ok, IMA2014.ok, IMA2015.ok, IMA2016.ok, IMA2017.ok, IMA2018.
  - Simple chemical formula and final Strunz (W, X)
- Y (48-0), Z (99-0), subtotal: 147 "items"
  - First Strunz.ok, Commons.ok
  - IMA2011.ok, IMA2012.ok*, IMA2013.ok, IMA2014.ok, IMA2015.ok, IMA2016.ok, IMA2017.ok, IMA2018.
  - Simple chemical formula and final Strunz (Y, Z)
- Total: 5,785 "items" (first X, Q, Y, U, O, I, J)
- Notes:
  - Pyrochlore supergroup: N (valid minerals)
  - Amphibole supergroup: N (valid minerals)
    - Ca amphiboles; Li amphiboles; Mg-Fe-Mn amphiboles; Na amphiboles; Na-Ca amphiboles; Na-(Mg-Fe-Mn) amphiboles
Time stamp: --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Time stamp: --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Time stamp: around 2,342/ 4,642 = 50.5% --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
C+M+S (around 1,201/ 4,642 = 25.9%)
Time stamp: around 2,828/ 4,642 (A+B+D+E+F+H+I+J+N+O+P+Q+R+T+U+V+W+X+Y+Z)= 60.9% --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Time stamp: around 1,620/ 4,642 (C+K+L+M+S)= 37.9% --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Time stamp: --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Time stamp: amphiboles aren't updated yet at rruff.info/ima/ --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Time stamp: under review - IMA Master List (Aug. 2013) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Time stamp: under review - IMA Master List (March 2014) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Time stamp: IMA Master List (November 2015) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Title

In the opening paragraph is the sentence "Therefore, a list of recognised mineral species is never complete.", yet the title assumes completness. How is this resolved? Is the title wrong or is the opening paragraph wrong, or does there need to be a re-phrasing to more precisely explain? The lay-out of the article is also very confusing with bullets and indented bullets. Why this approach and not the almost universally applied standards from the WP:MOS? Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The articles were created 10 years ago and the complete was included to distinguish from the List of minerals which was for those with Wikipedia articles. As minerals are continually being discovered/described and others deemed invalid by the IMA ... it requires constant updating to keep reasonably current. Would you care to suggest a better name? Suggestions welcome. Vsmith (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the layout: it is a list article and refers to the alphabetical subarticles. The history section, I will agree, could be re-written as prose. Have a go. Vsmith (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy

Manual of Style (MOS) has undue weight.

Wikipedia articles need lists (with wikilinks) for administration and maintenance, they complement each other.

A List needs to be quite up to date, and it needs explanatory notes. An article does not need to be so up to date.

Example: the article history of mineralogy gets pushed, it gets undued weight. The list on timeline of the discovery and classification of minerals shows the problems.

Spanish and Portuguese Wikipedia use attachments, appendices, addenda for this job.

Valid minerals and valid species of the 'Tree of Life' need to be listed.

This list has not a lot of traffic. Just administration, curation and maintenance of Wikipedia articles and experts (mineralogists and crystallographists) use it.

This list looks like an alphabethical list, and alphabetical lists and facts are not copyright protected. But this list is similar to an onion, it has many layers.

This list has an history (strictly speaking: 1959 to 2015) and some flaws. It needs explanatory notes to help its users.

Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other curiosities: The first meeting of the IMA-CNMMN (now IMA-CNMNC) wanted that all minerals to end with 'lite'/'ite' ("lithos" = stone). The IMA community reverted it.; The IMA-CNMMN wanted all Mac minerals (Mac vs Mc) written the same way. The IMA community accepted a proposal by Charles Milton, reverting it.; Armbruster et al. (2006) 'Recommended nomeclature of epidote-group minerals' renamed hancockite, niigataite and tweddillite. Hålenius et al. (2015) 'IMA Commission on New Minerals, Nomenclature and Classification (CNMNC) Newsletter 26. New minerals and nomenclature modifications approved in 2015' based on Hatert et al. (2013) 'CNMNC guidelines for the use of suffixes and prefixes in mineral nomenclature, and for the preservation of historical names' reverted it.; Burke E A J (2008) 'Tidying up mineral names: an IMA-CNMNC scheme for suffixes, hyphens and diacritical marks' renamed chlorapatite, fluorapatite, hydroxylapatite, fluorellestadite and hydroxylellestadite. Pasero et al. (2010) 'Nomenclature of the apatite supergroup minerals' reverted it.; Atencio et al. (2010) 'The pyrochlore supergroup of minerals: nomenclature' discredited questionable minerals of the pyrochlore supergroup. Christy A G, Atencio D (2013) 'Clarification of status of species in the pyrochlore supergroup' reverted it.; --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2018

I found that there are no IMA-2018-001 in this list, and found a link. Please check this link please... https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/eurjmin/article/538475/ima-commission-on-new-minerals-nomenclature-and

Thank you.Luke Kern Choi 5 (talk) 09:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 January 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to "approved by IMA" titles for now. There is clear consensus that the existing scheme of titles must be changed, and no agreement whatsoever about how to change them. Although deletion has been raised as a possibility, that is a question for a different forum. BD2412 T 16:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– The disambiguator "complete" is misleading, and ironically, the current opening paragraph of the first listed page, List of minerals (complete), even states that the list referenced on these pages is never complete. There needs to be a different naming convention for these pages, but I am unsure what such a naming convention should be that could distinguish the listed pages from the page sitting at the title with no disambiguator, List of minerals ... which seems to be a brief list of minerals which have articles on Wikipedia. (Hmm ... wouldn't that be the purpose of a category, since having such a page creates an unnecessary need to constantly maintain the page? Maybe all of these should be moved to their respective base titles with no disambiguators, and the content currently at List of minerals be moved away and then blanked and redirected or merged into the content currently at List of minerals (complete).) Steel1943 (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. DannyS712 (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest renaming to

etc.

— GeoWriter (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the list articles, specially (at semi random) List of minerals C (complete) compared to List of minerals#C. At first I thought that the letter-specific version might add additional information, but it doesn't. I'd be in favor of redirecting them all to the main list, adding to it the sources from the other lists. --Gonnym (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— It is true List of minerals could be a category, it would be easier to maintain.

— It is true "complete" is misleading, List of minerals is a very short version with notable minerals

— 'List of Minerals (complete)' is linked on Wikidata: Catala, German, Hungary, Laetian, Slovenian. The list is too long (5,500 minerals)), it needs many articles and sections for maintenance. Do not link them all to the main list. There is more information (mineral group, Nickel-Strunz ID and chemical formula) @Vsmith: --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We could delete List of minerals and rename List of minerals (complete) to 'List of minerals'. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just say "List of Minerals (Primary) suggesting there commonality/popularity, educational level typically learned at, and occurrence & frequency coming across them in other sources, thus should also include red linked so long as they fit these 3 criteria i've just stated, (and inconsequentially could serve as incentive to get the rest of the most popular/important minerals linked;

the bigger list should just be called "List of Minerals (Total)" or "List of Minerals (Current Total)", both suggesting its the list with all the minerals wiki have + all that IMA have & approved, but also (i think just as important) its short and to the point while at the same time not sounding [too] convoluted, the latter being because what one must remind themselves is this is intended for or geared towards ALL audiences, and so should be fully understandable by the lower grade levels

And while were on the subject of discussion, i think there should also be a separate list called "List of Minerals (Grand Total)" where the "(Total)" list are only IMA approved, linked or not, these would include all the others that are currently in the "complete" list as well, such as the questionable's, the unapproved, the "grandfathered in" plus also all the group names and there species (bulleted) and other bulleted; the synonyms, the varieties, and maybe even mineraloids, organic minerals & even the different forms some have but aren't quite varieties such as Quartz have or agates have, and then there should also be the "List of Minerals (catagorical Total)" which simply rearrange the IMA approved into a hierarchic order using either the Dana or the Strunz classification — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.157.107.26 (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...Such disambiguators as suggested above ("(Total)", etc.) create similar issues/problems that resulted me in creating this move request in the first place. Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand are the Wikipedia rules surrounding lists is that the lists should be limited. I am not sure that a 'list of minerals' would qualify under Wikipedia rules as a maintainable list with a finite number of notable entries. I would actually argue this entire set needs to be deleted unless a better rationale for creating a list can be found. "Minerals" strikes me as enormously broad. Benkenobi18 (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some research, the lists should be renamed -> List of minerals approved by the IMC, and reflect what is found here: http://cnmnc.main.jp/ This would satisfy the Wikipedia guidelines on verifiability (ie, the existence of an external standard), and on a finite list. Per GeoWriter. Benkenobi18 (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Mineral species" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mineral species. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"List of minerals U–Z (complete)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of minerals U–Z (complete). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 6#List of minerals U–Z (complete) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting move to "List of minerals approved by the International Mineralogical Association"

The series of articles should be moved to the full name of the association written out. Thoughts?Catchpoke (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– "IMA" refers to a number of different things as indicated on the disambiguation page. The full name will be clearer. Catchpoke (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Assuming that this is the only IMA that approves minerals, I'm not sure that the abbreviation is a problem that needs solving. But I suggest replacing "approved" with "recognised", as a more accurate description of the action taken by the association. I also suggest inserting "the" before the name of the organisation. Assuming it was a typographical error, I replaced some hyphens with en dashes in the proposal above. — BarrelProof (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the suggested changes per WP:UCRN. I guess that's the relevant policy here. British or American spelling makes no difference to me. Apologies for not getting back yesterday. -- Catchpoke (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom in principle. But should be "List of minerals recognised by the International Mineralogical Association". -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.