User talk:Pinkfud/Archive 2004-2005

I've just been looking at your contribution for sodalite, and it seems to go beyond what belongs in a dictionary. Although the chemical composition can be treated as part of the definition, the sections on "Physical properties" and "Special test" strike me as more appropriate to an encyclopedia. They would, I presume, be a part of the corresponding Wikipedia article. I know that you are aware of the problem, so I have avoided the heavy-handed approach. Eclecticology 11:07, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I hope you've put my page on watch so I can respond here. You're probably right about "special tests", but I have to disagree about the physical properties. That section is, I feel, absolutely critical to a definition of most minerals, more so than the chemical composition. There are hundreds of instances in mineralogy where two or more minerals differ only in their physical properties. As far as I know, no one has ever written a pure "dictionary" of minerals, because it would be pointless. The user would be left wondering, for example, why a specimen of reddish earth and one of a silvery metallic substance are both Hematite, $Fe_{2}O_{3}$!

As for the Wikipedia articles, I haven't written any on minerals. But if I did, I would go on at length about the known localities, mechanism of formation, etc. There is a great deal more I would like to say about each mineral but haven't said here because, as you point out, it doesn't belong in a definition. This is exactly why I think a project ought to be undertaken to write a Wikified scientific reference. Science belongs in a public database, but scientific topics are often of such nature that they don't fit well into either a dictionary or general encyclopedia. Have you seen Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia? That's the kind of thing I'm thinking about.

Please tell me your thoughts before I add anything else to the Mineralogy category. I'd hate to see a lot of effort ultimately wasted, yet I'd also hate to waste my time writing incomplete definitions that are of little use to anyone interested in the subject. — Pinkfud 11:59, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I generally don't put others' talk pages on my watch list. I prefer to keep that list short and manageable. I also apologize for the delay, which had more to do with having to spend the last couple days replacing a deceased hot-water tank.

There is no doubt that the material belongs somewhere. Wikipedia already has an article on sodalite with much of what your describe. To me the question has more to do with defining the borderland between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. (Minerals could also, I believe, appear on Wikispecies, but I have no idea where their policies are going.) In my view Wikipedia is about the concept or the idea, and Wiktionary is about the word. I think that it's beyond the scope of a general dictionary to go into enough scientific detail about a mineral, or a life form for that matter, to be able to identify the substance in a load of rocks. The general dictionary user will have encountered the term in the course of his reading, and may very well be satisfied with the simple and perhaps trivial knowledge that it's some kind of mineral. Having said all that, I do believe that an interwiki link to the Wikipedia article on the same mineral is appropriate.

I hope that this matter can find a solution that is satisfactory to everyone. Eclecticology 17:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Beer Parlour Apology

If you came here to chide me for arguing with User 24 in the BP, I know. That was wrong, and I apologize. The guy seems bent on blaming me for everything bad that happens in here, and he's making me angry. I'll try to cool it from now on. Sorry. Pinkfud 09:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Images

I see you have uploaded a number of images. Thank you for attributing them properly. I'd like to encourage you, though, to upload images to Commons. The folks there are better equipped to catalog and store images, and it will permit the use of your images across Wikimedia projects. The article for snail has an example of how to link a picture from Commons. Please ask on my talk page if you need any help getting that working. Thanks. --Dvortygirl 05:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

These images are untagged:

• Pfstriations.jpg
• Pfamethyst.jpg
• Pflimestone.jpg
• Pfberyl.jpg
• Pfmorganite.jpg
• Pfpyroclastic.jpg

They will be reported to Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Others soon.--Jusjih 17:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I haven't been here for a long time. Whatever was done, I'm sure it's satisfactory. Sorry for my long absence. -- Pinkfud 21:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)