Mindat Logo
bannerbannerbannerbanner
Welcome!
Anonymous User
Re: California, USA
September 11, 2010 09:52PM
Hi Chet,

Yeah, I'm going to work on these in the future, but feel free to make whatever changes you feel are necessary.

Bonsall [www.mindat.org], should have the Hanks reference deleted (they predate any discovery on the ground), the 1905 Kunz references are the first reported. Moosa Canyon [www.mindat.org], needs to be a sublocality of Bonsall, right now Bonsall is a sub locality of Moosa Canyon.

The Kunzite references for the Vista Chief [www.mindat.org] and Mountain Belle [www.mindat.org], are very questionable, and most likely erroneous (bogus).

I've spoken with several parties who investigated these dikes prior to the modern housing construction in the area, and there was no sign of lithia mineralization in the pegmatites around the old diggings (shallow trenches). The tourmaline (black) was noted, as well as the quartz, but no sign of colored tourmaline or lithia mineralization was visible. The axinite and laumontite shown to Schaller was supposed to be by the falls which was likely another dike in the area. I will add separate coordinates for this occurrence in the future.

In my opinion, based on the observations over the last century, the lithia gem minerals in the Moosa Canyon were purchased from the operations in nearby Pala and used to entice investors or to sell the claims during the peak of the gemstone rush in the region. This subject was mentioned by Murdoch and Webb. However, anything is possible (in theory), and I never visited the area myself, so it remains questionable.

Scott
Re: California, USA
September 11, 2010 10:03PM
us    
Thanks Scott. In view of this info I will just leave this one entirely to you.
Anonymous User
Re: California, USA
October 01, 2010 06:58PM
Hi Chet,

I'm beginning to go through again and add localities and correct mistakes for the areas I am familiar with in southern California. I have noticed you have gone to great lengths to change the reference format on the locality pages. I am unfamiliar with your referencing system, specifically your use of comma's after placing the date of publication in parenthesis (example: Surname, Forename (Year), Title of Report...).

All of the reading material and writing guidelines I have do not use a comma after a date in parenthesis for a bibliography or reference list, whether it be in alphabetical or chronological. Could you please explain why you have chosen to use this unconventional format, provide any references to where it is used in scientific, or otherwise used in similar styles of reporting; and if not, an explanation of the perceived benefits of utilizing a comma after the publication year placed in parenthesis.

Additionally, I would ask you to not use the arcane method of bunching the author's initials together (example: Kunz, G.F.), but preserve the space between initials (example: Kunz, G. F.)

Also, the benefits of chronological ordering of references for minerals listed at a site are obvious, and I am in full concurrence - although it seems duplicative to list all references for the same mineral post initial reference, I understand this will help track down erroneous mineral listings); but I do not understand the benefit for listing references on locality pages underneath the text area in chronological order, versus alphabetical order - which is the preferred and common referencing method.

Please advise, as this information will also be helpful to other contributors for California.

Scott



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/01/2010 07:06PM by Scott L. Ritchie.
Re: California, USA
October 01, 2010 07:21PM
at    
Scott:

Although adding a comma after the year is not normally done, we can't be so strict - Mindat is not a scientific journal but a web database, and we have to live with having about 15-20 different formats of citations used. If you look in wikipedia, they also have lots of different formats.

"the arcane method of bunching the author's initials together"

I disagree - there are lots of journals who require this in their notes of authors.


"but I do not understand the benefit for listing references on locality pages underneath the text area in chronological order, versus alphabetical order - which is the preferred and common referencing method."

I disagree - especially in mineralogy and in a dedicated database such as Mindat, chronological order is much more useful, also since only very few localities have more than 10-20 refs.
It's different when you write a (+/-) scientific article which usually has 20-60 refs.
Re: California, USA
October 01, 2010 08:58PM
us    
Scott,

I think that Uwe covered most of the issues. "Bunching" the initials of the authors saves database space - thousands and thousands of blank spaces. Virtually noone uses a double space after a colon or semi-colon any longer. This practice also "grates" against my education in the English language, but it is also a space saver so I go right along with it. The age of the computer has virtually eliminated the comma between 3-character segments of large numeric strings. This is a computer age change in our written communication practices. I don't like it, but that is the way it is. I use it when I state distances in feet for example. There are other such space-saving practices in use throughout the database. It is insignificant in a single file - much more relevent in the big picture.

Mindat has several unique formats. They allow identification of Mindat data that might be used without permission, for example. Besides, what states that a new format can not be used in Mindat?? The comma is such a minutial issue to get wrapped around the axle about. Please lighten up! I have been over many thousands of referenced publications extracted from many sources. I found over time that many had very confusing formats, especially when a publication is divided into a series, volume, number, pages, plates and maps. Some also have "editions" and "parts" just to make it a bit more confusing. Contributors tend to use their own formats, often inventing the abbreviations. This has been very confusing in the past. Since there were virtually NO references in Mindat locality files, and relatively few in species files when I joined the project shortly after its inception, there was a lot of "trail blazing" required to get it to where it is today. I have no regrets. At any point along the way, if Jolyon mandated a particular format, or the management team voted to adopt one, that is what I would be using. It is hard enough to get everyone to use one of the few mandates which we have - "Mine" and "Quarry" are capitalized when used in a locality name string (unless they are "unnamed") and other terms are not - e.g.: deposit, adit, claim, etc.

Listing references in chronological order is convenient to provide Mindat users with the latest and greatest data on a particular locality at the end of the list, without being required to scan the list to find the most recent data. The latest is usually the greatest, but it is all relevent, including the older, erroneous references, which need to be included to use in the "erroneously reported" species occurrence entries. We need to start using this latter practice more religously to document the errors once and for all time so that the errors are not reintroduced into the database as valid occurrences.

Spelling out entire references for clarity, and using space-saving formats at the end, e.g.: 75(5): 225-226, Pl. C versus vol. 75 No. 5, pp. 225-226, Plate C, or some variation of this, is a tremendous space saver in the database and, if standardized, is easily interpretted by users.

Chet
avatar Re: California, USA
October 01, 2010 11:04PM
us    
"but I do not understand the benefit for listing references on locality pages underneath the text area in chronological order, versus alphabetical order - which is the preferred and common referencing method."

The main benefit to this alphabetical ordering in an article is that it allows you to easily find the reference that is referred to in the article (most citations use author and year in the main body). Most mindat locality pages don't refer to references in the descriptive section (if there is any descriptive section at all), so much of the benefit really doesn't apply to the database.
Anonymous User
Re: California, USA
October 01, 2010 11:29PM
Thanks for the response guys,

I'm going to ignore the server space saving formula excuse as total minutia, especially if we are not going to take concrete steps regulate the use of initials versus full names, etc. I don't think server space is a valid issue regarding references, if it was we would not be using multiple references in the minerals section for localities, instead we would use only the first reported reference. Plenty more examples exist of ways to save space, if that indeed was an issue. I think server space and speed will be less of an issue as time goes by and technology advances.

Chronological order is of crucial importance in mineral species listings for sites, but I see little purpose for chronological order for locality pages after the text, especially when many references do not necessarily involve mineral specific data (often they will involve historic people or places only). Like it or not, when people refer to a specific author's text, they always state the author's name, then the date of publication (with or without in-text citations). Even if we agree that listing references in chronological order after the site description text is somehow useful, then why shouldn't the date appear first, followed by the author's name in the references?

Please keep in mind the references for the locality text are not the same as the mineral species listed for a specific locality, I think text references should be listed alphabetically, and mineral references should be listed chronologically. I am willing to accept nearly any reference format, and I am fine with no specific standard on mindat. I like my pants loose fitting anyway.

As a potential future solution, the database storage and page entry code could be written to allow storage of individual reference lists for the locality page (similar to what is done in the minerals section) which could then be user controlled to switch between chronological and alphabetical order. This would be helpful. I am quite familiar with the SQL database design, so I understand the extra strain on system resources, etc., although this is becoming less of an issue with modern server units, I know from experience it is always good to keep things simple, where practical.

Based on Chet's response to the comma issue, I take it this is his personal choice, and I will therefore choose to delete the comma after the year in parenthesis when I add or alter the references section for those specific localities and areas I am currently working on. This comma seems to serve no purpose whatsoever, and is highly unorthodox.

I can go with the chronological order after text since you guys feel it is necessary, but I still prefer spaces between initials for names. I've found that for initialisms, forenames and midnames are properly expressed using a space between the periods (e.g. G. F.), and initials minus space between letters will be used for common words or place names (e.g. U.S.A.) or otherwise substituted by an acronym which should be prefaced prior to subsequent use (e.g. United States of America; USA).

My response here is based on my experience and education, and so we can all agree to disagree, and that's cool. I would prefer that if somebody adds additional references to my list of references used below the locality text, they not alter all of my earlier references' to their own personal format, at least not before contacting me first to discuss the change (i.e. Chet).

Surely out of the thousands of localities in California that need help, it's silly to be wasting time and effort by editing those areas I am working on simply to make the reference format match you own personal preferences or personal library organizational format. Let's continue to try and maximize our resources and time allocation towards the project.

Scott



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/01/2010 11:32PM by Scott L. Ritchie.
Anonymous User
Re: California, USA
October 01, 2010 11:47PM
Hi guys,

Another idea that would be helpful, is mindat markup language for adding in-text citations which would function like the footnotes code already available. This would encourage the use of citations for locality page textual data and articles, although I understand that since we have split the text and references into separate database areas for locality pages, this is currently not an option. Perhaps we should rethink the way references are entered and stored again? It would also basically nullify the chronological versus alphabetical debate, providing quick access to any reference source, regardless of format.

Scott
Anonymous User
Re: California, USA
October 02, 2010 07:00PM
Chet,

I could even be persuaded to retain your commas, if only you would accept my friend request on fbook! B)-

Scott
Re: California, USA
October 17, 2010 06:59PM
us    
An update on California:

I'm more than half way through the more prolific/complex localities which I put aside to the end. Crestmore, which I started updating last year, will probably be the last set of files completed. I will then be tidying up the remaining files extracted from MRDS.

Chet Lemanski
Re: California, USA
October 20, 2010 10:11PM
us    
I "finished" my Kalkar Quarry update this afternoon. There is no description for this file (geology, etc.). There are also still 4 remaining species listed without references: Allanite, Huntite, Symplesite and Powellite. All seem reasonable except the allanite. No pegmatite or pegmatitic rocks described. If anyone has knowledge of this locality, perhaps you can take the time to help "finish" the file. Thanks!

Chet
Anonymous User
Re: California, USA
October 21, 2010 05:18PM
Mark Mauthner,

I've updated the Elizabeth R. mine page [www.mindat.org], and the Oceanview mine adit page [www.mindat.org] to reflect the kunzite discovery in 2009, among other relevant data. Please let me know if the information is accurate.

Chet,

One of the references for the Oceanview mine that you added back in September of 2002 is Rocks & Minerals: 63:21. I believe that there is an error in this format, as this bimonthly magazine would only extend from 63:01 to 63:06. Could you please provide a more detailed long format including author, article name, page numbers, and month for the publication so I can accurately update this reference. I don't think I have this available in my personal library at this point in time.

Thanks,

Scott
avatar Re: California, USA
October 21, 2010 05:40PM
us    
Rocks & Minerals: 63:21 - It's page 21 in volume 63.
Sinkankas, J. (1988) Beryl: A Summary. Rocks & Minerals 63 pp 10-22.
Anonymous User
Re: California, USA
October 21, 2010 06:10PM
David,

Thanks for the help, I've made the appropriate changes to the 1988 Sinkankas reference.

Scott
Anonymous User
Re: California, USA
October 21, 2010 08:00PM
Chet,

Did we ever come to a conclusion as to whether there is a valid reason to use a comma after the date in a long format reference? So far, I've been following your lead, adding the comma after the date in parenthesis, although I feel this may be erroneous. Typically, if the year is in parenthesis, there will be no comma afterwords, only a space. Alternatively, without the year in parenthesis, a comma or period is commonly used. I don't wish to duplicate errors, if in fact this format was accidentally derived from cutting and pasting from other reference sources. Please let me know if these reference entries should be corrected, or if this is actually your preferred standard long format. If we are going to stick with parenthesis around the year, I would prefer example number 2.

Examples that could be used:

1. Fisher, J. (2002), Gem and rare-element pegmatites of southern California. Mineralogical Record 33(5): 388-389.
2. Fisher, J. (2002) Gem and rare-element pegmatites of southern California. Mineralogical Record 33(5): 388-389.
3. Fisher, J. 2002, Gem and rare-element pegmatites of southern California. Mineralogical Record 33(5): 388-389.
4. Fisher, J. 2002. Gem and rare-element pegmatites of southern California. Mineralogical Record 33(5): 388-389.

Scott
Re: California, USA
October 21, 2010 08:00PM
us    
Scott,

That Rocks & Minerals reference was added way back when. At that time I was too concerned about hard drive space conservation in Mindat so I abbreviated references to the maximum extent possible. Dave has it right. By7 the way, if I am referring to a number within a volume, it is a parenthetical entry (e.g.: 49(3): 333). I don't see the entry you referred to any longer. Was it removed?

By the way, I will be updating all those super abbreviated references in due time. I have many of them across both California and Arizona. I have to access my shelves with the runs of periodicals to do so and it will be more time efficient for me to wait until I get another load or two moved to our Arizona home and have free access to the book stack shelves. I am tracking these in a California bibliography document which I am constantly updating, eventually to be published as a Mindat article once cleaned up to a conventional bibliographical format.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2010 08:14PM by Chester S. Lemanski, Jr..
Re: California, USA
October 21, 2010 08:10PM
us    
Scott,

I prefer the year in parenthesis followed by a comma. There is no firm "rule" on this. As I stated in the past, Mindat has a few unique formats. I don't care if you don't use the comma, but I do care about the references being in chronological order. The parenthesis around the date make it stand out and is consistent with some other publications, though not all.

By the way, I am now working on the last set of locality files - Crestmore. After that I have several San Diego County locality files set aside and I will be sending you a message with the additional species and references that I have in addition to what you have in the database. Based on Mindat policy, these will either be additional occurrences or they will be entered as "erroneously reported" with relevent references. I will gladly let you make those calls based on your expertise.

The files pending are: Mesa Grande District, Little Three Mine, Himalaya Mine, White Queen Mine, Vista Chief Mine, Victor Mine, Vanden(r)burg-Katerina / Katerina (Catherina), Vanderburg-Naylor, Pala Chief, Pala District, Ramona, Stewart Mine, Mountain Lily. Not all necessarily have additional species but may simply have addition references. I should be sending the data your way within the week.
Anonymous User
Re: California, USA
October 21, 2010 11:28PM
Chet,

Ok, comma after year in parenthesis it shall be. I am in the process of reformatting the references in order to list them chronologically, per your request. I'll keep an eye out for data package to update those locality species and/or references.

Scott
avatar Re: California, USA
October 22, 2010 12:26AM
In my view:

1. Fisher, J. (2002), Gem and rare-element pegmatites of southern California. Mineralogical Record 33(5): 388-389.
2. Fisher, J. (2002) Gem and rare-element pegmatites of southern California. Mineralogical Record 33(5): 388-389.
3. Fisher, J. 2002, Gem and rare-element pegmatites of southern California. Mineralogical Record 33(5): 388-389.
4. Fisher, J. 2002. Gem and rare-element pegmatites of southern California. Mineralogical Record 33(5): 388-389.

Either 1,3 or 4 are fine. 2 is slightly confusing

I don't really think it's a big deal which of these formats is used, although obviously i'd prefer we were at least consistent within individual locality pages!

I don't really have any preference which of 1, 3 or 4 are used, but if other people prefer 1 I'm happy to back it.

Jolyon
Re: California, USA
October 24, 2010 05:37PM
us    
I just finished phase 1 of the California files update with the completion of the Crestmore Quarries series of localities. There are still some occurrences which have as an only reference: "[email protected]" I cleaned this up to establish a link by using: "[yahoogroups.com."]; I get no connection whatever. Does anyone in the California community know if there is a currently active version of this link or a substitute link?? If you go to the "Crestmore Quarries" file and choose "detailed listing" you can see which species occurrences have only the "[email protected]" reference, which now appears to be invalid. Does anyone have the information of the source(s) who/which identified these species from Crestmore?? Many are the most recent "exotic" species for the locality. I also eliminated quite a few of the listed occurrences for the parent file "Crestmore Quarries" where there are one or more listings of the same species at subordinate locality(ies) with valid references. If anyone with knowledge of Crestmore has the time, could you please look at the Crestmore files and provide any further input, corrections, etc.?? I am certain that there are probably many additional associations to be entered, color data on local species occurrences, etc.

The next action is to resolve several alleged occurrences at San Diego pegmatite localities through coordination with Scott Ritchie. After that, the next phase starts with the tidy up of the remaining files imported from MRDS (provide in-the-clear references, pinpoint locations geographically, and attribute districts if required). This will be done by county, starting with San Diego and Imperial, then smaller counties, ending up with the monster counties such as San Bernardino.

Chet
Author:

Subject:


Attachments:
  • Valid attachments: jpg, gif, png, pdf
  • No file can be larger than 1000 KB
  • 3 more file(s) can be attached to this message

Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically. If the code is hard to read, then just try to guess it right. If you enter the wrong code, a new image is created and you get another chance to enter it right.
CAPTCHA
Message:

Mineral and/or Locality  
Search Google  
Copyright © Jolyon Ralph and Ida Chau 1993-2014. Site Map. Locality, mineral & photograph data are the copyright of the individuals who submitted them. Site hosted & developed by Jolyon Ralph. Mindat.org is an online information resource dedicated to providing free mineralogical information to all. Mindat relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Mindat does not offer minerals for sale. If you would like to add information to improve the quality of our database, then click here to register.
Current server date and time: April 19, 2014 09:33:56
Mineral and Locality Search
Mineral:
and/or Locality:
Options
Fade toolbar when not in focusFix toolbar to bottom of page
Hide Social Media Links
Slideshow frame delay seconds