Learning Center What is a mineral?The most common minerals on earth Information for Educators Mindat Articles The Elements The Rock H. Currier Digital Library Geologic Time

Minerals by Properties Minerals by Chemistry Advanced Locality Search Random Mineral Random Locality Search by minID Localities Near Me Search Articles Search Glossary More Search Options

The Mindat Manual Add a New Photo Rate Photos Locality Edit Report Coordinate Completion Report Add Glossary Item

Mining Companies Statistics Users Mineral Museums Clubs & Organizations Mineral Shows & Events The Mindat Directory Device Settings The Mineral Quiz

Photo Search Photo Galleries Search by Color New Photos Today New Photos Yesterday Members' Photo Galleries Past Photo of the Day Gallery Photography

Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

╳Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

Groups

Recent Images in Discussions

GeneralMineral pages question

27th Apr 2017 14:14 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Hi everyone...

I want your opinion on the amount of space that we use currently on mineral pages (especially common minerals) for references.

Right now if you look at quartz for example there is a very long list of references taking up a significant percentage of the page. Some of you like this, some of you don't.

For me to decide what we do with this in the future I'd love all fo you to comment to answer the following questions

1: Do you use the references list on the mindat mineral pages to research further information about the mineral species?

YES or NO

2. Do you think the reference list on some pages is too long?

YES or NO

3. Do you understand how references are ordered within the reference list, and which are the most important?

YES or NO

That's it. I'd appreciate other comments and suggestions, but the three yes/no questions are the most important!

Jolyon

27th Apr 2017 14:22 UTCErik Vercammen Expert

No / yes /I think yes.

But I would prefer a few references visible, and the possibility to access the full list with one or two clicks.

27th Apr 2017 14:40 UTCEd Clopton 🌟 Expert

I rarely have a need to consult references for my hobby purposes, but it's good to know they are there for those who need them. I agree with Erik's suggestion to display a few definitive references automatically along with an option to access the whole list if needed.

27th Apr 2017 14:56 UTCTimothy Greenland

Same as Eric and Ed

Cheers

Tim

27th Apr 2017 15:09 UTCRichard Gibson 🌟

Yes / No / I understand that they are in chronological order, but if there is some evaluation of importance of the references, I don't know what that is.

27th Apr 2017 15:13 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

"but if there is some evaluation of importance of the references, I don't know what that is."

There is no. Jolyon's question "... and which are the most important?" surprised me.

27th Apr 2017 15:17 UTCJeff Weissman Expert

Yes, but maybe a click to expand the list - same for locality pages and other long lists (related minerals can get very long on some pages also)

27th Apr 2017 15:22 UTCTony Nikischer 🌟 Manager

Yes, used frequently.

Yes, some listings for common minerals are too long.

Not always.

Locating the full description of a mineral's first publication, or an account of a major discovery at a particular locality, are important pieces of information. The Mindat.org list of references saves a great deal of time searching for detailed information that may not be readily apparent in the general descriptive information provided about a particular species or occurrence. I believe the reference list is critical for this reason, as it makes the path to further study or clarification quite direct.

I like Erik's suggestion of showing a brief listing of a few significant references, with a subsequent link for more as necessary.

Depending on what additional information is needed, certain references are valuable, others are not. Original descriptions, nomenclature changes, and locality references are, in my opinion, the most important.

27th Apr 2017 15:24 UTCMaggie Wilson Expert

1: Do you use the references list on the mindat mineral pages to research further information about the mineral species?

NO

2. Do you think the reference list on some pages is too long?

YES

3. Do you understand how references are ordered within the reference list, and which are the most important?

NO and NO

27th Apr 2017 15:30 UTCBecky Coulson 🌟 Expert

Yes/No/No - most important??

27th Apr 2017 16:04 UTCJamison K. Brizendine 🌟 Expert

1. Do you use the references list on the mindat mineral pages to research further information about the mineral species?

No.

I do, however, frequently use the reference list on the locality pages to research further information.

2. Do you think the reference list on some pages is too long?

No.

3. Do you understand how references are ordered within the reference list, and which are the most important?

Yes I understand how references are ordered (by year), but the second part of the question is subjective.

I personally have more of a pet peeve with locality references, than I do with mineral references.

I would rather address the fact that people are (still) not following the reference style that is in the Mindat Manual: https://manual.mindat.org/index.php/References and choosing their own style instead (and some of these people are managers). I would rather everyone stick to one format of reference style, preferably the one that was outlined by the Mindat Manual.

Worse, I have been going through localities pages where people have used abbreviations, or have left out critical information for articles. Typically, these are for articles that have been published in Mineralogical Record, Rocks and Minerals, Economic Geology etc.

For example I have seen this:

Rocks & Minerals (1985): 60: 295; 65: 23. (that’s not helpful, there is no author, nor a title)

Or I have seen this:

Mineralogical Record (1972) 3: 200 (wulfenite). (Again no title or author…)

Or this:

Neues Jahrbuch Min., Monarshefte (1972) 263. (???)

Or this:

Aufschluss (1975) 10: 369. (???)

A reference on a page is only useful if I have all the information available.

27th Apr 2017 16:09 UTCMark Heintzelman 🌟 Expert

Yes, No, chronological and very important it remain that way,

"importance?" a minor issue and likely not worth managers time to review and judge.

I'm perfectly fine with the Quartz page "as is" and see no need to further complicate matters.

An excellent piece of work considering the breadth of the subject (some scrolling is to be expected).

If you must, but Petrology and References could be truncated with a "see more" button to further expand them, but is it really THAT important?

MRH

27th Apr 2017 16:10 UTCWayne Corwin

I'd like to see more info added, like when it says

Colour:

Colorless, Purple, Rose, ...

I'd like to see the Whole list of colours, not the "....."

Long lists, say more than 10 locations, colours or varieties, could be a click on list, indicated by a "...." then click on that.

27th Apr 2017 16:13 UTCRob Woodside 🌟 Manager

Yes, No, Yes

27th Apr 2017 16:27 UTCDonald B Peck Expert

Yes, No, Yes

I like the idea of a truncated list with a [See More] button. As to the "most important", what is most important to one researcher, may not be to the next one.

27th Apr 2017 16:45 UTCAndrew Debnam 🌟

yes to 1

yes to 2

no to 3

27th Apr 2017 16:45 UTCFrank Ruehlicke 🌟

Yes, Yes, No

I like the idea of having a short list of references shown on the page with an expanded list available with 1 click. I'd also be ok with all the references available with 1 click - kinda like the way photos work where a few are shown and the rest are available by clicking on a link.

27th Apr 2017 17:15 UTCGregg Little 🌟

1: Do you use the references list on the Mindat mineral pages to research further information about the mineral species?

NO, well sometimes

If I want to dive deeper into a particular species (interested in genesis) I will use the list, sometimes. I will often use the internet as well as I can customize the search for quicker results

2. Do you think the reference list on some pages is too long?

YES, I would imagine the lay people and hobbiests that use the site find it long and laborious and generally shy away from it. A "click to expand the list" function might address this.

3. Do you understand how references are ordered within the reference list, and which are the most important?

YES (Chronologically, which is one of the search tools).

One could shorten the list (if that is the objective) to present significant historical references like Agricola, comprehensive references like Dana and, the most recent scientific research back to the last 2 to 5 years.

I don't think Mindat has to be comprehensive in this area as there are large lists of reference works "out there". Also, once you refer to one paper's reference list (starting with Mindat for example), that paper will have a relevant reference list to take you further into the topic as will those papers referenced in that paper and as will those papers referenced in those papers that are referenced in that paper.

Mindat does very well at bridging the fields between amateur and professional.

27th Apr 2017 17:40 UTCBrent Thorne Expert

yes

yes

yes

27th Apr 2017 17:41 UTCChester S. Lemanski, Jr.

1. No.

2. No*

3. Yes

*Some people obviously view a complete, in the clear, list as being too long for some species. An abbreviated list of key references with a button to see all references would be an acceptable solution to this situation.

27th Apr 2017 17:52 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

Yes / No / Yes.

27th Apr 2017 18:39 UTCMatthew Stanley

1. No

2. Yes

3. No

I agree with a couple of the comments I've seen that a complete list is too long, and probably repetitive. Is it possible to put the references into an accordion menu that those who use the references can expand if they want to, and those who don't want to expand it can save space on the page.

27th Apr 2017 18:50 UTCHartmut Hensel Expert

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. No

27th Apr 2017 18:59 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Interesting feedback, thank you everyone! And yes, there is a deliberate trick question which a couple of you have figured out.

.

As for references such as this:

Rocks & Minerals (1985): 60: 295;

I really do detest this form of reference as you have to try and guess which isuse it is in because of the page number. Is it *REALLY* so much effort to enter the issue number or month in the reference?

27th Apr 2017 20:37 UTCDana Morong

I agree, as I also detest abbreviated forms of references. In some cases, the issue number or the month is essential because in some periodicals that pagination was started anew with each issue (with the result that a reference giving only a volume and a page number leaves one in the dark as to just which, of possibly twelve, issues it was in?) - and then, sometimes, the periodical would change style and then subsequently do it by volume - or the other way around. Also, some periodicals do not always have their years and volumes coincidental. Some periodicals changed the number of issues per volume over the years (for example, Rocks and Minerals magazine had 2 issues in its first year, 1926, then 4 issues per year to 1933, then 12 issues per year starting in 1934 - and later changed. Some issues were double numbers, which can make things confusing (I had to make up a chart with all of them and their various page numbers, just for my own reference). And of course not including title and author is really inexcusable. If one is to have references, one may as well have full references, which make their inclusion useful in research. This is the same principle as in labeling specimens, with the actual name of locality, rather than just "Cornwall" which can be confusing (was it Cornwall, UK - and if so just which mine was it? or was it Cornwall, Pennsylvania?). If we are to be intelligent collectors, we need to document the references as well as the labels.

27th Apr 2017 22:02 UTCA. M.

1. yes

2. no

3. yes

27th Apr 2017 22:35 UTCChester S. Lemanski, Jr.

The use of the abbreviated reference formats (Rocks & Minerals (1985): 60: 295) is a war I have been waging for years. The worst of these would be: R&M 60, 295. Despite repeated instructions & reminders, we still get these. They are very annoying and of limited value. I must confess that I, too, used them in the beginning, a long, long time ago, but not anymore! I have no idea of how to fight the problem other than just deleting the entries while risking alienating the contributors.

28th Apr 2017 00:02 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

Wikipedia has a good way of pointing out problems that are known to the editors by adding tags such as [CITATION NEEDED].

We should probably do the same, so that if we see an incomplete reference add [INCOMPLETE REFERENCE] after it. Someone will inevitably be shamed into fixing it.

28th Apr 2017 00:09 UTCAlfredo Petrov Manager

Good idea, Jolyon. That is a much better option than deleting the entry, or preventing it from being uploaded in the first place. I'm an information addict, so I think incomplete data is better than no data at all. When researching something, I'd rather have an incomplete reference than none at all - I can always make the effort and hunt up the paper. But if we can shame people (including myself) into better writing, so much the better.

28th Apr 2017 00:59 UTCKeith Compton 🌟 Manager

Hi J

Yes

No

No ; and no to the most important

I would like more info but like others have suggested perhaps we should use collapsible lists for things such as references, strunz and dana listings etc.

Cheers

Keith

28th Apr 2017 00:59 UTCRonnie Van Dommelen 🌟 Manager

1: Do you use the references list on the mindat mineral pages to research further information about the mineral species?

Not often, but references are the key to organizing information! So very important!

2. Do you think the reference list on some pages is too long?

No.

3. Do you understand how references are ordered within the reference list, and which are the most important?

Yes. Start with when the mineral was first described (usually) and follow its history.

I agree 100% with the comments regarding the incomplete references. Better than nothing, but it wastes a huge amount of other people's time having to figure out what it means. I've been working on expanding them but some are simply indecipherable (esp. early 1800s articles).

I also agree with the earlier comments on the formatting. However, the mineral entry page reference example needs to be updated to match the style guide (i.e. without bolds and italics).

28th Apr 2017 04:24 UTCMark Heintzelman 🌟 Expert

I whole-heartedly disagree with using collapsing data even for the basic information like Struntz/Dana classification etc.

30+ years of Art Direction and publishing, and you come to realize the gravity of your position when it pertains to publishing data. You actually influence the consumption of that data with choices you make in layout. When you marginalize some data, you suggest to the consumers that it isn't all that important. Believe me, in advertising, many an inconvenient fact is buried well away for that very purpose.

My suggestion would be to use such collapse columns VERY, VERY sparingly if at all, and allow those who come here to decide for themselves what is and isn't important.

MRH

28th Apr 2017 05:07 UTCRalph S Bottrill 🌟 Manager

Yes/no/yes

Which references are most important is highly subjective, it should be as comprehensive as possible to cover all the data and descriptive text shown.

We need the references linked to the relevant data and sections on the page.

We should delete references but flag them for editing/updating.

We should make the reference list collapsible; we don't pick out the most important localities, why do that with references?

And finally we need to institute a references database.

28th Apr 2017 09:12 UTCUwe Ludwig

to 1.:Yes, I use it often for rare minerals. However, these reference lists schould also remain for commen minerals (the "Big Five"

- Quartz, Fluorite, Calzite, Baryte, Pyrite) to keep the lexicon complete.

to 2.: If there is enough space it may be so voluminouse as existing.

to 3.: I have not to understand how the reference list is constructed. I scroll through until I find what I are looking for. However,

the picture galerie is most imprtant for me because "A picture tells more than 1000 words.".

Rgds.

Uwe Ludwig

28th Apr 2017 20:58 UTCEd Clopton 🌟 Expert

Regarding style for references, I have wondered what style I should use for the few I have entered. It never occurred to me that there might be a Mindat Manual of Style, although I shouldn't be surprised that it exists. A prompt and link on the appropriate upload page(s) to consult the Manual when entering references would be helpful. Now that I know it's there I will go back and fix the ones I have entered.

29th Apr 2017 01:27 UTCŁukasz Kruszewski Expert

1 = YES, 2 = NO, 3= YES. Tadam (-;

2nd May 2017 03:00 UTCMartin Rich Expert

Yes - No - Yes.

2nd May 2017 03:10 UTCMatt Neuzil Expert

I've never used them.

2nd May 2017 05:37 UTCBruce Cairncross Expert

Yes - No - Yes

2nd May 2017 07:43 UTCChris Rayburn

And one more yes - no - yes. Thanks Jolyon.

2nd May 2017 12:33 UTCLászló Horváth Manager

Yes/No/Yes

2nd May 2017 13:49 UTCKeith A. Peregrine

Yes, No, No

Length does not bother me.

2nd May 2017 18:00 UTCDoug Schonewald

Yes - No - No

2nd May 2017 19:40 UTCEllen Faller

Questions: Yes, possibly, yes.

I agree with the comments on the style for references, and find some of them a problem.

Additionally, I see a LOT of problems with the references to articles in the American Journal of Science for series 1, 2, and 3. Someone was really confused and many of the references are totally useless. Series 4 (current) seems to be okay.

And while I am at it, I would prefer (but understand if it isn't a popular idea) to see the reference to the actual first published description of a mineral. Wishing.

I also find that there are quite a few localities that are not listed because the localities are "extinct" now. But there are still specimens out there that are from these outdated places and I wish there were a way to find out more about them. Just wishing again!

Things for someone with spare time...

2nd May 2017 20:04 UTCPaolo Bosio

Yes/No/Yes

3rd May 2017 13:55 UTCUwe Kolitsch Manager

"And while I am at it, I would prefer (but understand if it isn't a popular idea) to see the reference to the actual first published description of a mineral."

For this info, you can go to the corresponding RRUFF page. Presently, the RRUFF lists of mineral references are, in general, more comprehensive than those on Mindat, but it's getting steadily better.

"Things for someone with spare time..."

We certainly need more volunteers to improve refs. If you may have some spare time in the future, please post corrections to the American Journal of Science refs.

3rd May 2017 18:46 UTCLuca Baralis Expert

My half cent:

1. yes/no (that is: rarely)

2. yes

3. yes (Chronologically)

Some pages are really long, maybe a collapsible list or a tabbed layout of the page could be a better choice.

A selection of references for relevance could be useful, too.

Mindat.org is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2024, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Founded in 2000 by Jolyon Ralph.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us / DMCA issues - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: April 24, 2024 20:14:04

Go to top of page