See https://www.mindat.org/glossary/IMA_status : "Valid - first described prior to 1959 (pre-IMA) - "Grandfathered" - Minerals published and recognised as valid prior to the establishment of the IMA in 1959 need not be approved, simply published in a peer-reviewed journal. Most of the common minerals we know today belong in this category."--Leon II (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the grandfathered minerals got valid in March 2007. I need a auxiliary item for the type description before the IMA-CNMNC era. This is the structure of the databank. Thx --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Коллега, понятно, что статьи разные, однако для шаблонов-карточек разница невелика, потому что карточка для места добычи может использоваться и для месторождений вообще. Фактически русскоязычные карточки эквивалентны иностранным, они именно о местах добычи, а тот факт, что они так называют - случайность. Если вы очень настаиваете, придётся переименовать шаблоны в рувики, но я не вижу смысла отрывать их от иностранных чисто из-за отличия в выбранной терминологии при той же самой сути. Wikisaurus (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Для того, чтобы их различать, достаточно учесть тот факт, что одно месторождение могут разрабатывать несколько шахт/рудников и т.п. Плюс, по крайней мере, украинские и немецкие карточки шахт выраженно специализированные. Информация про месторождение там в привязке к операционной деятельности шахты. Шаблон в рувики не нужно переименовывать - он именно про месторождение, не про горнодобывающее предприятие. Его отдельные параметры, связанные с добычей, ничего не говорят о том, кто ведет разработку, не говоря уже о деталях.--Leon II (talk) 10:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more careful. The backbone of this data structure is 'instance of:' 'mineral species' (IMA-CNMNC) and 'class of:' 'mineral classes' (1 to 10, Nickel-Strunz) in english (reference language). It is possible to destroy a lot, really fast. Set theory: set, subset; class of minerals, subclass of minerals; mineral supergroup, mineral group and mineral series. Thanks --Chris.urs-o (talk) 02:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi The RedBurn! I re-checked the content of the articles. You are absolutely right. I hastened to conclusions. Thanks!--Leon II (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I noted here that you want an image that is characteristic for the subject as a whole. Do you mind telling me what kind of image will be acceptable to you? Having no image at all is not a solution. Often a clear photographic example of a subject—together with an informative caption—will make both the infobox and the entry to a Wikipedia article much more understandable. It doesn't have to be perfect, as neither Wikipedia nor Wikidata are perfect. Can something being presented here be acceptable to you? Please return with a better estimation of your opinion on the issue, so I can understand you better. Allt the best.--Paracel63 (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Paracel63: Hi! I think, it may be the hammer and pick - the symbol of mining. It can indicate mining, mines (especially on maps or in cartography), or miners. --Leon II (talk) 12:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip. I've now put it to use. However, I think it is may be less than optimal, being more of a symbol than an illustration. Hammers and chisels/picks are being used in more industry sectors. What I think would be optimal is a very visible and clear exponent of a mining industry landscape. Examples would be this or this. What do you think?--Paracel63 (talk) 09:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Be careful with merges, it is possible to destroy a lot. The bot "corrects" a lot afterwards. 'auxiliary status: published before 1959' was not 'grandfathered mineral (G)'. There are still some corpes left. There was a time before IMA/CNMNC, there is a history. 'mineral species' is not exactly 'mineral subgroups'. Nowadays, IMA/CNMNC only uses 'mineral series' and 'mineral homologous series'. There is still a history before IMA/CNMNC. Thank you. Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I`m carful (since then). ("'mineral species' is not exactly 'mineral subgroups'." - ??? It is obvious). Do You mean this merge ('mineral series' + 'mineral subgroups')? If this, then I think that the history of the terms is appropriate to reflect in the Wikipedia articles. Best regards and Happy New Year!--Leon II (talk) 08:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Call for participation in a task-based online experiment[edit]
Dear Leon II,
I hope you are doing good,
I am Kholoud, a researcher at King's College London, and I work on a project as part of my PhD research, in which I have developed a personalised recommender system that suggests Wikidata items for the editors based on their past edits. I am collaborating on this project with Elena Simperl and Miaojing Shi.
I am inviting you to a task-based study that will ask you to provide your judgments about the relevance of the items suggested by our system based on your previous edits.
Participation is completely voluntary, and your cooperation will enable us to evaluate the accuracy of the recommender system in suggesting relevant items to you. We will analyse the results anonymised, and they will be published to a research venue.
The study will start in late January 2022 or early February 2022, and it should take no more than 30 minutes.
