text:
Owen Magnetic

The Owen Magnetic was a pioneering American brand of hybrid electric luxury automobile manufactured between 1915 and 1922. Car models of the brand were notable for their use of an electromagnetic transmission and were early examples of an electric series hybrid drivetrain. The manufacture of the car was sponsored by R.M. Owen & Company of New York, New York. The car was built in New York City in 1915, in Cleveland, Ohio, between 1916 and 1919 and finally in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, in 1920 and 1921.

History
The first Owen Magnetic was introduced at the 1915 New York auto show when Justus B. Entz's electric transmission was fitted to the Owen automobile: "R.M. Owen have leased the large new three story fireproof building at the corner of Fifth avenue and One Hundred and Forty-second street, New York, where they will build the new Owen Magnetic motor cars." The former Owen plant still exists and is presently a self-storage facility.

Raymond M. Owen and his brother Ralph R. Owen had been working on the Entz transmission adapting it for a car since 1912. Justus Entz's drive train patent was. The Entz transmission had no physical connection between the gasoline engine and the driveshaft. Walter C. Baker, of Cleveland, Ohio, owned the patents on the Entz transmission, thus each of the 250 Owen Magnetic automobiles produced in New York was built under license.

Some sources wrongly state that the Woods Dual Power car manufactured by the Woods Motor Vehicle Company in Chicago also used the Entz transmission. The Woods Dual Power had a drive-train based on Roland Fend's, using a clutch between the gas engine and the electric motor.

The car became as famous as the company's clientele, which included Enrico Caruso and John McCormack. Owen Magnetics were advertised as "The Car of a Thousand Speeds". In December 1915, the company was moved to Cleveland when the R. M. Owen Company joined Walter Baker (of Baker Motor Vehicle) and the Rauch and Lang company. The Baker Electric Car company would produce the car, and Rauch and Lang would build the coachwork. Because of the combined resources, the Owen Magnetic increased its range of offerings for 1916 model year adding a Holbrook bodied sports tourer for $6,000,. Production continued through 1918, with prices ranging from $3,000 to $5,000, when Baker shifted its focus to war goods manufacturing.

J. L. Crown secured the rights to the Entz transmission and with Raymond Owen the company reorganized as the Owen Magnetic Motor Car Corporation based in Wilkes-Barre. The newly equipped factory was situated in the old Matheson works at Forty Fort, Pennsylvania. The Wilkes-Barre Times announced the resumption of production for January 1, 1920, with the aim of producing 750 cars that year.

Crown Magnetic
J. L. Crown who now owned the Entz rights, placed an order for 500 vehicles to be sold by Le Grice Elers, Ltd of London. Crown Limited of Great Britain was formed and the cars were named Crown Magnetic. However, by August 1920, before the order could be fulfilled, Owen Magnetic was in receivership. The Crown Magnetic was displayed at the London Motor Show in 1920, with about 20 imported before production ceased.

The Crown version of the Magnetic omitted the emergency low gear fitted on the Owen Magnetics. This turned out to be a mistake, as on a long steep hill, the force of gravity on this heavy car could defeat the transmission and could bring the car to a standstill.

Design
The car was powered by a six-cylinder engine, but power was transmitted to the wheels based upon the same electromagnetic principle that propelled the Battleship U.S.S. New Mexico.

Automobile author Henry B. Lent described the drive mechanism thus:

"The drive mechanism had no direct connection between the engine and the rear wheels. Instead of a flywheel, a generator and a horseshoe shaped magnet were attached to the rear of the engine's crank shaft. On the forward end of the car's drive shaft, was an electric motor with an armature fitted into an air space inside the whirling magnet. Electric current, transmitted by the engine's generator and magnet attached to the armature of the electrical motor, providing the energy to turn the drive shaft and propel the engine's rear wheels. Speed for the car was controlled by a small lever adjacent to the steering wheel."

title: Owen Magnetic


text:
Fast N' Loud season 11

This is a list of episodes for Fast N' Loud Season 11. Season 11 started on August 29, 2016.

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Fast N' Loud season 11


text:
User:Lior Nesher/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

 * Arabic tea : Arabic tea
 * I was born in Israel where Arabian tea is very famous and popular and in addition personally I love Arabic tea

Lead

 * Guiding questions

 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? not really

Content

 * Guiding questions

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? yes

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

 * Is the article neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? no
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? no
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions

 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? not well written
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes but not enough
 * Are images well-captioned? could be better described
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? no

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? adding another type of Arabic tea
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? WikiProject Arab world      WikiProject Food and drink / Beverages
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

 * What is the article's overall status? quality start, importance low
 * What are the article's strengths? well detailed explanations about the different types of Arabic tea
 * How can the article be improved? add other points to the content as: ingredients, differences to other teas, history
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? poor developed

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~

 * Link to feedback:

title: User:Lior Nesher/Evaluate an Article


text:
Talk:Mineral/Archive 1

Comment 1

 * could use some help on getting dietary minerals 'fleshed out'

 * The entry on Bong Water is irrelevant. Also there is no citation so I’m removing it.

"Trying to list all the minerals here would probably be counter-productive; maybe they can be linked from their chemical compositions".
 * Quote:
 * End quote

 * could some shed some light on this. Ktsquare

Dana system (from James Dwight Dana, an american mineralogist). The basis of the system is the division of minerals into classes according to similarities in chemical composition. It is a system of classification coming from the Berzelius classification.

The first class, natives elements, includes minerals found as individual elements uncombined with other elements. As minerals, they are called by the name of the element. These are gold, copper, mercury...or sometimes have specific names (diamond, graphite)

The second class of simple compounds, sulfides, are metals combined with sulfure, arsenic, antimony, bismuth, tellurium, selenium. Most have a metallic luster

The third class, sulfosalts, are composed of the same elements, but with more complexe combinations

Fourth class are oxides. Rather simple compounds with oxygen (ex corindon)

Fifth class are hydroxide, oxides with water.

Then halides, are metals plus one or more of the halogen elements, chlorine, fluorine, bromine, iodine.

Other classes are carbonates, phosphates, nitrates, borates, arsenates, and sulfates

And finally silicates (the larger and most diverse class), in which silicon and oxygen form a structural unit than can bond to other elements.

Does it make light Ktsquare ???

 * Good to know the Dana system. The writer of the quote means different minerals may only result from different crystal structures even with the same chemical composition. So one chemical composition could have thousands of minerals because of different structures.

No, that's not what he meant :-) There is no only in the quote. Minerals may be different due to different compositions, or for the same composition, due to different structural arrangements. For one composition, a maximum of 14 different structure are known (see Crystal structure). So for one identical composition, a maximum of 14 minerals can potentially be observed.

 * But given the system, a list of all the materials will be beneficial in Wikipedia to clssify all the minerals articles. Wikipedia has exactly 402 articles (as of this morning) containing the word "mineral". Actual number of mineral-related articles may be even higher. Won't that be a mess without a list considering the ever growing number of articles?

I disagree. I don't know exactly, but imho there are about 4000 different mineral species described. I don't think a list of 4000 minerals would be very useful. And they will be even less useful if you classify them alphabetically. If someone look for a very specific mineral, dunno, sugilite, he will type the name of the mineral in the search box; and either he will find the comprehensive specific article on sugilite, or he will find it among similar minerals in terms of family (composition / structure). I don't see a list of 4000 minerals (even with divisions of A, B, C...) as very useful. Similarly, there are about 4000 mammals known; wikipedia is classifying them along most widely accepted classification rules, based on evolution. Is there somewhere a list of the 4000 mammals on wikipedia ? This list might exist one day, but what has been considered the most useful was to describe classification, and fit there well-known species, and make specific articles on these latter. Why should not it be just the same for minerals ?

 * Is this system the commonly used and how they implement it on classifying minerals? Or mineralogists have several systems depending on different criteria, just as the Acid-base reaction theories. User:kt2

This is the system ''the most widely used in western countries. I can't say for sure this is the case for eastern countries, but, chinese mineralogists seem to be following it. There is another system, extremely similar, used by Germans (unfortunately, the name of the guy is escaping me). It is similar to the Dana system in this that the classification is done first on the composition, then second on the structure (and usually goes from the simpler structures, to the most complicated ones). The only major difference is that Germans are classifying quartz and derivates among oxides, while english (and french ;-)) are classifying them among silicates (this would be important to note in both systems). No big deal. In any cases, for english-speaking people, this is definitly the way to go.

Both systems could coexist maybe. A huge listing, and the scholar classification system. Might also consider making a short list of "most famous minerals" or something equivalent.
 * these should be (the "rock-forming" minerals): Quartz, Feldspar (Orthoclase, Sanidin, Microcline, Albite, Plagioclase), Pyroxenes, Amphiboles, Olivine, Biotite, Muscovite, Calcite, Dolomite, Garnet, Magnetite and possibly some five more.--chd

How to implement it ? Best way would be to pick up a book of mineralogy.

For example, you could do something like (I put french name for the example)
 * Elements
 * diamond
 * soufre...
 * Sulfures
 * Chalcopyrite
 * pyrite
 * sphalerite...
 * Halogenures
 * Fluorite
 * Oxydes et hydroxydes
 * hematite
 * cuprite...
 * Sulfate, chromates, molybdates, wolframates
 * crocoïte...
 * Silicates
 * albite
 * kunzite...

With a first article listing the groups (elements, silicates...), then a specific page for each group, explaining its composition specificities, then listing minerals belonging to the group.

Just ideas

In germany minerals are classified after H. Strunz (Strunz Hugo, Nickel Ernest H., Strunz Mineralogical Tables, 9th ed, Schweizerbart'sche, 2001): this classification is based on the anions. Quartz is counted among the oxides. There are nine different classes: I am not sure about the correct translations! --chd 06:10 Dec 30, 2002 (UTC)
 * 1) elements
 * 2) sulfides
 * 3) halogenides
 * 4) oxides and hydroxides
 * 5) nitrates, karbonates and borates
 * 6) sulfates, chromates, molybdates and wolframites
 * 7) phosphates, arsenates and vanadates
 * 8) silicates
 * 9) neso-islandsilicates
 * 10) soro-groupsilicates
 * 11) cyclo-ringsilicates
 * 12) ino-chainsilicates
 * 13) phyllo-leafsilicates
 * 14) tecto-framesilicates
 * 15) organic minerals

sulfide vs sulphide etc -- OK discuss!
Quoting from: American and British English differences

"sulphur	sulfur	The American spelling is the international standard in the sciences, although many British scientists use the British spelling."

User:Darrien wins; User:SimonP loses. Note: I'm not reverting in haste - request User:SimonP stop this nonsense and revert to the accepted standard; sulfide, sulfate and sulfur. Mineral is a science topic. Vsmith 00:47, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Right. As a speaker of Canadian English and a scientist, I use the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry IUPAC recommended spelling in scientific communication even though it will always look wrong to me, and still use the "ph" spelling for any literary non-scientific context. IUPAC has spoken. Fawcett5 13:41, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As another Canuck I am always confused between US and UK spelling. We are not alone: I once saw "Sulfuric Acid" and Sulphuric Acid" on two sides of the same tank in a mine processing plant in Australia. But there is an international std. It is a pity IUPAC did not rule on the correct spelling of fosfate. Judge Nutmeg 03:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

MoS violation
(note: copying the following from my talk page, it belongs here for other interested parties to read. See also SimonP's talk page this topic.) -Vsmith 23:03, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

American spelling is the international standard according to whom? English, unlike other languages, has no central authority on proper usage. There are several organizations, such as IUPAC, the OED, and others that attempt to set rules but there is no reason we must follow them. Even many scientific periodicals and journals do not follow the convention you mention, much less encyclopedias. Most UK scientific journals still seem to use British spelling, as any database search will show. - SimonP 17:39, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

 * According to IUPAC and as my quote indicated according to Wikipedia policy. Standards are important for consistency and clarity. In science articles the standards should be used with notes for common names and spellings where needed. I'm not used to the standard for aluminium, and often forget in common usage, but I intend to use the standards and will support Darrien to standardize usage in Wikipedia science articles.

Vsmith 22:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please do not provoke disputes by changing original contributor's spelling. A Google search for "sulphur site:.gov" (which is restricting itself to sites belonging to the United States Government) gives 40,000 hits. Both spellings are perfectly acceptable. What the IUPAC say has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Mintguy (T) 16:49, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Your Google search is irrelevant. US Govt. is noted for inconsistency - Wiki can do better and follow standard usage and be consistent.-Vsmith

Check the history. Original article in 2002 didn't have sulfide or sulphide. First use of either was by Anthere on 18 Dec 02, when he introduced sulfide. Major changes 04 Mar 03 by Cferrero intrduced sulfate. The first use of sulphur was by an anon user 16 Apr 04. Darrien changed this to sulfur for consistency on 11 Jul 04. Then SimonP arbitrarily changed all f's to ph's on 25 Sep 04. This started this round of silliness. Original was sulfide. Stop vandalizing with sulph- nonsense. -Vsmith 00:52, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Please don't accuse me of vandalising over spelling. OK I apologise. I read this situation wrong. The reason being that 9/10 times in these sorts of disputes, the cause of the trouble is someone changing BE spelling to AE spellings. See here and [here for a humorous take on this. BTW Anthere is a she not a he. [[User:Mintguy|Mintguy]] (T) 07:42, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

mineral classification
For information and hope, that anyone has time and likes to translate the german de:Systematik der Minerale nach Hugo Strunz (mineral classification to Strunz). greetings -- <IP_ADDRESS> 10:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC) (P.S.:you find me as Ra'ike (Disk.) on de:Wikipedia

Hanging pointer
The phrase "(see also Minerals and Rocks section below)" is referring to a nonexistent section. (SEWilco (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

Possible article error in mineral, Ankerite
Going by the Web Mineral webpage, it has the formula, Ca(Mn,Mg,Fe++)(CO3)2 and calls it Kutnohorite. While on the webpage, Ankerite, the formula is very similar, if not the same. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * While similer the Formulas are not the same. The position of the elements in the formula and the subscripts tell the amounts of each  in the composition.  Kevmin (talk) 09:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Definition conflicts
In the section for definition of the word mineral, the newer version of the definition allowing for minerals to be organic is used. The very next section on the difference between a rock and a mineral, the traditional definition of a mineral as inorganic is used. To avoid confusion, wouldn't be better to use the same definition throughout? Zappa2496 (talk) 06:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think so, yes. The lead definition says inorganic, and links to the definition of inorganic as not containing carbon. So by this definition, diamond wouldn't be a mineral! This is a problem. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried to do some repair to the lead, and added a citation to a book definition. Still, more work is required. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Secondary minerals?
Please see this question from the Science RefDesk. Would it be appropriate (and is anyone willing) to add a section to this article on "secondary minerals" so that we can wiki-link the many articles that use this term? I ran across the term in the Wulfenite article, and can only guess at its meaning (I doubt I'm alone among WP readers). --Scray (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Secondary minerals are those formed under a weathering or oxidizing environment at or near Earth's surface, most often used in discussing surface expressions of ore deposits (least that's where I've seen the term most). That said, perhaps the best place for clarification would be the weathering article ... still thinking. Vsmith (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Added to weathering, see Weathering. Vsmith (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice work! --Scray (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

A solid, by definition? What about gas, water and oil?
"A mineral is a naturally occurring solid" - is it necessarily so, solid? --Extremophile (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

 * That's part of the definition - not only solid, but a solid with a regular crystal structure. Thus glass, amber (and other resins), opal and other amorphous solids don't make the cut. See mineraloid. Vsmith (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Ok then, and thanks. I just pointed/asked because I thought that "mineral" was essentially "any natural, nonliving, thing you can mine for", and even though they might be mostly ores, solids in a nontechnical sense, it wasn't restricted to that. --Extremophile (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There are soluble species of minerals. E.g.: http://www.columbia.edu/~ps24/PDFs/Mineral%20Solution%20Equilibria%20in%20Sparingly%20Soluble%20Mineral%20Sys.pdf. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Most minerals are soluble under the right conditions, but that doesn't mean they exist as the coherent mineral in solution - it means that they break apart and their chemical ions or constituents are dissolved in the solution, example from your linked ref:
 * CaCO3(the solid mineral) → Ca2+ + CO32-(the dissolved ions in solution, 1st step)
 * Vsmith (talk) 03:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Reformatting all individual mineral data with optical mineralogy info
This is a great resource that could be easily mined to include all the relevant optical mineralogy data that mindat is missing. http://www.nslc.ucla.edu/pet/mineral_html/Calcite.html Just type in the mineral name as html page and you get all the info like extinction and pleochroism that is missing from almost all the mineral pages. The way the info is set up right now the data is far too sparse to be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Neat, and great thin section pics on next page (chlorite). However, doesn't really qualify as WP:RS as it's a school/course supplemental site with no easy access to other mins from that page and no indication there of sources they are using. Vsmith (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Ecological v. geological
Lead sentence says: "A mineral is a naturally occurring solid chemical substance that is formed through geological processes..." I changed this to include ecological processes as well. Mineralization is not just a geological process - ecology is central - just do a google scholar search on "ecological mineralization". Moreover, it is not only a solid - there are soluble minerals. I noticed that Mr. Vsmith got rid of ecology without any scientific justification for doing so. The mineral cycle on Earth would not work without lichens, bacterial, and other heterotrophs that are active agents in the decay of rocks into minerals. This is not geological - it is ecological. Until you bring ecology into the definition this article will lack credibility.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I just did a googlescholar search on "ecological mineralization" as suggested and got exactly one hit. Also minerals may be soluble but once dissolved they are no longer minerals. I am reverting your change awaiting further discussion and supporting sources. Mikenorton (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The mineral cycle seems to be an outdated concept (very few uses in recent scholar articles), it appears to be closer to dietary mineral, unless I am completely misunderstanding. Mikenorton (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

 * It is pretty basic science and well known that ecological mineralization is fundamental to the formation process. Lichens and bacteria, for example, add to the weathering of rock and its mineralization process (http://www.pnas.org/content/96/7/3404.abstract). I doubt you did a proper search - it took me two seconds to find multiple peer-reviewed articles on this topic; for example: http://www.sph.sc.edu/ENHS/decho/pdf/DechoMS2009EcolEngFinalProof.pdf - "Bacteria are associated with mineralization and dissolution processes, some of which may enhance or compromise the physical stability of engineered structures." Try your search again - leave the quotes out. Moreover, it is NOT true that once dissolved they are no longer minerals (e.g., http://stage.iupac.org/originalWeb/publications/pac/2002/pdf/7410x1851.pdf) - halite, magnetite, and hematite are examples soluble minerals. How on earth could plants absorb minerals unless soluble? I am an ecologist and I study these kinds of processes. In ecology, mineralization usually refers to the decomposition of organic nutrients into inorganic mineral compounds (usually in the B-horizon).<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Try Biomineralization<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Well obviously I did the search exactly as suggested :). I am of course aware of biomineralization and that should be in the article but I think that the minerals that plants absorb are not minerals in the sense being described in this article, but in sense that 'mineral' is used in the dietary mineral page. The article about lichen being important in dissolution would certainly be important in the weathering article but I'm not convinced that it's appropriate here. Mikenorton (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)]

 * I disagree and hope to see some discussion here. This goes against everything that I have learned in context of what constitutes a mineral. I don't know what minerals you are thinking of - but a mineral is a mineral - it doesn't matter if it is in a rock or in an organism. This isn't the dark ages where we segregate things into wind, earth, and fire - there is no strict barrier in between the science of geology and ecology, they grade into one another. At our institution I work with geologists as we research the weathering processes in rocks and soils releasing nutrients. We use the same analytical equipment and see the same elemental peaks if we are looking at biotic or abiotic minerals. There are mineral nutrients (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, nitrogen, sulfur, sodium, potassium, and so forth), but then these are also classified as minerals proper. The distinction you are making is not real - nor scientific.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

 * The definition used in the article follows usage in geology and mineralogy and is supported by WP:reliable sources. We don't change it based on our personal belief or what we learned in some class. The elements you list as mineral nutrient are chemical elements and, with the exception of carbon (as diamond and graphite) and native sulfur, do not occur as solids by themselves in nature that is as minerals. The use of the word "mineral" to refer to mineral nutrients as you state is covered in the dietary mineral article. The distinction made above and in the article very definitely is both real and scientific just refer to the references in the article or any good mineralogy text. Vsmith (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

 * You are mistaken. When I look up in the back of a textbook - such as Campbell's biology - in the index it says mineral. It does not say mineral (excluding those from geology). This is not information I have learned in some class - I am a scientist and I work in a chemistry lab with other scientists - a consortium of researchers including soil scientists, geologists, and ecologists. We research papers, publish papers, and discuss these issues on a regular basis. If you are unsatisfied with the chemical elements - which are minerals btw - then you can look to other branches of life, such as the diatoms with silica skeletons. Or what about aragonite, calcite forms of calcium carbonate, or carbonate hydroxyapatite in coral skeleton's - here  is a nice review paper on this topic where they state "Corals also represent a testing ground for basic ideas about mineralogy and geochemistry." Doesn't sound like a whimsical opinion to me - peer-reviewed reliable sources. You could attempt to create a disambiguation page - but this would go against the scientific taxonomy of what constitutes a mineral. Minerals are not just geological - they are part of the planets biogeochemistry and this is the accepted scientific norm. This paper (Lowenstam, HA. 1981. Minerals formed by organisms. Science: 211(4487), 1126-1131.) states: "Organisms are capable of forming a diverse array of minerals, some of which cannot be formed inorganically in the biosphere." They did not state - minerals in organisms are distinguished from the minerals that geologists speak about - we use the same term mineral - but just ignore the similarity in the word, because the minerals and mineral forming processes we talk about have nothing to do with the stuff geologists are talking about - so says wikipedia. That is absurd. This book chapter (http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=L8Be8rprGgkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA191&dq=minerals+in+organisms&ots=EbxBIcq9LO&sig=P_p1cbQtLSGZkQBEufh9D_NSZ7E#v=onepage&q=minerals%20in%20organisms&f=false) provides a list of minerals formed by organisms - and that list has grown since 1983. This is a discussion topic that is taking place in materials science (e.g,. Meyers, M. A., Chen, P., Lin, A. Y., & Seki, Y. (2008). Biological materials: Structure and mechanical properties. Progress in Materials Science, 53(1), 1-206.). Bones are another example: "Not only are bone crystallites extremely small, they are often described as “poorly crystalline” because of the broad X-ray diffraction peaks (relative to synthetic HA), which is thought to arise from the incorporation of impurities, such as carbonate, sodium and magnesium ions (4–6% carbonate; 0.9% Na; 0.5% Mg) [18], [63] and [64], and non-stoichiometry of the biogenic mineral. The carbonated form of apatite has the mineral name of Dahllite, which is sometimes used in the bone literature [5], [18] and [65], but more commonly biological apatite is referred to hydroxyapatite. Bone mineral is a calcium-deficient apatite, with a Ca:P ratio less than 1.67, which is the theoretical value for pure hydroxyapatite, Ca5(PO4)3(OH) [39] and [64] R.Z. LeGeros, Calcium Phosphate in Oral Biology and Medicine, Karger, NY (1991).[64]." (Olszta, M. J., Cheng, X., Jee, S. S., Kumar, R., Kim, Y., Kaufman, M. J., Douglas, E. P., et al. (2007). Bone structure and formation: A new perspective. Materials Science and Engineering: R: Reports, 58(3-5), 77-116.). This is not adequately covered in the dietary mineral article - because as you can see some of these articles are appearing in publications such as Sedimentary Geology (http://hal.inria.fr/docs/00/27/17/31/PDF/Defarge-SedimentaryGeology-2007.pdf) or Geology (http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/37/7/615.abstract) or Chemical Geology (http://doc.rero.ch/lm.php?url=1000,43,2,20090911122840-HM/samankassou_mic.pdf), which have little to do with dietary minerals. Minerals are formed by geological and biological processes period.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are two points that you have made - the first that the article should include biomineralization, which I agree with, and the second that minerals in terms of dissolved nutrients should be in there too, which I disagree with. Your latest reply provides support for the former but not the latter. Mikenorton (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely happy with 'formed by biogeochemical processes' - I think that 'formed by geological and biological processes' would be clearer, particularly as most minerals that occur at the surface and even more so at depth have no biological involvement in their formation. Mikenorton (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mikenorton - I agree with your synopsis. Minerals are solids, but some are soluble - so it does get a bit confusing especially at different physical scales. "Biominerals may be produced wherever life forms proliferate, and often do so against a gradient. The only absolute requirement appears to be a solution phase in which biomineralization can take place and nutrients made available." (Skinner 2005 - Mineralogical Magazine, October 2005, Vol. 69(5), pp. 621-641) It should be noted that Skinner (2005) was an author on the The 8th edition of `Dana' and uses the biogeochemical definition of a mineral. I've done a bit of work to clarify the most recent definitions on what constitutes a mineral from the biogeochemical perspective. People who work in our lab completely disagree with the 1995 Nickel definition that excludes biogenic minerals, because we work with soils, lichens, and bacteria in context of biomineralization. That demarcation by Nickel (1995) excluding biominerals was an error for several reasons. Foremost, it neglected a lot of history of the term and precedence for minerals in biology. Moreover, it is not possible to make this distinction because "chemical compounds produced entirely by biological processes without a geological component" do not exist from an ecologists point of view - especially if you want to get down to the Lovelock/Margulis Gain view of the world. We find organisms at great depths into the Earth - much further than previously appreciated. Good luck trying to find a mineral on Earth's crust, surface, or biosphere that doesn't have a bacterium or fungi attached to it - the two are so intertwined that the feedback between geology and biology is of fundamental importance to the mineralization process. Planetary geologists are particularly interested in these questions as they look toward Mars or other planets to study these relations. This is an exciting field that is exploding - because it was not well appreciated how much of an influence living organisms had on the mineralization process until recent genetic techniques allowed us to locate these organisms. I'm a geneticist and so my role is to grab the genes off these minerals as we are trying to sort out the biogeochemistry. I suspect that the IMA will own up to this mistake of trying to exclude biogenic minerals - because it was a re-write of history and pissed off a lot of us working in this field.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I've finished my work here - added some literature and citations describing the biogenic classification of minerals and updates on the biogeochemical definition. Feel free to integrate and edit - but to exclude biogenic minerals from this page is a mistake and so I hope I have clarified this. Take care - I may check back in a few years. Now, back to my thesis and research on mineral genetics.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Well I see "ecological" has been replaced with "biogeochemical" - perhaps better - do wish you would take a look at the biogeochemistry article and give it a hand as it could use some work. Also, your experience could be put to use in improving the biomineralization article. Thanks for the references; your work will likely be edited and modified as the definition section is now rather overlong and argumentative. Living organisms obviously produce mineral products, a limestone composed almost entirely of shells and shell fragments (coquina) shows an indisputable biologic component, so yes biologic processes are important in mineral formation. However, the vast majority of minerals within the Earth's crust and mantle occur within igneous rocks with no biochemical input - or are you saying magmas are biogeochemical products (Gaia perhaps). We all view things based on our experiences and perspectives, but please read undue weight as your edits may be problematic there. Vsmith (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

 * The clean-up tag can probably now be removed from this section. I re-organized the text - the section is not argumentative in the least. Sorry Vsmith - I've actually written quite a few wikipedia science articles - one featured, two good-articles - but retired and now just choose to remain anonymous and help out here and there when the mood strikes me.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

 * @Vsmith, "However, the vast majority of minerals within the Earth's crust and mantle occur within igneous rocks with no biochemical input - or are you saying magmas are biogeochemical products (Gaia perhaps)." I am not disputing this at all and fully understand how important natural geology is for mineral formation. I'm also not thinking about this in terms of a Gaian philosophy - not entirely. I'm using the peer-reviewed literature and information from the IMA website and meetings that I have attended in putting this together. There are very strong reasons why the 'bio' component is a necessary ingredient - it has for too long been unappreciated how big of an effect it has on mineralization. As a geneticist who has sampled many different rock formations, particles, and surfaces across the globe - I can say from first hand experience that I have yet to find a surface on this planet that isn't covered with microorganisms (fungi or bacteria). Even fresh magma rocks are almost immediately colonized by microorganisms and in one of the papers I cite (Newmann & Banfield, 2002) they state:

"The exciting concept that microorganisms have contributed to the formation of certain ore deposits over geologic time stems from the recognition that they can precipitate metals from solution. Though most ore deposits are thought to relate to transport and deposition by high-temperature fluids and magmas, in some cases low temperature origins may be possible. For example, it has been suggested that iron-oxidizing phototrophs may have played a role in the deposition of Banded Iron Formations over 2.5 billion years ago (35). New evidence has revealed that natural communities of sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) can generate essentially pure ZnS deposits from dilute groundwater solutions, providing support for a biogenic origin of many low-temperature metal sulfide ore deposits (36). In addition, recent evidence indicates that hyperthermophilic and mesophilic dissimilatory Fe(III)-reducing bacteria and archaea can couple oxidation of hydrogen to reduction of Au3+, leading to Au0 precipitation (37). Hyperthermophilic microorganisms can couple oxidation of hydrogen or organics to the reduction of metals in hydrothermal solutions, leading to the formation of magnetite (Fe3O4) and uraninite (UO2) ore deposits at ∼100°C (38)."

 * In the next paragraph they talk about 16S rna sequencing work that was done to identify these microbes - I was the guy working on the benchtop that did that sequencing. Magnify the biogenic activity over geological time - billions of years and the dynamic linkage of this heterotrophic biomass to the process of mineral formation and you have a more significant picture going on here than was formally appreciated. Below I clarify this using Skinner's (2005) own published wording and rational for adding 'bio' into 'biogeochemistry' as part of the definition. Hence, I am not putting undue weight on this - I am using the most recent definition of what a mineral as stated in a peer-reviewed article expressing how important this aspect is. To suggest that the wording was 'argumentative' is a significant stretch - it may have been 'impartial' in its draft format - but I made some revisions to it last night that should satisfy your concerns. It is true that the biogenic component is a bit weighty relative to the proportional mass of minerals, but the historical pivot going from the Nickel (1995) definition that excluded biogenic biominerals to the Skinner (2005) definition that includes biogenic biominerals is of grand significance and needs to be incorporated into the definition. This is a very big deal in mineralogical circles.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

 * One last thing...I want to state my reason for initially disputing the 'solid' aspect to a mineral. While I accept this from an operational perspective and I am satisfied with this from a Standard conditions for temperature and pressure perspective, the distinction from solid to fluid or liquid mineral, however, is something that has been entering the discussion circles from a biomineralization point of view under different physical conditions - such as in hydrothermal vents or at atomic levels. So from a taxonomic perspective - this makes sense, but functionally some of us are trying to think out of the box. I thought I would put this out there so that people would understand why I was initially disputing that all minerals be classified as a solid. There is also a lot of research looking into mineral liquid crystals (e.g., Davidson, P., & Gabriel, J. P. (2005). Mineral liquid crystals. Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science, 9(6), 377-383.) - which kinda brings the solid aspect into question.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Geochemical or biogeochemical
There is no citation that says geochemical in the definition of a mineral - so this cannot be supported. I see that Vsmith states that this incorporates biogeochemical - but I disagree. The Skinner (2005) definition of a mineral specifically states - biogeochemical. Skinner (2005) discusses the specific reason for this in his definition that was presented to the Mineralogical Society:

"An element or compound, amorphous or crystalline, formed through 'biogeochemical' processes''. The addition of `bio' reflects a greater appreciation, although an incomplete understanding, of the processes of mineral formation by living forms. Further, the definition acknowledges that some biominerals are barely crystalline but avoids a discussion of `amorphous'."

Hence, there is no support for removing this from the definition because the peer-reviewed expert in the field who is also an author on the 8th edition Dana classification has made clear that the 'bio' component is important. Unless Vsmith can provide a recent citation that has just geochemcial as part of the definition - I vote to have this permanently removed. Second - the tag that was placed on the definition of a mineral stating that it is 'long and overly argumentative' can be removed. It is not argumentative - an earlier draft may have been, but it has been re-written in an impartial voice and summarizes nicely the developments and discussions that have been taking places at the IMA conferences - of which I was in attendance. Indeed, my reason for including biogeochemistry is even more important in context of some of the discussions and talks that were just held at the May 6th meeting (http://www.minersoc.org/pages/groups/emg/emg.html) of which I was in attendance. The keynote address and lecture was on Biominerals and biogeochemistry (http://minersoc-emg.org/events/RiP2011.php). There was a lot of discussion on this in support of Skinners (2005) switch - the science has evolved considerably.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Mineral liquid crystals
Anyone have any ideas or input on how or if this topic on mineral liquid crystals should be incorporated? The following paper gives a fairly solid review on this topic (http://www.nano.com/news/archives/publications/Mineral%20Liquid%20Crystals.pdf). There is no wikipedia page that discusses these - yet there is a lot of research in this area going back almost 100 years. This book chapter gives another excellent review on these (http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=QRVVjEAEfQsC&oi=fnd&pg=PA49&dq=%22mineral+liquid+crystals%22&ots=EA9mTntjsG&sig=ThyUnoVbdWpsgQ_soFP7NPqhfnQ#v=onepage&q=%22mineral%20liquid%20crystals%22&f=false). The question is - are these to be considered minerals proper? Herein lies the confusion on the solid-state matter definition of a mineral.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Minerals are the consens from mindat.org, IMA, Rruff, Handbook of Mineralogy and Mineralien Atlas databases. Geobiochemical mineral and mineral liquid crystal controversies should be cited, but shouldn't be substantially expanded in mineral. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Addition of image gallery
I just reverted the addition of an image gallery as we already have 23 images in the article and the Image use policy says that they need to add understanding to the article, rather than just look nice (which they certainly did), and I can't see what they're adding. Mikenorton (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Questions

 * Quote: "There are over 4,300 known mineral species, and 92% of these are silicates."
 * If I look to RRUFF/ IMA database, then I get 4,663 IMA approved minerals and a total of 4,913 minerals. If I look at List of minerals (complete), then I don't get that 92% of these are silicates (maybe by total weight).
 * Mineral is substantial, Silicate minerals is less deep. Should the section be moved there?
 * Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I screwed that one up quite a bit... Original quote from source: "[The silicates] constitute 92% of the Earth's crust". I've revised to say that they "compose over 90% of the Earth's crust". I've compared quickly with other sources, and the abundance of silicates in terms of the crust checks out. It doesn't say clearly whether it's by mass or volume; however. I think it would likely be both, as a lot of that remaining 10% would be calcite, so I doubt that denser mineral groups (e.g. oxides, sulfides) would actually factor in enough to make the percentages for volume and mass much different.
 * Regarding moving the silicate section, I'm aiming to follow summary style, and I think the lengths of the relevant subsections are proportional to their importance. There would be no harm in copying relevant bits to the subarticle, although it could be much more detailed. In the silicate minerals article, you could devote a few paragraphs to just summarize the amphiboles, for example. In other words, the subarticle should have a more detailed summary (although at the moment, there isn't any summary, at all—only a list).  Maxim (talk)  23:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. It'd not be a good praxis to use the same paragraph twice on Wikipedia, by the way. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Quote: "The latter mineral can only be formed on Earth by meteorite impacts, and its structure has been composed so much that it had changed from a silicate structure to that of rutile (TiO2)."
 * Do you mean compressed? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight to the IMA
Ok I understand that the IMA is an international body of mineralogists, but theirs is not the only voice in the scientific community, and their policies and practices regarding minerals should not necessarily be the only basis for this article. For example, I'm reading a newly published academic geology text right now which clearly states that liquid mercury is not a mineral, whereas the IMA considers it to be one because it was "grandfathered in" (which, from my lowly prospective, seems like a damn stupid rule—why not grandfather in Pluto to being a planet, or grandfather in the solar system to being geocentric??)

Anyways I made some mention of this in the intro paragraph, but the "definition" section should be updated so it doesn't just mimic the IMA's policies as though they were scientific laws. Unfortunately my book is the old-fashioned offline kind, but I've included a large quote from it to support my changes. --Xiaphias (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Perhaps you are giving undue emphasis to an introductory geology text. I don't always agree with the IMA, but they are the "experts" here - a group of professional mineralogists attempting to sort out the complexities of mineralogy and standardise things a bit. Authors of intro texts in geology are typically not mineralogists ... don't know about your text. Vsmith (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

 * I think that mercury is entrenched in the literature (medical and legal usage). Professors of Mineralogy exchange thoughts at the IMA meetings, the databases of minerals follow mostly the IMA (mindat.org, webmineral, Rruff, Mineralien Atlas and Handbook of Mineralogy). Some procedures weren't excellent. I'm thinking of imogolite (1962-1986), renaming the apatite mineral group and reverting it (2008-2010); and the wrong editing (discreditation) of montebrasite on mindat.org (c. 2005-2010). IMA, Rruff and Mindat.org aren't perfect, but their know how is up-to-date and it's the best that we are able to get. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Water (liquid) and mercury (liquid) are a defined chemical substance, and they are crystalline at the coldest point on Earth's crust. Amber, opal, oil shale, clathrate hydrate, petroleum and coal are a mixture of chemical substances but are important for the economic geology and the world economy. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Ice
I've undone a change to the lead which seems to be about the status of ice. We don't need a reference in the lead with a long quote, new textbook or not. There are no doubt varying definitions or statements regarding the status of ice as a mineral. It seems that a number of valid minerals are unstable under surface conditions, but that doesn't change their status as minerals. Vsmith (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see there was an edit conflict ... and this relates to the above comment by User:Xiaphias. Vsmith (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... looking further I see the following:
 * Stable at Earth's surface conditions was changed back to Stable at room temperature which is referenced to the Dyar and Gunter text. The wider problem here is that many (most?) minerals are not stable under atmospheric conditions. Diamond will turn into graphite in only a few million years. I see metastable is used in the discussion following that, but mayhaps it (metastability) needs a bit more discussion there. Vsmith (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Minerals
As the earth evolves, it creates more and more minerals. The earth has more than 3,500 minerals. In the stone age, an era where plants and animals alike were known to be a means for survival, the way we use minerals today is a big difference. Although minerals are substances found in nature, they are not alive, but they are solids. There aare minerals in the universe, because minerals are made of atoms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2014
Hello, I noticed something on the first line of the article. The sentence "...representable by a chemical formula" should be "...represented by a chemical formula" because minerals are actually substances. When you say "representable", it means that minerals can be represented as chemical formulas. It can be or cannot be represented, that's what "representable" means. Besides, there's no such word as "representable"

So, please no offense. I'm just a student making some corrections on this article. Thanks for your cooperation.

Elo F...Flores (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know who wrote that, but I can understand why it was "representable". For example, FeNb2O6 is a very crude approximation of columbite - the actual metal composition varies a lot, and there are many more of such examples. Materialscientist (talk) 12:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Subscript or superscript
As part of a task to clean up broken subscript and superscript tags a bug was found in the the Mineral section. The text is I'm not sure if the C4+ should be, C 4+ (C4+), C4+ (C4+) or C4+ (C4+).--Salix alba (talk): 13:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Done --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The carbonate ion is not a cluster of four ions; it is a covalent molecular ion - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate - trigonal planar in shape. To consider it as "a central C4+ cation surrounded by three O2- anions" is wrong.

Lostmeow (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2015
I would like to request an edit of the first line of the article, if possible.

This is the line: "A mineral is a naturally occurring substance that is solid and inorganic representable by a chemical formula, usually abiogenic, and has an ordered atomic structure."

As an opening line it could be better - even if the definition of 'mineral' is still debated.

1. "solid and inorganic representable by a chemical formula" does not work grammatically - surely it needs, at the very least, a comma between 'inorganic' and 'representable', although the sentence as a whole could probably use restructuring.

2. 'abiogenic' in the sentence links to the Wikipedia page on 'Inorganic Compound', which suggests to me that the two things are considered synonymous, and therefore there is pointless repetition in this opening sentence, as 'inorganic' has already been mentioned. This is compounded by the odd positioning of the clause 'usually abiogenic' in the sentence. I suggest removing 'abiogenic' and linking 'inorganic' to the 'Inorganic Compound' page.

3. 'ordered atomic structure' (with a link to the Atomic Structure page) is misleading - surely what is meant is that there is an ordered lattice structure? The individual structures of the atoms (i.e. protons, neutrons, electrons) are not the point, it is the regular 3D arrangement of atoms/molecules/ions that is important. I suggest rephrasing and removing the link to Atomic Structure.

Therefore, my proposed opening line would be:

A mineral is a naturally occurring substance, representable by a chemical formula, that is usually solid and inorganic, and has a lattice structure.

Lostmeow (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Not clear what the process / protocol is. Is there a voting section? Referring to the 'Consensus-building in talk pages' section of the 'Wikipedia:Consensus' page tells me to:

"Be bold, but not rash." I guess I have tried...

"In most cases, the first thing to try is an edit to the article, and sometimes making such an edit will resolve a dispute" - I can't edit the article.

"Use clear edit summaries that explain the purpose of the edit." - I have tried to do that above...?

What to do next?

Lostmeow (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems like a reasonable rewording, so I have boldly applied it. RockMagnetist(talk) 02:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: copy content from Mineralogy
The section Uses in Mineralogy seems better suited to this article. I propose moving the section here. RockMagnetist(talk) 02:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 00:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Species?
The opening paragraph makes reference to a 'species'. The term is repeated in the second paragraph. The vast majority of readers of this page will only know the term as applied to the field of biology. Can someone 'in the know', link this somewhere useful and let that majority (and I include myself in this number) know what a mineral species is. The answer looks as though it will be obvious, but it may be nuanced. thanks Geopersona (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2016
<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Blank request — JJMC89  (T·C) 05:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2016
I believe the second sentence of the second paragraph of the section Mineral Chemistry has an error where it says than instead of that.

" For example, a magma rich in iron and magnesium will form mafic minerals, such as olivine and the pyroxenes; in contrast, a more silica-rich magma will crystallize to form minerals than incorporate more SiO2, such as the feldspars and quartz."

Mallory666hfx (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Recommend cleanup or removal of "Fake Minerals"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral#Fake_minerals has no citations and is worded quite strangely. Is there even such a thing as "fake" minerals in mainstream science? This whole thing reads like an odd anti-synthetics editorial. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed the section outright. Thank you for drawing attention to it.  Maxim (talk)  01:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2018
Please add Trigonal and Rhombohedral to the table of common examples of crystal family since there are some more. Also please write about the Miller indices since it is an important thing about the crystal structure. McKayl Jeon (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC).

❌ - The trigonal system is part of the hexagonal family (and is discussed in that section) and rhombohedral is the equivalent lattice system to the trigonal crystal system (see crystal system). I'll think about miller indices, but I'm not sure that sort of detail is worth having in this article. Mikenorton (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Life vs anthropogenic processes
First sentence on this thread is wrong. There are about 50 organic minerals made through life processes by plants and animals (see Abelsonite for example). First sentence should be rephrased to exclude anthropogenic matter from mineral list but not organic minerals. Alkemist9 (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That has been fixed. Howeve, I gather that there are recognized minerals that formed naturally but as a consequence of human activities, like mining.  An example would be alpersite, a mixed copper-magnesium sulfate formed by water percolating through mine waste.--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

"Mineral/References" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mineral/References. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 07:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Ref for "stable at 25 C"?
Is there an authoritative reference for the alleged rule that the material must be stable at 25 °C (as opposed "in the environment where it occurs naturally")? There is at least one example of a mineral that was approved very recently (meridianiite) but is formed and stable only below 2 °C. Also, while ice was approved before 1959, is it correct to attribute its current listing to "grandfathering" (like mercury)? Many parts of Earth have been below 0 °C for thousands if not millions of years, and outer planets have been so for billions of years. Also many hugely geologically important features like glaciers and ice shelves are made of nearly pure crystalline ice. So ice definitely deserves to be considered a mineral, methinks...--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , the reference for the 25°C claim is Dyar & Gunter (2007), pp. 2–4 (currently reference 9). A 1998 article in The Canadian Mineralogist discusses stability under ambient conditions; SATP would be 25°C and I would guess that's where the number in Dyar & Gunter came from. My understanding of the rules for what is a valid mineral species is that they are general but do not preclude exceptions. There are presently over 5,500 valid recognized mineral species, of which a tiny fraction could be thought of as "exceptional" (e.g. ice, mercury, icoshedrite, meridianiite).   Maxim (talk)  18:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

What is the difference between rocks and minerals?
The difference between rocks and minerals is that rocks are many minerals in a mix of many minerals, so minerals are pure, but rocks are "dirty" so to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PopbobHausemaster (talk • contribs) 00:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

To ´See also´ (at least): Mineral (nutrient) Mineral deficiency.
The Mineral deficiency at least should be mentioned here. Whether also here and how Boron, for the health of (the) bones, and more, in the human body, I cannot say, sorry. (Because it is called an element, not a mineral.) Propably it belongs more to (the article) Mineral (nutrient), the same with the unorganic minerals in plants. --Visionhelp (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

 * Mineral (nutrient) is already in the "See also" section of this article. Mineral deficiency is a sub-topic of Mineral (nutrient). Therefore, I think it is probably not necessary to include Mineral deficiency in this article. I have, however, added Mineral (nutrient) to the "See also" section of the Chemical element article and I have also added Mineral deficiency to the "See also" section of the Mineral (nutrient) article. GeoWriter (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I am amazed. Thank You very much. Visionhelp (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mineral/Archive 1


text:
Bekzad Nurdauletov

Bekzad Nurdauletov (born 10 April 1998) is a Kazakh professional boxer. As an amateur, he won the gold medal at the 2019 AIBA World Boxing Championships.

Amateur boxing career
Nurdauletov competed in the light heavyweight category of the 2019 AIBA World Boxing Championships, which took place between 9 and 21 September 2019. He won the gold medal, most notably beating Julio César La Cruz by decision in the semifinals and Dilshodbek Ruzmetov by decision in the finals.

Nurdauletov took part in the 2020 Olympic Qualifying Tournament for the Asia and Oceania regions, which took place at the Prince Hamza Hall in Amman, in March 2020. He earned his place at the 2020 Summer Olympics by beating Shabbos Negmatulloev by unanimous decision in the quarterfinals, Odai Al Hindawi by unanimous decision in the semifinals and Paulo Aokuso by unanimous decision in the finals.

Eight months later, in November 2020, Nurdauletov participated in the Kazakhstan national boxing tournament. He beat Amandyk Manashev in the quarterfinals, Bekbolat Abdikerim in the semifinals and Nurbek Oralbay in the finals in the same manner - by unanimous decision. It was the first national boxing title of his amateur career.

Nurdauletov competed in one more major amateur tournament before the Summer Olympics, the 2021 Governors Cup, which took place in Saint Petersburg in April 2021. He beat his final three opponents (Dilshodbek Ruzmetov, Andrey Kosenkov and Imam Khataev) by unanimous decision. He would face Imam Khataev in the round of 16 of the Summer Olympics three months later, and suffered an upset split decision loss.

Professional boxing career
Nurdauletov made his professional debut against Ibrahim Maokola on 31 October 2021. He won the fight by a second-round technical knockout. Nurdauletov was next scheduled to face Kabiru Towolawi on 16 December 2020. He won the fight by unanimous decision, with all three judges scoring the fight 60–54 in his favor. Nurdauletov faced Farrukh Juraev in his third professional appearance on 6 November 2021. He won the fight by unanimous decision, with scores of 80–70, 80–71 and 80–71.

Nurdauletov was booked to face the undefeated Chico Kwasi for the vacant WBO Youth light heavyweight title on 5 February 2022. He captured his first professional title by a ninth-round technical knockout.

title: Bekzad Nurdauletov


text:
Talk:Otis Williams

Birthdate
Can anyone else confirm that his birth year is, as I believe it, 1939 ?

Derek R Bullamore 18:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Check Otis's autobiography, Temptations. He certainly didn't make that up.  Rollosmokes 05:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC) '''He was born on October 30 1941. Chech out the Temptations web site

question
are u gonna put up any info on Otis' son Lamont

What was it like being with the temptations DarlenesMom24 (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Two issues of contention
I'm surrounded by Temptations-related books and Google Chrome tabs, and sort of at my wit's end trying to verify all of the personal information here to ensure accuracy.
 * 1) Otis Williams or Otis Miles Jr? - According to the lawsuit she filed in 1999 over the Temptations miniseries, Josephine Rogers' married name was Josephine Miles and Otis Williams is referred to as, well, Otis Williams with no "p/k/a" or "a/k/a" distinction. This would seem to mean Williams was still using his birth name, or some variation thereof, as his legal name at the time they married in 1961. In fact, an April 1971 Ebony magazine piece on the Temptations (which ironically was written just before Eddie Kendricks left the troupe, but published after - I digress) says flat out that "his real name is Otis Williams Miles", and he is referred to as such in other contemporaneous coverages of Temptations miscellany. As far as I can tell, Arleata Carter's married name was Williams, so I assume Otis Williams changed his legal name from "Miles" to "Williams" at some point after he'd become famous (not before as originally thought), but I have no verifiable info as to when. I tended to avoid the issue in the latest edit.
 * 2) Elan Carter - she is definitely Arleata Carter's daughter, but I have no verifiable evidence that Otis Williams is her birth father and not her stepfather, as the Ribowsky book seems to imply. Williams was married to Ann Cain in 1969, when Elan Carter was born. On his official website bio, Otis mentions Otis Lamont Williams (Miles?) as his only child. Elan Carter is not mentioned, though she would have been school-aged when her mother dated and married Williams. As of current, I removed the mention of Williams being her father and simply stated she was Arleata Carter's daughter.

It's a - pardon the pun - "ball of confusion". Can anyone help? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Confusion
This article reads rather awkwardly. I am especially confused by the third sentence; were The Temptations first known as The Elgins? And how is it that Otis continues to perform with the group when he is the only surviving member? I hesitate to edit this article as I'm not very familiar with Williams life. Maybe you would know, FuriousFreddy? Thanks! PennyLane415 (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

 * The tense is a bit off - I made some edits to make the article more clear. The Temptations were first known as the Elgins before signing their contract with Motown, which is covered in more detail at The Temptations/ --FuriousFreddy (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Otis Williams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120312051529/http://www.otiswilliams.net/bio.aspx to http://www.otiswilliams.net/bio.aspx

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Otis Williams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051108002209/http://www.otiswilliams.net/main.aspx to http://www.otiswilliams.net/main.aspx

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Picture
Surely a better image for the infobox than some awkwardly cropped one can be found? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Otis Williams


text:
Senator Guess

Senator Guess may refer to:

 * Gretchen Guess (born 1969), Alaska State Senate
 * Sam C. Guess (1909–1989), Washington State Senate

title: Senator Guess


text:
Sigbritt Karlsson

Sigbritt Karlsson (31 January 1958 – 28 October 2023) was a Swedish chemical engineer and president of KTH Royal Institute of Technology between November 2016 and November 2022.

Karlsson earned a master of science in chemical engineering with a specialization in biotechnology from KTH. She subsequently completed a PhD in polymer technology.

From 1996 to 2004 Karlsson worked as Director of Studies at KTH. Between 2008 and 2010 she was Vice Dean with responsibility for strategic education issues.

Karlsson was Vice-Chancellor of the University of Skövde 2010–2016. On November 12, 2016, she became the 19th President of KTH Royal Institute of Technology.

title: Sigbritt Karlsson


text:
User:Audiogenic

Audiogenic [aw-dee-uh-jen-ik] is an experimental music project formed in 2012 in Bournemouth, England.

title: User:Audiogenic


text:
User:Himface/common.js

importScript( 'User:Technical_13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver.js' ); // Backlink: User:Technical_13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver

title: User:Himface/common.js


text:
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2020 August 8

= August 8 =

Laurel and Hardy
Laurel and Hardy were a comedic duo consisting of thin Englishman Stan Laurel and fat American Oliver Hardy. Laurel played the "funny man" and Hardy played the "straight man". But how did they decide which one played which role? J I P | Talk 01:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The linked article says, "Usually comedy teams were composed of a straight man and a funny man, but these two were both comedians; however, they both knew how to play the straight man when the script needed it. Roach said, 'You could always cut to a close-up of either one, and their reaction was good for another laugh'." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


text:
Electronics/Motors

Most electrical motors are induction based.

They work either through the flow of electricity or turing a magnet.

Waterfalls and windmills work by turning a magnet. Waterfalls tend to have even power, but windmills have odd erratic power based on the wind.

The driving force that turns the rotor containing the magnets is called the "Prime Mover"

Generators work by supplying current that drives a turbine.

Induction based motors work on AC and spinning magnets.

One of the problems of induction based motors is most of their power is reactive (caught in a magnetic field). Capacitors are required to make the power real. It is common in induction based generators to have a bank of variable capacitors to try to keep the power as real as possible.

title: Electronics/Motors


text:
Verkh-Nenya

Verkh-Nenya (Верх-Неня) is a rural locality (a selo) and the administrative center of Verkh-Neninsky Selsoviet, Yeltsovsky District, Altai Krai, Russia. The population was 226 as of 2013. There are 11 streets.

Geography
Verkh-Nenya is located 38 km southeast of Yeltsovka (the district's administrative centre) by road. Makaryevka is the nearest rural locality.

title: Verkh-Nenya


text:
Cookbook:S'mores

| Dessert | Outdoor

S'mores are a traditional American campfire treat, prepared over an open fire or even in your own home.

Ingredients

 * 4 marshmallows
 * 4 graham crackers (4 x 2 in / 10 x 5 cm)
 * 2 oz (55 g) chocolate bar

Outdoors

 * 1) Build a campfire for toasting the marshmallows.
 * 2) Find a long, thin stick for roasting (a thin, long wooden dowel may be a good substitute but will catch fire easily). The stick, which is usually taken from the ground as part of a dead tree branch, does not have to be sterilized, but simply clear of any dirt or bark. Alternately, you may purchase a metal roaster stick. Don't use a coat hanger or chrome or galvanized metal (like fence wire)—use stainless steel.
 * 3) Before roasting the marshmallows, break the crackers in half, so you have two 2 x 2 inch (5 x 5 cm) squares for each s'more. Break the chocolate bar into ½ oz (15 g) pieces.
 * 4) Push a marshmallow on to the end of the stick. Using the stick to place the marshmallow directly above the flame or source of heat, toast the marshmallow until it is golden brown around the outside. Some prefer their marshmallow burned. Others like to burn the marshmallow and peel off the burned outer skin to get to the gooey center.
 * 5) Place the toasted marshmallow in between two pieces of graham cracker, with a layer of chocolate bar in between. The marshmallow should be hot enough to melt the chocolate. In a family setting, sometimes it is helpful for children to roast the marshmallows, and adults to supervise and assemble the s'more while preventing the child from touching the hot end of the stick. Enjoy!

Indoors

 * 1) Prepare the pieces of graham cracker and chocolate as above.
 * 2) Place the chocolate on one of the pieces of graham cracker, and then place a marshmallow on top.
 * 3) Put it in the microwave for 15–25 seconds (depending on the microwave).
 * 4) After it has been microwaved, the marshmallow should be much bigger, fluffier, and molten, and the chocolate should be semi-melted. Place the other half of the graham cracker on top of the marshmallow and squish it down.

Variations
70 variations on the basic s'more recipe were published in 2007 in S'mores: Gourmet Treats for Every Occasion by Lisa Adams. If you are not camping, patio/backyard firepits work great.

The patriot

 * Milk chocolate
 * 1 graham cracker, broken in half
 * Fresh blueberries
 * 1 marshmallow
 * 1 thick strawberry slice

Arrange the chocolate on half of the graham cracker. Set blueberries atop chocolate and melt, being careful not to lose the blueberries in transport. Roast the marshmallow. Once chocolate has melted, remove graham cracker from heat and lightly press blueberries to secure them in place. Top with the strawberry slice, roasted marshmallow, and remaining graham cracker.

Minty brownie

 * 1 marshmallow
 * A handful of Junior Mints candies
 * 2 brownie squares

Roast the marshmallow. If desired, melt chocolates on the brownie bottom. Once the chocolates have melted, remove brownie from heat. Add roasted marshmallow and top with remaining brownie square.

Caramel apple

 * 1 marshmallow
 * 2 chewy caramel candies
 * 2 green apple slices, about ½ inch thick

Skewer the marshmallow, then the two caramels, on the same roasting stick. Roast the marshmallow and caramels. When the caramels have melted over the top of the marshmallow, and the marshmallow is cooked to your liking, slide the concoction onto one of the apple slices. Top with remaining apple slice.

Belgian s'more

 * 1 set of s'more ingredients (can be any recipe, but usually the standard one)
 * 2 red and/or black licorice strips

Prepare the s'mores as usual, then at the end insert either a strip of red or black licorice (or both.)

title: Cookbook:S'mores


text:
Computer-aided design/Objects

Part of:
 * Engineering and Technology
 * Mechanical Engineering; Production and Design Engineering
 * Computer Aided Design Course

Introduction
A three dimensional (3D) computer model, for example a gear box, consists of many objects. These objects are of several types, for example solid and surface types. We will look at 3D model types and briefly discuss when to use them.

Workplane
Also called reference plane or coordinate-system. The workplane acts as a reference from which the model data is calculated.

Point
A point represents a position in the 3D workspace and so is defined by x,y,z coordinates. Points are usually used as reference to snap other objects onto.

Wireframe objects
Examples are lines, circles, arcs or curves in 2D or 3D space. Wireframe objects are defined by control points and equation.

For example circle has center a,b (control point), radius r and equation defining set of all x,y circle points.

Implicit function:

x^2 + y^2 = r^2 $$.

Parametric equation can be written using the trigonometric functions sine and cosine:

 * x = a + r cos(t)
 * y = b + r sin(t), where t is parametric variable.

CAD systems use parametric versions of equation.

Some wireframe objects like Beziér spline cannot be defined by control points and simple function only. These objects are defined by many control points, vectors in control vertices that define shape and set of x,y is is calculated by algorithms (instead of simple equations).

Commonly used wireframe objects are:
 * Line
 * Arc
 * Circle (full arc)
 * Ellipse
 * Polyline - set of connected lines and arcs
 * Rectangle (special case of polygon)
 * Regular polygons
 * Polygon
 * Bézier curve (special case of B-spline)
 * B-spline (special case of NURBS)
 * NURBS - Nonuniform rational B-spline

Surfaces
You can understand surface as a part the the outer shape of an object or as an idealized sheet metal with zero thickness. Surface can be represented in several ways, but the most common is as a Parametric surface.

Types of surfaces:
 * Regular (or canonical) surfaces include surfaces of revolution such as cylinders, cones, spheres, and tori, and ruled surfaces (linear in one direction) such as surfaces of extrusion.
 * Surface mesh
 * Facet surface
 * Voxel surface
 * Freeform surfaces (usually NURBS) allow more complex shapes to be represented via freeform surface modeling.

Solid objects
A solid represents a complete physical body, usually part that can be manufactured from one piece of material. Most CADs use method called Boundary Representation (abbrev B-rep or BREP), to represent solid in computer. The object is represented by connected surfaces forming a closed solid volume. Surface elements create boundary between solid and non-solid. Solid objects have a volume and other physical and optical properties (mass, density, opacity ...).

Solids can be constructed from primitives or by sweeping base 2D shape along a path. Complex shapes are constructed by boolean operations as union, subtraction or intersection of two or more solids.

Sets of predefined solid primitives differ in various CADs. Commonly used are:

 * Box, Cuboid
 * Wedge
 * Cylinder
 * Cone
 * Sphere
 * Torus
 * Sweeping

Imagine that you want to model bent pipe. You can create it, by draw two concentric circles that will form a doughnut shape. The doughnut shape is the profile. Then you will draw and axis of the pipe. Axis can be straight line, arc or any other curve. Then you will sweep the doughnut along the defining path (pipe axis).

Extrusions or rotations are special cases of sweeping. You can create a solid box from a 2D rectangle by extrusion along the Z axis, or you can draw a 2D circle and rotate it 180 degrees to create sphere.

You can use boolean operations to create more complex solid objects. Subtraction is similar to drilling. Draw a box and a cylinder inside it. By subtracting the cylinder from the box you will get a box with a hole. Unions are similar to welding in that it joins two solid bodies together.

Feature
Many modern CADs use features.

Features are for example a hole or slot applied to solid object. Often features are used with parametric geometry constraints. For example a hole must be in the center of the disk.

Features are applied to base solids one by one.

When to use wireframe, surface or solid objects
Wireframe objects are typically used for drawing construction lines and basic 2D shapes from which you will create solid objects by sweeping.

Solid modelling should be used for models that consist from relatively regular shapes. Engines, gear boxes and machinery like lathe are typical examples. Parts are usually put together by assembly modelling. Making changes is usually fast, especially when features and parametric modelling is used.

Surface modelling is used for models with non-prismatic features, mainly freeform, doubly curved surfaces. Airplane body and bodies of consumer goods like electric razor are typical examples. Making changes is usually more difficult and time consuming than with solid modelling.

Tasks to do
Learn about CAD math background. Learn more about parametric equations.

Use examples and on-line demos:
 * Engineering fundamentals - Parametric Surface
 * Paul's Online Math Notes
 * Tom Leathrum's mathlets for Math Explorations

Achievements
You now have a basic understanding of CAD objects. You also have an idea of how these objects are represented in a computer. You also know some math behind the construction of these objects.

Deliveries
Parametric equations for some simple 3D surface (cylinder, sphere, ellipsoid).

You will need:
 * Internet access and browser (with enabled Java applets)

title: Computer-aided design/Objects


text:
Thromboplastin

Thromboplastin (TPL) is derived from cell membranes and is a mixture of both phospholipids and tissue factor, neither of which are enzymes. Thromboplastin acts on and accelerates the activity of Factor Xa, also known as thrombokinase, aiding blood coagulation through catalyzing the conversion of prothrombin to thrombin. Thromboplastin is found in brain, lung, and other tissues and especially in blood platelets.

Thromboplastin is sometimes used as a synonym for the protein tissue factor (with its official name "Coagulation factor III [thromboplastin, tissue factor]"). Historically, thromboplastin was a lab reagent, usually derived from placental sources, used to assay prothrombin times (PT).

When manipulated in the laboratory, a derivative could be created called partial thromboplastin. Partial thromboplastin was used to measure the intrinsic pathway. This test is called the aPTT, or activated partial thromboplastin time. It was not until much later that the subcomponents of thromboplastin and partial thromboplastin were identified. Thromboplastin is the combination of both phospholipids and tissue factor, both of which are needed in the activation of the extrinsic pathway. However, partial thromboplastin is just phospholipids, and not tissue factor. Therefore, although the coagulation cascade can be triggered in vitro through the intrinsic pathway only, in vivo coagulation is triggered by the extrinsic pathway. However, the model better describing how coagulation works is the so-called cell-based model, a more integrated picture of the whole process, in which phospholipid surfaces, such as those provided by platelets, are a key component.

Currently, recombinant tissue factor is available and used in some PT assays. Placental derivatives are still available and are used in some laboratories. Phospholipid is available as an independent reagent or in combination with tissue factor as thromboplastin. Complete thromboplastin consists of tissue factor, phospholipids (since platelets were removed from blood sample being tested), and CaCl2 to reintroduce calcium ions which were chelated by sodium citrate originally used to prevent coagulation of the sample blood during transportation and/or storage.

title: Thromboplastin


text:
Category:Best Screenplay AACTA International Award winners

List of individuals that have been awarded the AACTA International Award for Best Screenplay award by the Australian Academy of Cinema and Television Arts (AACTA).


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify/Drives/2015/February

{| align="center" border="4" cellspacing="15" cellpadding="15" style="border: 2px solid #6cc8f3; background: ; border-collapse: collapse; margin: .5em 2.5%"

The February 2015 WikiProject Wikify Drive is a coordinated effort by WikiProject Wikify to reduce the number of articles in the scope of WikiProject Wikify. The drive is open to all, and you do not need to be a member of the WikiProject to participate. However, please consider joining us.

Instructions
Don't know how to wikify articles? Don't know how to log your completed pages? See WikiProject Wikify/Drives/Instructions for complete instructions.

For details on the awards please visit the awards page.


text:
User:Bronger

My full name is Torsten Bronger. I'm a 32 years old physicist from Aachen in Germany.

You can email me or use my talk page.

PGP signed (and encrypted if appropriate) mail is prefered. Please download my key and check its fingerprint:

C5C8 D6E2 79D2 EFE9 8C0F 6D77 D5E3 CEFC 9F51 6B77

Current project: Introduction to LaTeX (in German)

title: User:Bronger


text:
User:Scgoodguy

Scgoodguy is an American YouTuber and streamer, he is so cool and awesome and you should definitely sub to him and follow all his social media’s

title: User:Scgoodguy


text:
Talk:Circle group/Archive 1

Examples
Could somebody give well-known examples of different circle groups? This is a hard article to get into if you're not familiar with the terminology, but I know this concept is well-used...<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What is U(1)?
I got here from "Thus, for example, the electric charge is the generator of the U(1) symmetry of electromagnetism." in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_(physics), but I have no idea how to relate U(1) to anything on this page; either explain U(1) or recreate the U(1) page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I found these clearly written notes explaining U(1) from a mathematical physics point of view: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/QM/charge.pdf. If you compare them to this Circle Group article I think you will see the connection (U(1) basically is the set of complex numbers of unit magnitude i.e. the unit circle in the complex plane). I agree this article should mention U(1) explicitly. Milez (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Circle group/Archive 1


text:
Buffalo National Park

Buffalo National Park was created near the town of Wainwright in east central Alberta on June 5, 1909. It was closed in 1940 and delisted in 1947 when the land was transferred to the Department of National Defence. The 583 km2 park land was developed for use by Canadian Forces Base Wainwright and comprises the majority of its space. The first Park Warden was Bud Cotton, who served from 1912 through 1940.

Buffalo National Park, with a focus on plains bison (often referred to as buffalo), was one of several national parks created in the Canadian Prairies expressly to protect and regenerate dangerously low populations of bison and pronghorns. Other 'regeneration' parks, which were considered to have achieved their goals by the 1940s, were also delisted in 1947, including Wawaskesy National Park, Nemiskam National Park (both in Alberta), and Menissawok National Park in Saskatchewan.

The Canadian government populated Buffalo National Park with a herd of roughly 700 plains bison purchased from the Flathead Indian Reservation in the U.S. state of Montana. The herd was transported by train to the new park. The park also received smaller populations of elk and moose. During its thirty-one years of operation, the park produced 40,000 bison, 3000 elk, and 300 moose.

The park suffered from its breeding success and the limited understanding of how to manage such wildlife populations. As numbers grew, the herd suffered from disease and starvation, as the bison had to compete for food on the park's limited space. Sanctioned slaughters in the late 1910s brought public outcry. But culling continued on an annual basis, and some bison were transferred to sold to other parks. About 6000 to 7000 head were sent to Wood Buffalo National Park between 1925 and 1928.

With its mission accomplished, the park was closed in 1940. In 1980, to commemorate the 75th anniversary of Alberta and the legacy of the former Buffalo National Park, four bison from Elk Island National Park were moved to Wainwright. Today, about a dozen bison reside on CFB Wainwright in Bud Cotton Paddock, named for the first Park Warden.

title: Buffalo National Park


text:
Troitsk, Yeltsovsky District, Altai Krai

Troitsk (Троицк) is a rural locality (a settlement) in Pushtulimsky Selsoviet, Yeltsovsky District, Altai Krai, Russia. The population was 22 as of 2013. There are 4 streets.

Geography
Troitsk is located 26 km southeast of Yeltsovka (the district's administrative centre) by road. Bakhta and Chistaya Griva are the nearest rural localities.