Talk:Melanophlogite

A fact from Melanophlogite appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 May 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the crystal symmetry of melanophlogite changes depending on the guests trapped inside it?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/May.

Wikipedia

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Melanophlogite is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rocks and minerals Low‑importance

	Earth sciences portal Melanophlogite is part of WikiProject Rocks and minerals, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use rocks and minerals resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Rocks and mineralsWikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsTemplate:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsRocks and minerals articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wrong section - not quartz variety

Why is melanophlogite listed as a quartz variety? It is not a quartz variety, but a completely separate mineral species. Eudialytos (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image duplication

I've removed the duplicate structure image - why do we need the same image in two locations, essentially side by side? Vsmith (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal structure is hightly important in here. So should be in infobox. Then, they are only 'sbs' in wider screens. Mobile, not so. Maybe the section needs rewriting. Per WP:INFOBOX, the infobox should pull its info from the article. -DePiep (talk) 11:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vsmith. And so please revert your non-discussed snarky conclusion please. Didn't you read WP:INFOBOX? -DePiep (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well some folks don't use a tiny screen and redundant images result from poor writing. Yes - I see WP:INFOBOX ... so? Don't plan to revert anything - sorry 'bout that ... please be civil. Cheers :) Vsmith (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vsmith You have not replied to a single point I made. Not re importance, the WP:INFOBOX design & guidelines, reason and couse of redundancy: exactly the answer to you OP. Instead you come in repeating already refuted arguments and adding deviations. You did not hear it (after this es your es). From WP:INFOBOX:

... the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored).

Please reread & reconsider. -DePiep (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So ... adding an image to the infobox which is identical to the image in the adjacent article text is somehow summarizing. I think not. Vsmith (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And if you wish: simply shift the image to the infobox and replace in the article text with a note referring to the infobox image. That would be rather poor design, but at least avoid the side-by-side duplication. Vsmith (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your es says: calm them tailfeathers down mate. I find this abusive, and repetitive even. Please come clean: do you want to discuss, or make jests keeping deaf? (I pont to WP:BRD, WP:CIVIL) -DePiep (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some folks be a bit touchy ... you may "pont" to whatever. I made a good faith suggestion above, what do you say about it? Sorry to have offended ... or whatever. Vsmith (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]