Talk:Siderite

Untitled

This could probaby do with a disambiguator to say that SIderite is both the name of a class of meteorite and a mineral.

Done, although there is no article about that yet -- Chris 73 Talk 00:58, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Spathic iron ore

The obscure "spathic" seems to be an archaic mining term referring to the well formed cleavage of siderite. To use that term in a section header seems rather odd when the section is about siderite as iron ore. Hence, I changed it to "Use as iron ore" - simply more meaningful. Vsmith (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The point is that it's the target of the redirect Spathic iron ore. The expansion today was to write an article on that. Placing it as a section in siderite seems more useful than a stand-alone article. The heading should keep "spathic" because it's obvious to a reader that "spathic ores" are an ore, but it's not obvious to a reader coming via the redirect why they're in an article on siderite and a bland title about unspecific ores. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

And why is it targeted as such? The only links are from your Template:Navbox West Somerset Mineral Railway. Do you plan an article to replace that redirect? Yes the section does use the term, but how important is an archaic miner's term and how does it help the siderite article? It seems the new section there would be better with "carbonate iron ore" rather than the obscure "spathic". If the term is in the first sentence and linked to a wiktionary definition it shouldn't be needed in the header. Vsmith (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

So we don't cover archaic topics as an encyclopedia? When did that policy appear?

This is a notable topic and is justified in having coverage. Mostly because it's archaic. The term "spathic iron ore" appears in a lot of engineering history material and there is almost nothing out there to explain what it is. In particular, there's almost nothing out there which explains why these ores were of economic value for a short period of about 20-30 years, not before this and not after it. I'd hazard that there's as much coverage of spathic ores than there is of carbonate ores, because only in the late Victorian period were they of much interest.

The wiktionary link is of little value because first of all it's wiktionary (what is even the point?) but mostly because that gives a purely habit-based explanation of the term's meaning. That is not an interesting definition for the ore, compared to its historical and economic significance. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Er... where did I say anything about "not covering archaic topics"? The problem is not with some article on an archaic topic, it is about a section header using an archaic term when more direct terminology is available. No one is objecting to using spathic in the section as long as it is defined in some way (how many readers know the term?) - and now "carbonate ore" is there to help and the wiktionary definition is there to provide a start at a definition (however poor it is).

As for the section, perhaps it should rather be titled "Historical use as iron ore" or similar - as that is what the section covers. Avoids mystifying the reader with an uncommon and rather ill-defined term. Vsmith (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)