 | 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:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Wrong section - not quartz variety edit
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)
Image duplication edit
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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:
- 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)
- 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)
... 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Please reread & reconsider. -DePiep (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
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)