Talk:Zircon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Diamond Zircon is part of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Gemstones, Jewelry, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as b-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article is supported by WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, gemstones subpage.
WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry To-do:
Earth sciences Portal
Zircon 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.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

What does "an age of 4.404 Ga" mean?

this should be: "an age of 4.404 x 109years, this age is interpreted as crystallisation age " --Chd

What does "(crystal class: 4/m 2/m 2/m)" mean? Could someone explain it or link to a new page for whatever this system is? -- Tarquin 20:36 Dec 29, 2002 (UTC)

4/m 2/m 2/m is a tetragonal space group. It basically tells what symmetry elements can you expect in the zircon crystal structure. Some info is available at: http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/SYMMETRY/symmetry.htm http://www-structure.llnl.gov/xray/tutorial/spcgrp_tut.htm http://euch3i.chem.emory.edu/proposal/1b_space_groups.htm

[edit] Age incorrect?

The Narryer Gneiss Terrane says the Jack Hills zircons are 4.4 billion years old but this article says the oldest are 4.04. Isn't the older date correct? Badagnani 06:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Er... I see 4.404 here not 4.04? Vsmith 11:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good--I must have misread it! Thanks for the "second pair of eyes." Badagnani 05:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

  • Oppose- These are articlale on to differet substances and so should not be merged. I may not seem thus looking the Zirconium(IV) silicate article due the extreem stub status. Zirconium(IV) silicate is the article for the Human made chemical substance with the formula ZrSiO4. The Zircon article is about the naturally occuring mineral with the formula ZrSiO4. Zircon is considered a seperate substance from the human made chemical by the International Mineralogical Association, the governing body that oversees minerology and mineral nomenclature. --Kevmin 15:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Reverted merge as there was no consensus for it. Vsmith 17:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what you are asking for as your examples clearly show a separation of chemical compound usage versus mineralogical usage. Other examples would be calcium carbonate vs calcite and calcium sulfate vs gypsum. Although there may be some overlap in coverage between the articles (they are written and maintained by different users in general) the separation of chemical versus mineral is quite clear and the precedent for the separation of zircon as a mineral from the chemical compound is well established. Vsmith 22:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I also oppose the merge. Overlap: chemical composition. Difference: focus of article (for example chemical reaction, manufacturing as well as industrial applications as opposed to geology, mineralogy, gemstone/jewelry applications, history etc. I would argue that a small paragraph about the chemical compound, within the mineral/gemstone article can often be appropriate (if relevance requires this). Compare diamond and synthetic diamond. I wouldn't know why this would suddenly be different for Zircon. Gem-fanat 08:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
As I stated in my original oppose, as Eassin pointed out in the comment re the revert, and as elaborated on by both Vsmith and Gem-fanat, Wikipedia policy until now has been to keep the chemistry/artificial articles separate from the Mineralogy/natural articles separated. Yes there is occasional overlap and some minerals tat need to have stub created from redirects to chem pages. --Kevmin 10:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)