|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
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:
- 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)
- 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)
- Vsmith's reversion of my merge also included a removal of the merge header, which I concede to. Based on the precedent of the aluminum oxide / corundum and silica / quartz pages, the wikipedia precedent appears to distinguish between chemistry and phase, not between manmade and natural as suggested by Kevmin. I'd like a clarification on this. Eassin 19:24, 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)
Photo of faceted stone?
This article could use a good photo of a faceted gem zircon. There's a photo at the bottom that has some stones in it, but its taken at a distance. Zircon is a very bright gem and a good photo would be a plus for the article. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I erroreously removed the symmetery data while showing a student how wikipedia works. The data was replaced! Many apologies! FVhernly Vince
- Well, you showed and learned more by removing it :-) (that it is important to preview edits before saving them, that saved edits remain in the history, etc., etc.) Though a usual advice is to practice in a sandbox, e.g. WP:Sandbox. Materialscientist (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I cam here looking for info on lunar zircons. Admittedly because of an xkcd comic.
http://m.xkcd.com/1194/ (check the alt text)
"All we have are these stupid tantalizing zircons and the scars on the face of the Moon"
I was reading a review article in Science (magazine) years ago and recall being startled by the expert's statement that only two minerals are stable on Earth's surface (of course, anything will dissolve with enough time at STP). Years later, I looked in wikipedia to find that information - and it wasn't there. More years later I think I found it: it seems as if the two are quartz and zircon. (According to the guy at salemstate.edu (sorry I lost the link)). If true, it seems as if it is noteworthy enough to include here. Anyone up to consider adding it? I guess for quartz, too - if its not there (that one I remembered from the Science article, so haven't checked the wikipedia entry.22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)