Talk:Perovskite

Geology Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Perovskite 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
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge Calcium titanium oxide with this article

Calcium titanate is the more common name, calcium titanium oxide should be a redirect. --Axiosaurus (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above plus the following: perovskite (mineral) should be a separate mineral article and not redirected to Calcium titanate, and the current perovskite article be renamed to perovskite (mineral class). Garybrennan (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think all these have now been done, more or less... --Steve (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are not calcium titanate and perovskite two wholly different compounds, structurally? Calcium titanate would be a salt of "titanic acid" and perovskite the specific compound in which a titanium(iv)-ion fills the octahedral void created by the oxide-ions. The Calcium ions occur at each corner of the body-centered cubic crystal. It is definitely possible I'm confused; feel free to rebuke me. Tserton (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsplit

Seems like there was a move to break this tiny article into two even-smaller pieces, one for the chemical CaTiO₃ and one for the mineral CaTiO₃. This seems pretty silly to me. CaTiO₃ is CaTiO₃. If it were two articles, they would have overwhelming overlap--i.e., practically everything there is to say about CaTiO₃ would be relevant to both articles. So I put the article back together. Any thoughts?

Of course, the mineralbox and chembox should be combined, but I don't know the syntax for either. --Steve (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored the two articles as the chemical compound and uses are distinct from natural minerals. The two should be separate as is the norm for Wikipedia mineral and chemical articles. Please discuss prior to reverting against Wikipedia norms even if it seems "silly" to you. Vsmith (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually thought the reverse was the norm, but looking around more I see you're correct. Sorry! --Steve (talk) 04:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prepared by M.M.Alam for the course GEOL 3370, Dr. Jonathan Snow University of Houston 2011.