Talk:Silicate

Article split

It seems that this article has two distinct topics, which makes it difficult to write a cohesive introduction. I propose that this article be split into Silicate (chemistry) and Silicate (geology) for clarity. Any objections? --Gimme danger 22:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Silicates are apparently a superclass of silicate minerals; rather than the proposed split, I would recommend simply using silicate minerals to host any geology-related content that doesn't fit into this article. But I wouldn't remove geological material from this article entirely. -- Beland 16:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

SiO^-2
₃

How about this? (Carbonate–silicate cycle) Kaligula (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wollastonite, CaSiO₃ is simply an inosilicate with a chain anion-a dreier chain with a 3 tetrahedron repeat. Why would this require special mention? Axiosaurus (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The official chemistry name for SiO4 is orthosilicate while SiO3 is silicate. Obviously the mineral people use the word differently and this difference needs to be explained so as not to confuse people preparing for chemistry exams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.160.192 (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

References

I understand using online references, but shouldn't they be accessible to any layman without requiring the purchase of the references in question? Why should only those who have access through an account for an online version or who have the actual reference in question be the ones in the know? It isn't that I don't trust you, but if I disagree with something in an article, I would like to at least see where you got your information to compare it to my information. Even as someone without a degree in the field, this article limits how much I can check on the sources of information. So how do I approach a decision to edit or not? I would really like to know.Sandhillman (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Sandhillman

As one who lives way out in the woods with no ready good library access, I sympathize with your quandery. However unfair it may be, there is no requirement for access to any specific reference work. See WP:Resource exchange where your fellow Wikipedians may be able to help when you hit a dead end on finding a ref. Maybe even ask on the specific article talk page - is there a ref for this article that you need to see ... ask here or p'raps WP:WikiProject Chemistry or whatever. Vsmith (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I googled the info and found that the 8th Ed. of Dana's System of Mineralogy came out in 1997 with an emphasis on anions 1st, followed by arrangement according to structure. Dana's System of Mineralogy Still seems odd to my eyes, because I've used the other for decades.Sandhillman (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Close packing voids

Close packing results in two types of voids. Small voids (surrounded by 4 atoms) and large voids (surrounded by 6 atoms). Am I to understand that under pressure the silicon ions are squeezed out of the small voids and into the large voids? Just granpa (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)