Talk:Silicate mineral

..."discussed in chapter 15"? Was this paragraph lifted from a textbook? Anyway, it's not linked well to the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.203.108.46 (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Diagrams?

Just a friendly suggestion to the editors. It's not entirely clear what these structures look like from the written descriptions. Diagrams would be helpful. MAzari 03:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Analcime

Analcime appears twice. As part of the Feldspathoid group and as a stand alone mineral in the Tectosilicates subclass. Which one should be deleted? Avihu (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed from the feldspathoid group. The classification was originally set up following the Hurlbut and Klein reference which lists analcime separately. I note that the online refs include it in the zeolite group as the analcime article says (with qualification). Vsmith (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Albite

Albite appears twice: First, as part of the alkali-feldspars; second, as part of the plagioclase feldspars. Which one should be deleted? (My imperfect memory is, albite belongs to the second group, but not the first.) Someone please check and fix. The feldspars are really common, and it's really important for Wikipedia to get this right. Oaklandguy (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Discrete SiO4 4- ions in neso silicates

Aren't neso silicates such as phenakite better described as containing close packed oxide ions with silicon in tetrahedral positions, rather than as containing discrete SiO₄^4- ions with interstitial cations? Surely these are mixed oxides. Axiosaurus (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't make a difference as it is a continous crystalline network with a repeating unit. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes obviously, neso-silicates are after all crystalline! Saying there are discrete SiO₄^4- ions with interstitial cations, is very different from saying there are Si atoms in tetrahedral positions in a close packed structure. Axiosaurus (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Rruff (IMA) says the repeating unit is Be₂SiO₄, CNMNC's (IMA) master list (2012 version) says the same. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

"Sorosilicate"

Sōros is indeed Greek for 'heap', but what does this mineral group have to do with that? Given the "twinned" SiO₄ tetrahedra, I would suspect that whoever named this rather slipped into Latin, where soror is 'sister'. Anyone willing to dig into a source or two on this? --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 02:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Cyclosilicates

Under Main groups:

   Nesosilicates (isolated silicon tetrahedra) – [SiO4]4−, e.g. olivine.
   Sorosilicates (double tetrahedra) – [Si2O7]6−, e.g. epidote, melilite group.
   Cyclosilicates (rings) – [SinO3n]2n−, e.g. tourmaline group.
   Inosilicates (single chain) – [SinO3n]2n−, e.g. pyroxene group.
   Inosilicates (double chain) – [Si4nO11n]6n−, e.g. amphibole group.
   Phyllosilicates (sheets) – [Si2nO5n]2n−, e.g. micas and clays.
   Tectosilicates (3D framework) – [AlxSiyO2x+2y)]x−, e.g. quartz, feldspars, zeolites.

Some categories use n, other x,y In the details below, for instance" Cyclosilicates (from Greek κύκλος kuklos, circle), or ring silicates, have three or more tetrahedra linked in a ring. The general formula is (SixO3x)2x− Cyclosilicates under details uses x, under Main group uses n. Which is proper?Dweisman (talk) 06:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Not a merge proposal, but issues still

It is no crisis, but silicate and silicate mineral have a lot of overlap. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)