Talk:Gypsum

message: I think the content in Selenite, covering crystalline forms of gypsum (not only Selenite) should be merged into this article. M0ffx 22:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking as a geologist/mineralogist, if there is any merging, it should be into gypsum, because gypsum is the mineral and selenite, alabaster, etc. are varietal names of it. (And as an aside, the statement on the selenite page that gypsum is massive and shows no crystalline habit is incorrect; certainly it often does - though when it does, it is sometimes called selenite.)  I certainly would not oppose keeping important varietal names like alabaster and selenite as separate articles, though they could probably equally well be subsumed into the gypsum article. Cheers Geologyguy 18:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I would fully agree with merging the selenite article in.  Almost half of the information on Selenite is repetition of information that is covered in the infobox here at Gypsum so a merge whould not be to difficult.--Kevmin (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose merge. Per Ashley's comments about usages being so different as well as the separate literature.  In the long run both of these articles could grow very large on their own. Let them develop separately and see what materialises. Cheers. Cewvero (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Oppose merge.  Agree with above.  Like ashley says, different focus, crystals vs. other aspects of Gypsum. ;Bear (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Oppose merge.  I thought this issue was closed, but perhaps I should join in opposition too.  Should we formaly close this dicsussion? (as no merge) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Oppose Merge. Strongly in fact, we'd end up with a huge article covering many different topics, purely because of the chemistry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisHodgesUK (talk • contribs) 18:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest the objections that have been presented do not seem to make much sense as the majority of this article is devoted to the naturally occurring mineral with the first section being on crystaline structures, the Selenite article is a fork of that exact content with little in the way of new material. --Kevmin (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Also as a side note Alabaster should not be merged here as it covers a decorative stone that is either Gypsum or calcite.--Kevmin (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Oppose Merge Since this has been going on a year and a half with clear consensus to NOT merge, I'm going to be BOLD and remove the merge proposal tag. I think per WP:SS we don't (or should not have) a fork, but merely a growing set of articles and subarticles, with calcium sulfate a main article, then subarticles dealing with natural deposits of same, and selenite (finally) as one of the crystalline varieties of gypsum. If some material has migrated into gypsum (except for the summary) that you think is better in gypsum, then move it back (I've already tagged selenite as a {main} article in gypsum). SBHarris 02:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with Selenite

message: I moved the chemical reaction and industrial usages to calcium sulfate. This article is about the natural mineral and its varieties. Vsmith 00:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: nice. I think that some of that stuff is relevant to this article though, and perhaps a filtered version needs to be put back. For example the sections about where gypsum comes from? I do agree that sections such as uses of processed gypsum in the form of plaster of paris needed to be moved. perhaps even to the plaster of paris page, what are your thoughts?Bouncingmolar 02:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: er? What sections about where gypsum comes from? Gypsum the natural mineral doesn't come from flue gases or phosphate processing. I don't see any description of the origin of gypsum as a natural mineral in the removed material. Yes the plaster of Paris bit would probably have been better moved to that article, unless it's already there (I haven't looked). The section in this article about volcanic and hydrothermal vein origins of gypsum versus anhydrite as well as the evaporite deposits could use some expansion, but not from the moved material. Vsmith 03:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: non-mineral info moved

message: Should this document contain a link to the Plaster article? (212.61.57.82 10:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Plaster and Plaster of Paris are linked (appropriately) in the Uses section. Cheers Geologyguy 16:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the nice words. Cheers Geologyguy 14:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Googling 'gypsum beer' gives 291,000 results, including this one.  Cheers Geologyguy 22:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that use arguably belongs on the "calcium sulfate" page rather than this one. Def-Mornahan (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to plaster?

message: I've heard that gypsum is a byproduct formed at some coal power plants.  Anyone able to read some of the information out there?  I can find a lot of irrelevant or highly technical results, but it's hard for me to filter them.  --72.54.44.153 (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly this is done. The question would be if the amounts produced in power plants is significant volumetrically. A quick look at some google results suggested that making synthetic gypsum in power plants is beyond the experimental stage, but no suggestion of how much is made. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As I recall from undergrad, a "mineral" is naturally formed.  Thus the result of scrubbing at power plants is "hydrated calcium sulfate" rather than gypsum, is it not? Def-Mornahan (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Power plant byproduct?

message: PLS TELL ME WHAT GYPSUM CAN BE PROCESSED INTO,THAT IS,WHAT IT CAN BE USED FOR.PLEASE I WILL APPRECIATE IE IF YOU CAN MAIL ME BACK THE ANSWER THROUGH MY E-MAIL <Removed.>  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.18.211 (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You may find the article on Gypsum a good place to start looking.  And posting your e-mail address on wikipedia is a very bad idea unless you enjoy receiving spam - I thought I'd better remove it for you! Verisimilus T 16:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I NEED IMFORMATION.

message: We are manufacturing Gypsum of yellowish colour with a purity of 75% from the spent sulphuric acid 6% concentration and caco3
but I would like to reduce its colour
how can i reduce the yellowish gypsum colour to white- offwhit colour.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.197.197 (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: how to reduce colour from syntethic gypsum

message: Is the melting point of Gypsum known?  Could not find that information in the article.  Fingercheck (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Melting Point

message: Kevmin has proposed merging Selenite (mineral) into Gypsum;  I propose also merging the content of Alabaster that concerns gypsum.  --Una Smith (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge August 2009

message: The article currently states that 'Deposits are known to occur in strata from as early as the Permian age', in fact it is found in all ages of sedimentary rock, wherever Evaporite sequences occur e.g. the Uppermost Proterozoic to Lower Cambrian Hormuz Formation . I will change the sentence accordingly and try to find a ref that says explicitly that gypsum is found throughout the sedimentary rock record. Mikenorton (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I've just found a ref. to Archaean gypsum, which will do nicely I think. Mikenorton (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of Gypsum 

message: Article contradicts itself. On the one hand it states "it is not a salt" then later goes on to suggest that it is a salt "in contrast to most other salts" - probably good to fix that with whatever is correct. --Streaky (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed contradiction. Vsmith (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing 

message: Do any of you guys think that gypsum reserves a history section? I would do so but I simply do not have enough time in my hands James3167 (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: What's the molecular formula of gypsum salt? Maheshwor Acharya (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gypsum 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gypsum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/ppv/RPViewDoc?issn=1480-3291&volume=39&issue=9&startPage=1746
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050313183544/http://mmsd1.mms.nrcan.gc.ca/mmsd/producers/commodityCompany_e.asp?nId=51&minetype=nonMetal to http://mmsd1.mms.nrcan.gc.ca/mmsd/producers/commodityCompany_e.asp?nId=51&mineType=nonMetal
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gypsum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/ppv/RPViewDoc?issn=1480-3291&volume=39&issue=9&startPage=1746
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070814041825/http://mineral.galleries.com/minerals/sulfates/gypsum/gypsum.htm to http://mineral.galleries.com/minerals/sulfates/gypsum/gypsum.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Regarding the new main image, :File:Gypsum - Sieroszowice mine, Lubin, Lower Silesia, Poland.jpg by . It is a beautiful image, a great photo, but I wonder how suitable it is as main picture showing how gypsum looks. Gypsum is a colorless mineral that usually appears white in photos, but this specimen has green herbertsmithite inclusions. I find it misleading. The main image for a mineral should preferably show only that mineral, especially with such a common mineral where good clean white crystals are easy to find and photograph. I would recommend that the photo replacement should be reverted. cart-Talk 08:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted to the previous version, based on this comment. It is an improvement, but the previous version is certainly not a pic with "good clean white crystals". -Roxy  . wooF 10:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new main image