Talk:Goldschmidt classification

message: ===Tungsten(W)===
If you google for "siderophile tungsten" you get a lot of results. Also, my "Encyclopedia of the Solar System, Second Edition" by McFadden et al. 2006. I think it should be moved or, at least, explained why it's not siderophile. Does it have to do with pressure (siderophile in a planet core, not in the lab)?--Zimriel (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tungsten is now in the siderophile list, with a source added, as of December 2015.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Siderophile candidates

message: If you google for "siderophile tungsten" you get a lot of results. Also, my "Encyclopedia of the Solar System, Second Edition" by McFadden et al. 2006. I think it should be moved or, at least, explained why it's not siderophile. Does it have to do with pressure (siderophile in a planet core, not in the lab)?--Zimriel (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tungsten is now in the siderophile list, with a source added, as of December 2015.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Tungsten(W)

message: ===gly4200 link missing===
This link
http://www.geology.fau.edu/course_info/fall02/gly4200/Abundance.htm
results in a file not found error (404) right now. If this turns out permanent the link should be removed.
84.160.246.75 17:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it, since it's still 404 almost four months later. I added the "Periodic Table" category, though some other category might be more appropriate becuse this classification is ifferen than any periodic table-based classifiations. -- Mikeblas 00:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Housekeeping

message: This link
http://www.geology.fau.edu/course_info/fall02/gly4200/Abundance.htm
results in a file not found error (404) right now. If this turns out permanent the link should be removed.
84.160.246.75 17:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it, since it's still 404 almost four months later. I added the "Periodic Table" category, though some other category might be more appropriate becuse this classification is ifferen than any periodic table-based classifiations. -- Mikeblas 00:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: gly4200 link missing

message: While a bit of googling revealed that the provided explanations for the terms "lithophile", "siderophile" etc. ("Lithophile means 'silicate loving'.") are widespread, they seem pretty questionable to me from an etymological point of view. (for instance, I'm fairly positive "lithophile" should be literally translated as "rock loving")
In that context, using a term like "means", implying a literal translation, is rather misleading. If that explanation is indeed frequently provided by scientific literature, I think it would be better to point it out as a commonly held misconception or handwave explanation.
Anybody who can claim particular expertise in the field willing to look into it? (If nothing happens for a while, I -might- attempt boldly doing so myself, but...) --4bpp (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The etymology of "chalcophile" doesn't lead back to "sulfur-loving".  The Greek word from which we get the "chalc" meant "ore", and also meant "bronze", as well as meaning "copper".  In the case of Goldschmidt's "chalcophile", the "ore" meaning is the one intended; most ores are either oxides or chalcogenides (which mostly means sulfides, since sulfur is so much more abundant than selenium or tellurium or polonium, and polonium doesn't even have any stable isotopes).  Also: the atmophilic elements are also called the volatile elements.  Volatile substances are those that occur as either gases or liquids in conditions ambient on the surface.  Atmophilic (volatile) elements are either volatile noble gases or occur in volatile compounds. Eldin raigmore (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I changed the definitions and etymologies of all four groups.  In some cases this meant revising the first and/or second sentence; in some cases it meant adding a new first sentence.  I also changed the discussion of hydrogen and water in the last paragraph of the "atmophile" section. Eldin raigmore (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: The list on page 659 of Goldschmidt (1937) has five categories: siderophile, chalcophile, lithophile, atmophile, and biophile.  This entry ignores biophile.  In doing so, it follows the practice of most geochemists, but if this is an article about Goldschmidt's classification, the article should be complete.198.137.20.82 (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in principle with the logic of your statement.  But Wikipedia is based on verifiable sources.  So if you have a source, please add it to the article, along with a statement you believe the source supports.  N2e (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biophile is missing 

message: This page has very long text lines that can't be wrapped to a shorter more readable width because of the large, very wide table. Isn't there a way the table could be made much smaller, with an option to pop it up full sized? The table is very nice with useful info, but it shouldn't dominate the page the way it does now. - Dough34 (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text lines are way too long to be readable 

message: The article's definition of siderophile:
:Siderophile (from sideron, "iron", and philia, "love") elements are the high-density transition metals which tend to sink into the core because they dissolve readily in iron 
''
The article goes on to list iron as a siderophile.  It seems silly (and perhaps even wrong) to effectively state that iron can dissolve in itself. 71.219.211.90 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iron is a siderophile?