Talk:Zircon

message: The Narryer Gneiss Terrane says the Jack Hills zircons are 4.4 billion years old but this article says the oldest are 4.04.  Isn't the older date correct?  Badagnani 06:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er... I see 4.404 here not 4.04? Vsmith 11:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age incorrect? 

message: *Oppose- These are articlale on to differet substances and so should not be merged.  I may not seem thus looking the Zirconium(IV) silicate article due the extreem stub status.  Zirconium(IV) silicate is the article for the Human made chemical substance with the formula ZrSiO4.  The Zircon article is about the naturally occuring mineral with the formula ZrSiO4. Zircon is considered a seperate substance from the human made chemical by the International Mineralogical Association, the governing body that oversees minerology and mineral nomenclature. --Kevmin 15:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you are asking for as your examples clearly show a separation of chemical compound usage versus mineralogical usage. Other examples would be calcium carbonate vs calcite and calcium sulfate vs gypsum. Although there may be some overlap in coverage between the articles (they are written and maintained by different users in general) the separation of chemical versus mineral is quite clear and the precedent for the separation of zircon as a mineral from the chemical compound is well established. Vsmith 22:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. I also oppose the merge. Overlap: chemical composition. Difference: focus of article (for example chemical reaction, manufacturing as well as industrial applications as opposed to geology, mineralogy, gemstone/jewelry applications, history etc. I would argue that a small paragraph about the chemical compound, within the mineral/gemstone article can often be appropriate (if relevance requires this). Compare diamond and synthetic diamond. I wouldn't know why this would suddenly be different for Zircon.  Gem-fanat 08:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I stated in my original oppose, as Eassin pointed out in the comment re the revert, and as elaborated on by both Vsmith and Gem-fanat, Wikipedia policy until now has been to keep the chemistry/artificial articles separate from the Mineralogy/natural articles separated.  Yes there is occasional overlap and some minerals tat need to have stub created from redirects to chem pages. --Kevmin 10:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: This article could use a good photo of a faceted gem zircon. There's a photo at the bottom that has some stones in it, but its taken at a distance. Zircon is a very bright gem and a good photo would be a plus for the article. --24.21.148.212 (talk) 06:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo of faceted stone?

message: What is a zircon worth in  US dollars? Jeremy (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Worth

message: I erroreously removed the symmetery data while showing a student how wikipedia works.  The data was replaced!  Many apologies!  FVhernly  Vince
:Well, you showed and learned more by removing it :-) (that it is important to preview edits before saving them, that saved edits remain in the history, etc., etc.) Though a usual advice is to practice in a sandbox, e.g. WP:Sandbox. Materialscientist (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Apologies

message: I cam here looking for info on lunar zircons.  Admittedly because of an xkcd comic.
http://m.xkcd.com/1194/ (check the alt text)
"All we have are these stupid tantalizing zircons and the scars on the face of the Moon"
Mathiastck (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lunar Zircons 

message: I was reading a review article in Science (magazine) years ago and recall being startled by the expert's statement that only two minerals are stable on Earth's surface (of course, anything will dissolve with enough time at STP). Years later, I looked in wikipedia to find that information - and it wasn't there. More years later I think I found it: it seems as if the two are quartz and zircon. (According to the guy at salemstate.edu (sorry I lost the link)). If true, it seems as if it is noteworthy enough to include here. Anyone up to consider adding it? I guess for quartz, too - if its not there (that one I remembered from the Science article, so haven't checked the wikipedia entry.72.172.10.20 (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mineral weathering 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Zircon. 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 archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050407220144/http://mineral.galleries.com:80/minerals/silicate/zircon/zircon.htm to http://mineral.galleries.com/minerals/silicate/zircon/zircon.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 81.11.222.84 (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  semiprecious? 

message: I have a question abut the text "Synthetic zircons have been created in laboratories[28] but they are only of scientific interest and are never encountered in the jewellery trade."
I have some earrings and it says they are made of synthetic zircon, so I wonder of this text should be deleted. Any thoughts?
BrightOrion (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Synthetic zircon as jewellery