Talk:Perovskite (structure)

message: I think  this article is incorrect the A cation is located at the corners, with the B cation surrounded by the oxygen ions.
: 'Inorganic chemistry' 3rd ed by A G Sharpe confirms structure as now described in the article : A in corners when O is at face centres.  Rod57 (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong structure ?

message: The following is historical as the merge seems to have been done.  Rod57 (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that they should be merged.Spute 19:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree. The word perovskite is used for both a generic structure type and a specific mineral. Anybody looking for either of them is likely to be searching under the single word perovskite. A finer understanding of either of these strongly related topics only comes from understanding both uses.
Octopodes 04:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree. Go for it. Vsmith (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, User:Thumperward did this today. --Steve (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with the de-merger, especially considering that perovskite mineral is redirecting to calcium titanate. Garybrennan (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger Proposal

message: Well I'm a couple years too late for this discussion, but I think the merger was a bad idea; perovskite the crystal structure / class of materials is logically distinct from perovskite the mineral. There's plenty of content that belongs in an article about the former but has nothing to do with the latter (e.g., a list of perovskites, generic perovskite properties), and vice-versa (e.g., mineral deposit locations). Of course, the article on perovskite the mineral should briefly discuss the perovskite crystal structure, just as (for example) the article Bismuth ferrite should briefly discuss the perovskite crystal structure. That doesn't mean that "perovskite crystal structure" and "perovskite mineral" should be a single article, any more than "perovskite crystal structure" and "bismuth ferrite" should be a single article.
In fact, I recently executed analogous splits at wurtzite and zincblende, and for the same reason. You can take a look at those and see how the information is, IMHO, more clear and reader-accessible than it was before. :-)
To reply to I-hunter's point, if not much can be said about perovskite itself without going into detail about the ABO3 structure, then the article on perovskite the mineral can be a short article, similar to the current state of wurtzite. Again, bismuth ferrite proves that it's possible to write an article about a perovskite without having it also be an article about the crystal structure. To reply to Octopodes's point, the fact that the word perovskite has two different definitions is an argument for, not against, having them split. It's easy enough to have disambiguating notes leading readers to the right place. Again, see wurtzite and wurtzite (crystal structure) for how I imagine this would work.
What do other people think? --Steve (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Go for it. Vsmith (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, User:Thumperward did this today. --Steve (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with the de-merger, especially considering that perovskite mineral is redirecting to calcium titanate. Garybrennan (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  De-merger? 

message: The coordination notation  XIIA2+VIB4+X2−3 doesn't look too clear- this needs explanation -it is not well known outside crystallographic circles. Also perovskite structures are adopted where the ions are not 2+ and 4+ but 3+ and 3+ e.g. YAlO3 with  large Y3+ and small Al3+ and even +1, +5 as in KNbO3.   Axiosaurus (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: <sup>XII</sup>A<sup>2+</sup><sup>VI</sup>B<sup>4+</sup>X<sup>2−</sup><sub>3</sub> and the general formula

message: Would it be a good idea to add a paragraph about perovskite heterostructures (thin films)? And maybe a paragraph about the connection with related structures such as brownmillerites (ABO2.5)? Currently brownmillerite only has an article about the specific mineral, so should maybe have a seperate brownmillerite (crystal structure) article? Magnunor (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe a good idea would be to move the section on "Layered perovskites" from the perovskite article here, that section has nothing to do with the Perovskite mineral itself, and is actually much better suited as a subsection of this article, since those are effectively variations of the Perovskite structure. IgnacioPickering (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Heterostructures and related structures?

message: There is no explanation of what this means anywhere in the article. These aren't element abbreviations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:48F8:1001:0:0:0:0:E54 (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RPd3B 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Perovskite (structure). 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20081008092209/http://cst-www.nrl.navy.mil/lattice/struk/e2_1.html to http://cst-www.nrl.navy.mil/lattice/struk/e2_1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080412093413/http://cst-www.nrl.navy.mil/lattice/struk.jmol/e2_1.html to http://cst-www.nrl.navy.mil/lattice/struk.jmol/e2_1.html
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) 15:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The article doesn't seem to mention anything about where perovskite is found. Even if just a brief rundown of some mines or even countries that produce it. Whether it's able to be synthesized in any significant quantities, if it's a byproduct of mining something else, or if it's the primary target for exploitative mining. VoidHalo (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources of perovskite 

message: There is a error in the transcription of the table from the Glazer (1972) original article.
On the 10th and 11th tilt systems where it reads Pmmnb it should be Pmmna.
Furthermore, the space group names of the tilt systems 12 (F-1 #2), 8 and 9 (A21/m11 #11), 19 (F2/m11 #12), 13 (I2/a #15), 17 and 18 (Bmmb #63), 20 (Imcm #74), 21 (C4/mmb #127), 22 (F4/mmc #140) are not in conformity with the new IUCr notation, where they should be P21/m (#11), C2/m (#12), C2/c (#15), Cmcm (#63), Imma (#74), P4/mbm (#127) and I4/mcm (#140). Is there a reason for for this difference in notation?
Finally, in the 20th tilt system where it reads 29 should be 20, I believe this is a typo. Liuzp1 (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glazer notation table