Talk:Allotropy

message: In the first paragraph, should graphene be considered a different allotrope of graphite? Or simply a smaller crystal of graphite constrained from vertical growth.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.34.25 (talk) 05:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, those phases would be allotropes, but only when talking about pure iron. In metallurgy, it's generally preferred to use the term "phase" as opposed to "allotrope" to avoid ambiguity. Allotropes are distinct chemical species with varying reactivities and physical properties. Allotropes can be present in any phase, but some become unstable in certain phases and will transition into a more energetically favourable structure. Hope this helps. --Xanthine 00:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The question is not what makes sense to Wikipedia editors, but rather how does the scientific literature use the term. The article now implies that the term is NOT restricted to crystalline phases, and is even used for gases such as dioxygen and ozone (trioxygen). If this is incorrect, we need reliable sources which say so explicitly. Dirac66 (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: The term allotropy is usually only used for elements. In the case of compouds, the analogous term would be isomers. Andreas 02:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allotropy - isomers 

message: What exactly needs expert attention? kotepho 01:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm... For a start, until recently the definition said a lot more about what allotropy isn't than what it actually is... --Xanthine 23:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert 

message: I believe I'm suitably qualified to be an expert on this subject. I have done a large scale cleanup of this article, tidying up any discrepancies and clarifying a number of points. I think it reads a lot better now. If you notice any errors (factual or grammatical), please do let me know. And feel free to correct them.
--Xanthine 00:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Cleanup 

message: The article illustrates allotropy with two crystalline forms of Fe, but my impression is that usually allotropy refers to molecules or low dimensional materials.  It can be assumed that all elements exhibit polymorphy, especially at high pressures.  So while formally allotropy (isomerism for elements) is widespread, for instructional purposes, the discussion is usually limited to species existing as molecules (S, Se, As, P, C, O).--Smokefoot (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Molecules or covalent solids (diamond is not a molecular solid, unless you call the entire crystal a very big molecule!) But I've never seen the term applied to metals. --Itub (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just found that many books do speak of allotropes of iron. These are often books on metallurgy and related topics. It is true, however, that most general chemistry textbooks only seem to give examples of allotropy among nonmetals. --Itub (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Usually ...

message: Are there any references for the metal allotropes? Even in the crystallography open database and the inorganic crystal structure database there is no structure for strontium other than the cubic. 129.93.61.170 (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References for metals

message: It is saying that in the definition the word "chemical elements", but silica (SiO2) is not a element. But it has allotropic forms???????????  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivaaprs (talk • contribs) 03:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article refers to the element silicon (Si), not the compound silica which is the short name for silicon dioxide (SiO2). Dirac66 (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Allotropy?????? 

message: User 201.235.24.69 today added a [who?] to ask who are the many other chemists who have repeated Ostwald's advice to replace the term "allotropy" by "polymorphism". The sentence which is questioned was added by me on 18 May 2007. It is a paraphrase of Jensen's 2006 article, which refers to "sage advice, which many have since repeated", with a reference to a 1964 book "The allotropy of the elements" by W.E. Addison. I will add a reference to indicate the source of this sentence and the word "many", even if Wikipedia does not identify the many. Dirac66 (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allotropy vs polymorphism 

message: "Allotropes are typically more noticeable in non-metals ..."  Does it mean that we are more likely to notice the difference in the cases of non-metallic allotropes, or that non-metals are more likely to exhibit allotropy ? 77.96.59.93 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 06:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A revision history search shows that this phrase was added on 30 April 2006 by Xanthine who has been inactive on Wikipedia since 2009. So we are unlikely to have a reply from the author of this phrase. I think that this and the following sentence about metals should just be deleted, unless someone can provide a clearer statement about the occurrence of allotropy in non-metals and in metals, preferably with a source. Dirac66 (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Dirac66 (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this mean ? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Allotropy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080131061355/http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca:80/summer/scor/articles/scor40.htm to http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/summer/scor/articles/scor40.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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am placing a 'dubious' tag on the Q-Carbon entry on the list of allotropes.
If you follow the link to the Q-Carbon page there are several ongoing disputes that call these claims into question, including whether it is a genuine carbon allotrope at all.  There are also serious questions of editorial impartiality there.
The entry for Q-Carbon also seems to stick out on the list of examples for a lack of neutral language.  It seems to be extolling the virtues of Q-Carbon rather than summarizing its properties, e.g. "tough" and "brilliant".
If the list is not meant to be exhaustive, I would suggest that this line simply be struck.  Anon, a mouse... (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q-Carbon 

message: I've removed the 2009 expansion request template. There seems to be no need for it anymore. Torrent97 (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: List of allotropes section