Talk:Allotropes of sulfur

Elements Low‑importance

	Chemistry portal This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Glass Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glass, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of glass on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GlassWikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/GlassTemplate:WikiProject Glassglass articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

I think this article could become a GA if it were adequately referenced.Nergaal (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree...question m having can I ask.? GANGANI SELIJA (talk) 10:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GANGANI SELIJA: If it's a question on the article, ask here. But if it is a more general sulfur question ask at WP:RD/S. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

As th initiator of the article I am delighted with its rating. Regarding references - most of the information came from *Elemental sulfur and sulfur rich compounds I (Topics in current chemistry) Ed. R Steudel (2004), Springer, ISBN 3540401911 - with some from Greenwood&Earnshaw - specific points not covered by either are in line references. AS we could end up with every line being referenced--I am not sure where to start--would reducing the general references to one help?--Axiosaurus (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

don't delete any pf the general references. just make sure you reference each line with either of them that you prefer, or maybe both. Also, don't forget about adding some references to the intro. Nergaal (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK- I'll make a start--Axiosaurus (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just of curiosity, are you going to actually work on it? Nergaal (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To check Steudels book at uni I need to go in (long trip) so a few final points will have to wait - otherwise done--Axiosaurus (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allotropes[edit]

In this article, it list sulfur as being second only to carbon in the number of allotropes it has. However, the allotrope section of the main sulfur article says that sulfur has the most allotropes of all elements (including carbon, theoretically). I am not an expert on this subject, so which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.113.101 (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it depends on how many of the fullerenes you count as distinct. --Belg4mit (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

absolutely! the quote in this article is from Greenwood (1994)- older literature usually said sulfur had more but the fullerene breakthrough means carbon is now ahead in spite of all the new sulfur allotropes discovered in the last thirty odd years.Axiosaurus (talk) 10:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cyclo-hexasulfur[edit]

In this section, it is said that "All of the sulfur atoms are essentially equivalent." What does this mean? Electronically, they should all be the same. Does this mean the geometry or bonding? In this sense, they should also be equivalent. I think that "essentially" is a bit of a red herring in this sentence. Can any shed light on this?Fourloves (talk 21:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)(SORRY BUT THIS WAS ALL FAKE THANK YOU )[reply]