Talk:Gypsum

Merge with Selenite

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think the content in Selenite, covering crystalline forms of gypsum (not only Selenite) should be merged into this article. M0ffx 22:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC) PS: Discussion on the matter here please, rather than on Talk:Selenite - let's keep any debate in the one place (abritrarily chosen) for simplicity.

As the updater of the selenite article, I don't have a problem with merging with the gypsum article. Only issue is - and not quite sure if this is an issue - that the 4 crystalline varieties have a different focus to gypsum/drywall/plaster of paris/sculpture, which are industrial uses. The 4 crystalline varieties are more of a consumer retail focus - and [yes, I know, very controversial] also a "metaphysical" focus. So, I would like the 2 different focuses to be clear, yes? I've written a metaphysical focus article on the 4 crystalline varieties - haven't submitted to Wikipedia yet - partially 'coz I'm semi-chicken about the controversy that it may create - but mainly 'coz "good" citations are few and far between. That creates a problem - though I think I've "fixed" the citation issue by planning to state categorically that "a claim is a claim is a claim - a belief is a belief is a belief" - and are not to be taken as "factual truth" [wording can change if you'd like]. [Also, if you access the Discussion section of the selenite article, you'll see what I wrote originally - and it included metaphysical uses. A bot suggested that I remove the metaphysical section and avoid controversy - which I agreed with and did so.] I will volunteer to do the merge - and I will be careful about what's already been written in the gypsum article - I'll probably only change stuff to make it "readable" and "flowable". BUT 'coz I'm still a newbie, I'd kind of like some hand-holding or good advice. Will probably take most of May to do this 'coz I'm squashy for time until mid-May. Thanks, Ashley Witchcrafter

I've been doing a bit of "merging" [not in Wikipedia] of the gypsum and selenite articles - and, quite frankly, I think maybe merging the two articles is not the best thing to do. Both gypsum and alabaster are separate articles because their usage is different - gypsum mainly building material - alabaster mainly sculpture. Usage of the 4 crystalline varieties is also different - mainly collectible, retail, and metaphysical. I think that, perhaps, the gypsum article should have the references to the 4 crystalline varieties moved to the selenite article. ???? Thanks, AshleyWitchcrafterAshleyWitchcrafter 18:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a geologist/mineralogist, if there is any merging, it should be into gypsum, because gypsum is the mineral and selenite, alabaster, etc. are varietal names of it. (And as an aside, the statement on the selenite page that gypsum is massive and shows no crystalline habit is incorrect; certainly it often does - though when it does, it is sometimes called selenite.) I certainly would not oppose keeping important varietal names like alabaster and selenite as separate articles, though they could probably equally well be subsumed into the gypsum article. Cheers Geologyguy 18:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I would fully agree with merging the selenite article in. Almost half of the information on Selenite is repetition of information that is covered in the infobox here at Gypsum so a merge whould not be to difficult.--Kevmin (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merge. Per Ashley's comments about usages being so different as well as the separate literature. In the long run both of these articles could grow very large on their own. Let them develop separately and see what materialises. Cheers. Cewvero (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merge. Agree with above. Like ashley says, different focus, crystals vs. other aspects of Gypsum. ;Bear (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose merge. I thought this issue was closed, but perhaps I should join in opposition too. Should we formaly close this dicsussion? (as no merge) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Merge. Strongly in fact, we'd end up with a huge article covering many different topics, purely because of the chemistry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisHodgesUK (talk • contribs) 18:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest the objections that have been presented do not seem to make much sense as the majority of this article is devoted to the naturally occurring mineral with the first section being on crystaline structures, the Selenite article is a fork of that exact content with little in the way of new material. --Kevmin (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Also as a side note Alabaster should not be merged here as it covers a decorative stone that is either Gypsum or calcite.--Kevmin (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Merge Since this has been going on a year and a half with clear consensus to NOT merge, I'm going to be BOLD and remove the merge proposal tag. I think per WP:SS we don't (or should not have) a fork, but merely a growing set of articles and subarticles, with calcium sulfate a main article, then subarticles dealing with natural deposits of same, and selenite (finally) as one of the crystalline varieties of gypsum. If some material has migrated into gypsum (except for the summary) that you think is better in gypsum, then move it back (I've already tagged selenite as a {main} article in gypsum). SBHarris 02:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

World's largest open-pit gypsum mine

The world's largest open-pit gypsum mine is located in Milford, Nova Scotia, Canada. Mentions of it can be found on Google.... perhaps information on it should be included in the main Gypsum article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dezzo (talk • contribs) .

gypsum could become more popular as a building material: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2546574,00html (btw thanks, came to this article to see how common gypsum is and this article answered that)

non-mineral info moved

I moved the chemical reaction and industrial usages to calcium sulfate. This article is about the natural mineral and its varieties. Vsmith 00:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

nice. I think that some of that stuff is relevant to this article though, and perhaps a filtered version needs to be put back. For example the sections about where gypsum comes from? I do agree that sections such as uses of processed gypsum in the form of plaster of paris needed to be moved. perhaps even to the plaster of paris page, what are your thoughts?Bouncingmolar 02:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

er? What sections about where gypsum comes from? Gypsum the natural mineral doesn't come from flue gases or phosphate processing. I don't see any description of the origin of gypsum as a natural mineral in the removed material. Yes the plaster of Paris bit would probably have been better moved to that article, unless it's already there (I haven't looked). The section in this article about volcanic and hydrothermal vein origins of gypsum versus anhydrite as well as the evaporite deposits could use some expansion, but not from the moved material. Vsmith 03:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Link to plaster?

Should this document contain a link to the Plaster article? (212.61.57.82 10:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC))

Technically, probably not. There is a relation to gypsum with a different outcome after heating: Plaster of Paris is made by heating gypsum to about 300 degrees Fahrenheit, driving 75% of the water out of the mineral. This reaction absorbs energy, enabling a sheet of drywall to resist fire for a while. Heating further to about 350 degrees F drives out the remaining water and results in conversion to the mineral anhydrite. Any thoughts? Annlanding 16:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)AnnLanding

Both Plaster and Plaster of Paris are linked (appropriately) in the Uses section. Cheers Geologyguy 16:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Thank you for clarifying.Annlanding 13:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Ann Landing

BTW Geologyguy- your website is most informative- verging on awesome. Great reference!

Thanks for the nice words. Cheers Geologyguy 14:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

==Culinary uses?==♥ My buddy just put a pouch of gypsum into the batch of beer he's brewing. I came here to figure out why you would do such a thing, and there's no information. Anyone know, and if they do, could/should they add it to the article?

Googling 'gypsum beer' gives 291,000 results, including this one. Cheers Geologyguy 22:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that use arguably belongs on the "calcium sulfate" page rather than this one. Def-Mornahan (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No the selenite section should be treated as seperate topic. In fact I think all the varieties of Gypsum and other minerals should be treated as seperate topic. In doing so the clarity of search options will be optimized and will bring a broad breadth in the topic.

Power plant byproduct?

I've heard that gypsum is a byproduct formed at some coal power plants. Anyone able to read some of the information out there? I can find a lot of irrelevant or highly technical results, but it's hard for me to filter them. --72.54.44.153 (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly this is done. The question would be if the amounts produced in power plants is significant volumetrically. A quick look at some google results suggested that making synthetic gypsum in power plants is beyond the experimental stage, but no suggestion of how much is made. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As I recall from undergrad, a "mineral" is naturally formed. Thus the result of scrubbing at power plants is "hydrated calcium sulfate" rather than gypsum, is it not? Def-Mornahan (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I NEED IMFORMATION.

PLS TELL ME WHAT GYPSUM CAN BE PROCESSED INTO,THAT IS,WHAT IT CAN BE USED FOR.PLEASE I WILL APPRECIATE IE IF YOU CAN MAIL ME BACK THE ANSWER THROUGH MY E-MAIL <Removed.> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.18.211 (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You may find the article on Gypsum a good place to start looking. And posting your e-mail address on wikipedia is a very bad idea unless you enjoy receiving spam - I thought I'd better remove it for you! Verisimilus T 16:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

THANKS FOR REPLY

ACTUALLY WE WANT TO CONVERT POWDER FOR GYPSUM INTO GRANUAL OR PALLET FORM FOR USE AS FERTILISER FOR THER ATRACTIVENESS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.28.140 (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

how to reduce colour from syntethic gypsum

We are manufacturing Gypsum of yellowish colour with a purity of 75% from the spent sulphuric acid 6% concentration and caco3 but I would like to reduce its colour how can i reduce the yellowish gypsum colour to white- offwhit colour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.197.197 (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC) WE WANT TO CONVER POWDER FORM INTO GRANUAL FORM IS IT POSSBLE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.28.140 (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC) hey i dont know if this will be any help but my family owns a gypsum mine in australia and we sell it to farmers in the area for use as fertilizer and i have made it into casts and pallets before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparky4eva (talk • contribs) 02:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Melting Point

Is the melting point of Gypsum known? Could not find that information in the article. Fingercheck (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• It doesn't melt -- it decomposes first, into calcium oxide and (I think) sulfur dioxide. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Untitled

U can add it's molecularr weight= 172.18 gm/mole — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankit271 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 14 July 2009

Merge August 2009

Kevmin has proposed merging Selenite (mineral) into Gypsum; I propose also merging the content of Alabaster that concerns gypsum. --Una Smith (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Age of Gypsum

The article currently states that 'Deposits are known to occur in strata from as early as the Permian age', in fact it is found in all ages of sedimentary rock, wherever Evaporite sequences occur e.g. the Uppermost Proterozoic to Lower Cambrian Hormuz Formation [1]. I will change the sentence accordingly and try to find a ref that says explicitly that gypsum is found throughout the sedimentary rock record. Mikenorton (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've just found a ref. to Archaean gypsum, which will do nicely I think. Mikenorton (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Confusing

Article contradicts itself. On the one hand it states "it is not a salt" then later goes on to suggest that it is a salt "in contrast to most other salts" - probably good to fix that with whatever is correct. --Streaky (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed contradiction. Vsmith (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

History

Do any of you guys think that gypsum reserves a history section? I would do so but I simply do not have enough time in my hands James3167 (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Gypsum

What's the molecular formula of gypsum salt? Maheshwor Acharya (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gypsum. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/ppv/RPViewDoc?issn=1480-3291&volume=39&issue=9&startPage=1746
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050313183544/http://mmsd1.mms.nrcan.gc.ca/mmsd/producers/commodityCompany_e.asp?nId=51&minetype=nonMetal to http://mmsd1.mms.nrcan.gc.ca/mmsd/producers/commodityCompany_e.asp?nId=51&mineType=nonMetal

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gypsum. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/ppv/RPViewDoc?issn=1480-3291&volume=39&issue=9&startPage=1746
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070814041825/http://mineral.galleries.com/minerals/sulfates/gypsum/gypsum.htm to http://mineral.galleries.com/minerals/sulfates/gypsum/gypsum.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The new main image

Regarding the new main image, File:Gypsum - Sieroszowice mine, Lubin, Lower Silesia, Poland.jpg by Iifar. It is a beautiful image, a great photo, but I wonder how suitable it is as main picture showing how gypsum looks. Gypsum is a colorless mineral that usually appears white in photos, but this specimen has green herbertsmithite inclusions. I find it misleading. The main image for a mineral should preferably show only that mineral, especially with such a common mineral where good clean white crystals are easy to find and photograph. I would recommend that the photo replacement should be reverted. cart-Talk 08:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted to the previous version, based on this comment. It is an improvement, but the previous version is certainly not a pic with "good clean white crystals". -Roxy . wooF 10:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)