Talk:Diamond/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Overall quality

I came here looking for something simple - the thermal conductivity of crystalline and poly crystalline diamond. I didn't find an accurate number for that in the article (the citation says that the highest measured thermal conductivity is 410 W/m.k, not the 900-2300 W/m.k written in the article), but I did notice that the overall quality of this article is very poor, there are grammar mistakes throughout, many citations are not primary or even reputable sources (citing a knife exporter for chemical stability of diamond?!), and the general writing style is casual and unprofessional. I don't edit Wikipedia with an account, so I cannot clean this up. Would someone please take some time to go through and edit this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.194.93 (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

| I would like to add some possible changes to improve the wording. Under the Cutting section, the phrase "Unlike cutting, which is a responsible but quick operation" seems odd. I suggest changing it to "Unlike cutting, which is a critical but quick operation". Other possibilites include "demanding" or "exacting". Asknapp (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Help

there are 2 words that are stuck together, when I add a space between them it deletes the space but the edit shows up under the history Scientific Alan (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

What words? I saw one you fixed and I added another missing space. Vsmith (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Proceess of a diamond — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.172.59 (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Spelling

For "Valuation Wholesale, discounted and cheaper diamonds are of lower value. Some indicators that lowers a diamond's value are when the diamond is not natural such as heat or clarity enhanced or synethic." can we please have "Valuation Wholesale, discounted and cheaper diamonds are of lower value. Some indicators that lower a diamond's value are when the diamond is not natural, such as heat enhanced or clarity enhanced, or is synthetic."

203.97.123.30 (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This article on DIAMOND is "semi-protected" because the diamond industry has PAID WIKIPEDIA NOT TO ALLOW the truthful details to be posted in this article.


FOR EXAMPLE:

Industrial-grade diamonds

Industrial diamonds are valued mostly for their hardness and thermal conductivity, making many of the gemological characteristics of diamonds, such as the 4 Cs, irrelevant for most applications. This helps explain why 80% of mined diamonds (equal to about 135,000,000 carats (27,000 kg) annually), unsuitable for use as gemstones, are destined for industrial use.


Mining

Approximately 130,000,000 carats (26,000 kg) of diamonds are mined annually, with a total value of nearly US$9 billion, and about 100,000 kg (220,000 lb) are synthesized annually.[76]


CHECK OUT THE NUMBERS!! THEY DON'T MAKE SENSE! "80% of mined diamonds (equal to about 135,000,000 carats (27,000 kg) annually), unsuitable for use as gemstones, are destined for industrial use" COMPARED to "Approximately 130,000,000 carats (26,000 kg) of diamonds are mined annually" !!!

"THEIR OWN LIES SHOW THEM UP ! " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.157.142 (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

THAT is why this page is semi-protected...121.127.222.230 (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I am certain they have hired people for PR purposes and that would include editing wikipedia like most companies do, but I don't think they paid wikipedia directly. You never know though. Anyway the sentence with the number of blood diamonds at 2-3% needs to state the source in the sentence. Citing the very people who cause these problems and profit from the problems as saying there are not many problems is just stupid. It should read "according to the (gay little acronym) blood diamonds make up x percent". Oh yeah also its fifteen fucking years old so yeah. Put a time line on it. This article has been a huge dispute for years now and it won't end any time soon but come on.... clean it up a little please. It's too obvious as propaganda. Also as the previous commenter stated the numbers thoughout this ENTIRE article are made up and thrown together randomly. Sometimes two sentences apart. Preceding comment made by 98.155.55.68 (talk) - Please remember to sign your comments --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Gramophone Needles

Does anybody know how big a part of industrial-grade diamonds are used for gramophone styli? One per million...? Harjasusi (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Phase diagram description, "hatched areas indicate metastable states"

The phase diagram for carbon seems to derive from the following website:

http://sciexplorer.blogspot.com/2012/09/non-silicate-gems.html

The hatched areas in the diagram indicate metastable states, wherein (say) carbon can exist with graphite, even though the one (or the other) is less stable. Over aeons, the less stable, "metastable", state gradually decays, into the stable state. Thus, near the metastable border regions, graphite <--> diamond can convert back and forth (perhaps according to some kind of Boltzmann energy level population equation, n ~ e-ΔE/kT ?? 66.235.38.214 (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Diamond-spewing eruptions derive from deeper magma chambers, where-with-in Pressures are higher. According to the carbon phase diagram, higher Pressures would keep diamonds, dredged up from depth, closer to the diamond/graphite phase transition, and "deeper" within the "hatched region" on the plot, where diamond remains metastable (only slowing "decaying" into graphite). Plausibly, diamond is more (meta-)stable at higher Pressures, and so "decays" more slowly. Perhaps the diamond-relevant difference, between normal eruptions, and volcanic pipe eruptions, is that the higher Pressures, in the magma chambers, of the latter, preserve diamonds longer, so that more diamonds remain as larger crystals, in their erupted lavas?? If so, then eruptions which occur more quickly, would leave less time, for metastable diamonds to "decay"; whereas potentially supra-normally super-large crystals of diamond possibly exist, at depth, have grown to considerable size there, without having "erosively decayed" (ablating from their surfaces), in shallower magma chambers, whilst awaiting delivery, to earth's surface?? 66.235.38.214 (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The spontaneous conversion of dense diamond "popping out" into graphite, at lower pressures, resembles the spontaneous conversion of Olivine (e.g. (FeO)2SiO2) to Pyroxene plus oxides (FeO)SiO2 + FeO). Apparently, pressure can crush molecules together; and reducing pressure allows them to "pop back apart", in sort of a "molecular fission" process. Perhaps, extrapolating, to nuclear fission processes, the intense pressures, inside immense stars, allow elements heavier than iron to be "metastable"?? Perhaps, arguing from analogy, that would require pressures on the nuclei themselves, i.e. nuclear densities, characteristic only of relativistically-compact objects, e.g. Neutron Stars?? So, perhaps by the time nuclear densities are reached, all the electrons have been crushed into protons, generating neutronized, neutron-degenerate material, in which no chemical elements (everything is neutrons) can even exist.66.235.38.214 (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Another analogy would be the Pressure-induced phase changes, from Spinel ( (MgO)(Al2O3) ) to Garnet ( (MgO)3(Al2O3)(SiO2)3 ).66.235.38.214 (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Inexpertly, "metastable" states seem described, with language, implying that they have "half-lives", as if the analogy of "molecular fission" were appropriate.66.235.38.214 (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The afore-cited "sci-explorer" website says, that most gems form, at the Crust-Mantle interface, i.e. the MOHO. Perhaps, by analogy, deeper-forming diamonds crystalize and grow, at the interface, between the solid Lithosphere mantle material above, and the still-molten mantle material below?? 66.235.38.214 (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Inexpertly, the article could clarify, that "diamond formation" (slow crystal growth at depth) and "diamond delivery" (to surface) are unrelated phenomena (?). In some places, at some times, diamonds grow to macroscopic scales, down at deep depths. And, some times, those diamond formations are later blasted to the surface, by another "delivery elevator process", which dredges up all manner of xenocrysts and xenoliths, some small fraction of which, are diamonds. Presumably, too, those xenocrysts are scoured from the all depths, from deep diamond bearing regions (≤200km), all the way on up (?). If so, then perhaps the article could clarify that, more. 66.235.38.214 (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Slight grammatical error

There is a small grammatic mistake where formation temperature is described; it is stated that it will form "at a comparatively low temperature range between approximately 900–1300 °C (1652–2372 °F)."

I would re-phrase this as "at a comparatively low temperature range - approximately 900–1300 °C (1652–2372 °F)." OR I would re-phrase this as "at a comparatively low temperature range between approximately 900 and 1300 °C (1652 and 2372 °F)."

But I may well be being 'nitpicky'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.204.85 (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


I agree to bring this minor inconsistency of formatting in line with the remainder of the article. As proposed

Please Change Current Text

"at a comparatively low temperature range between approximately 900–1300 °C (1652–2372 °F)."

TO
"at a comparatively low temperature range between approximately 900 and 1300 °C (1652 and 2372 °F)."

Jcislowski (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Done Minor edit only. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Chemical stability

" A diamond's surface can only be oxidized a little by just a few oxidants[which?] at high temperature (below 1000 °C). " This statement is from a cited source and is in fact contradictory if read against the facts from the source.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond#cite_note-DBS-23 ... <-- above statement from the linked source

The statement regarding ignition point states that it is present in oxygen an oxidant and air which contains the oxidant oxygen. And with the temperatures below 1000C this source covers all but the "a little" part of this statement. You could say we have a verifiable piece here, but i believe the source and the context of its usage leave a lot to be desired.

I find the statement to be overall incomplete and lacking perspective to the surrounding subject matter and suggest it be reworded or removed. As in its current form and intent its a total fact hack. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond#cite_note-22

Jcislowski (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Suspect materials as oxidizers include nitric acid, fluorine, hydrogen fluoride, permanganate ion, hydrogen peroxide, liquid oxygen. Substances that can oxidize graphite just might oxidize diamond. As reducing substances? Alkali and alkaline-earth metals. Those metals reduce carbon as coke or graphite to acetylides. Pbrower2a (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Green from radiation exposure

In the introduction, there is stated: "Small amounts of defects [...] color diamond [...] green (radiation exposure), [...]." I question this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.144 (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

What exactly do you question? That diamonds are affected by naturally occurring radioactive minerals? That radiation can induce color in diamonds? Or that "green" does not adequately characterize the kind of color-changes that can occur? Zyxwv99 (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Diamond is no longer the hardest naturally occuring material.

In the hardness subsection of "material properties" I noticed that the first sentence said "diamond is the hardest known natural material". In fact there are two materials now known to be harder then diamond. Those are wurtzite boron nitride and lonsdaleite.

Wurtzite boron nitride occurs naturally after very powerful volcanic events and is up to 18% harder then diamond because it's atoms of boron and nitrogen are even more powerfully bonded. It has no facets and therefore has no strange facet differences like lonsdaleite. It has a hardness of 114 Gpa compared to diamond's 97 Gpa.

However, the hardest naturally occuring substance is lonsdaleite which occurs naturally when an asteroid containing large amounts of graphite hits the Earth. The force of the impact changes the graphite into a substance similar to diamond but with the crystal structure of graphite giving it superior hardness then diamond by up to 58% on certain facets but on others it is weaker then diamond, leaving it open for debate.

[2]

[3]

[4]

I thought this was common knowledge. It comes up on tests a lot with the younger generation. (That's why us older folks need to keep up with the latest discoveries.) Of course diamond is still the hardest substance the average person is likely to encounter, but yeah, that should be in the article. Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Diamond thermal conductivity

i think diamond's thermal conductivity should be added to the diamond characteristics chart under "identification". it is listed somewhere in the article as: thermal conductivity 900–2,320 W·m−1·K−1 (current citation number 20) i was going to add it but i figured i'd discuss it here first.Among Men (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed

"Excellent optical and mechanical properties, notably unparalleled hardness and durability, make diamond the most popular gemstone." Whether or not it's the most popular gemstone, which also should have a citation, there should be a citation(and perhaps an explanation) for the cause of the popularity being caused by its optical and mechanicalproperties, esp the unparalleled hardness blah blah, which was mentioned before, which sounds like a real estateadvertisement.76.218.104.120 (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

From the introduction: "...renowned for superlative physical properties"?

It depends what you are using it for. It wouldn't be superlative talcum powder. So this is a pov issue.76.218.104.120 (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The whole lede needs work. First it should distinguish between the rock and the mineral. Hardness was an issue in ancient times and the Middle Ages. Gems were commonly used as armor (jade) or as supplemental armoring. They were usually unfaceted, cut en cabochon or polished in a tumbler. Diamonds would not have been very effective, but people also wore gems as personal adornment, partly in the belief that they could ward off back luck and evil spirits. That's why diamonds were so highly prized: if they could scratch other gems, which in turn could protect warriors, then they must have had powerful magic. Today few people care how their jewelry rates on the Moh's hardness scale.
Diamonds are generally opaque, ranging in color from dark brown to light brown. The 2% that are gem-quality are mostly color P-Z, with no individual letter grade, and a split clarity grade: I2-3. Since most gem-quality diamonds are uncertified and the FTC (at least in the USA) says a jeweler's report need only be accurate to within one grade, it follows that most gem-quality diamonds are actually color ZZ, clarity I4. Which is to say, opaque to translucent, ranging in color from medium brown to light brown. Since most are only slightly larger than a grain of sand, people can't see how dark and deeply flawed they are. They also can't see that the diamond cutter was in too much of a hurry to cut all 17 facets on the "single cut," or to try to make them even remotely symmetrical.
If we're talking about diamonds that cost thousands of dollars, such as for engagement rings, the color is still likely to be off by a bit, as well as the clarity. That's because many people really want a 1-carat diamond, but couldn't afford one if it wasn't a little off color, with flaws that can hardly be seen at arm's length.

Zyxwv99 (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Diamonds in minecraft

someone add something about diamond tools in Minecraft — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.176.127 (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Flawless Diamonds

There seem to be some discrepancies. [5] seems to say that there are quite a few flawless diamonds, some quite large. Yet [6] says that it is the world's only flawless diamond.

David aiken (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The claim in the article Strawn-Wagner_Diamond is not supported by the reference. The article merely says that it's a one-in-a-billion diamond, which is probably true. However, you can buy one-in-a-billions like that on Blue Nile for about $23,000 for a 1-carat specimen (http://www.bluenile.com/diamond-search?pt=setform&track=DiamondSearchRD#diamonds_pid=LD03727989), $93,000 for 2 carats (http://www.bluenile.com/diamond-search?pt=setform&track=DiamondSearchRD). This raises serious notability questions about the entire article. After all, if I owned a roadside stand out in the desert selling snacks and souvenirs, and had my mint-condition '57 T-bird parked out front as an attention-getter, I could write a Wikipedia article about my car, saying that it's a one-in-a-billion car. The claim could be entirely true. After all, how many '57 T-birds are there in mint condition? Zyxwv99 (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Diamond’s ignition point is 720 – 800 °C in oxygen and 850 – 1000 °C in air. The flame is blue when diamond is burning."
  2. ^ Jessica Griggs. (February 16 2009). Diamond no longer nature's hardest material. In NewScientist. Retrieved August 23 2013, from http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16610-diamond-no-longer-natures-hardest-material.html#.UhelB-C_Gp0.
  3. ^ Lisa Zyga. (Feb 12 2009). Scientists discover material harder then diamond. In phys.org. Retrieved August 23 2013, from http://phys.org/news153658987.html
  4. ^ K. S. Someswara. (October 16 2012). Diamonds are forever? So is lonsdaleite. In Deccan Herald. Retrieved August 23 2013, from http://www.deccanherald.com/content/285548/diamonds-forever-so-lonsdaleite.html.
  5. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2292727/Absolute-perfection-Worlds-largest-flawless-diamond-sell-20million.html
  6. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawn-Wagner_Diamond

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2014

Please change the contraction "it's" to the possessive pronoun "its" in both places where it appears in the final paragraph of the "History" introduction: 

...these are carat (it's weight), cut (quality of the cut is graded according to proportions, symmetry and polish), color (how close to white or colorless; For fancy diamonds how intense is it's Hue)...

Also, the word "Hue" is capitalized unnecessarily as it appears above.

Chorkman (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Done and thanks for the eye Cannolis (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Origin of diamonds

Reasonably authoritative sources seem to disagree as to whether a good majority of diamonds are harzburgitic, or rather most are eclogitic. Is this currently an open question? Or is there actually a consensus which i have not found? Colin McLarty (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Mining

What do you use to mine diamond? -- Annonymus user (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2015

I would respectfully suggest that the sentence "Carbon-containing minerals provide the carbon source, and the growth occurs over periods from 1 billion to 3.3 billion years (25% to 75% of the age of the Earth)" be removed as this is not observable, provable or a scientific statement of fact. It is merely a theory that the age of the earth is more than approximately 6000 years. Thank you for your consideration.

216.36.187.203 (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

See Age of the Earth. Stickee (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Diamond cutting and polishing -- edit request

The article states that in 2004 90%+ of diamonds were cut in Surat. Over the last decade there have been huge changes in the diamond processing industry. China is now a strong second place contender. I have edited the the diamond cutting article with this edition:

Diamonds are cut and polished in Surat, India and the Chinese cities of Guangzhou and Shenzhen.[1] India in recent years has held between 19-31% of the world market in polished diamonds and China has held 17% of the world market share in a recent year.[2]

Please update this article with 2013-14 data mentioned above.

Tippedcone (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2015

you should tell us how much diamonds cost — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC03:A140:60F9:AE92:548A:27B2 (talk) 11:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: The price of diamonds can vary by region. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 11:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Not done: The price is dependant on multiple factors; there is no one price. NiciVampireHeart 13:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2015

Please change

Cutting centers with lower cost of labor, notably Surat in Gujarat, India, handle a larger number of smaller carat diamonds, while smaller quantities of larger or more valuable diamonds are more likely to be handled in Europe or North America.

to

Cutting centers with lower cost of skilled labor and Highest Technologies for Diamond Manufacturing , notably Surat in Gujarat, India, handle a larger number of both smaller & bigger carat diamonds, while very small quantities of larger or more valuable diamonds are still handled in South Africa , Botswana , Europe and North America.

Utpal Mistry 09:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as your proposal does not seem a neutral point of view and more importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Diamond's surface

This article merely discusses the hydro-phobic\phillic properties of the surface of a diamond; It does not mention the physico-chemical properties there - are there C=C double bonds at the Diamond-Air interface? If so, surely cutting a diamond would be changing these bonds? Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 02:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2015

klik batu

125.164.20.119 (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2015

First paragraph under "Material properties", third to last last word should be "tetrahedral", not "tetrhedral". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterfairfield (talk • contribs) 00:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Vsmith (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Diamond. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2016

The source link for reference 100 "Pisani, Bob (August 27, 2012). "The Business of Diamonds, From Mining to Retail". CNBC." links to a yahoo finance search instead of directly to CNBC. A direct link to CNBC should be supplied instead. It is: http://www.cnbc.com/id/48782968

Starbrow (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Done!!! The link is dead as well, and this is why I wanted to change it too. DSCrowned(talk) 14:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2016

The article states that in 2004 90%+ of diamonds were cut in Surat. Over the last decade diamond processing is now split between India and China:

Diamonds are cut and polished in Surat, India and the Chinese cities of Guangzhou and Shenzhen.[1] India in recent years has held between 19-31% of the world market in polished diamonds and China has held 17% of the world market share in a recent year.[2]

Tippedcone (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b "Indian diamond cutting and polishing sector". Rough&Polished. March 6, 2013.
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference reuters was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
It's a bit unclear where exactly would you like this additional text? Please re-open the request with a reply exactly where this is best suited, thanks — Andy W. (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Diamond. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 09:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Splitting mining section

We have articles on gold mining and coal mining but nothing on diamond mining, apart from a redirect? Diamond mining is just as notable and worthy of its own article, with an extensive history and major significance to the modern world (see movies like Blood Diamond). Such an article would be a very interesting read. Laurdecl talk 22:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Such an article should be written, but the section on mining here is an appropriate length and an appropriate topic to cover here, and so the split tag is inappropriate. That content, as a summary of the larger issue, should remain here. DrKay (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Diamond. 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:

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) 03:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Diamond. 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:

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) 01:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2017

Wikipedia- Diamond-Industry-Mining-Political issues (First paragraph, Last line: "Major diamond trading corporations continue to fund and fuel the conflicts by doing business with armed groups."

It would be useful to list the "Major diamond corporations" but in the least, is necessary to provide a citation to support the statement. Thanks. Jeweleron (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Done SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 16:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Diamond. 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:

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) 16:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2017

I was reading this page in order to find an answer to the question "how long does it take for a diamond to form"

In the summary text, it is stated that "Carbon-containing minerals provide the carbon source, and the growth occurs over periods from 1 billion to 3.3 billion years (25% to 75% of the age of the Earth)" without a citation.

However, later on, in the Geology section, it states "Diamonds that have come to the Earth's surface are generally quite old, ranging from under 1 billion to 3.3 billion years old. This is 22% to 73% of the age of the Earth.[13]" Obviously there is a difference between being 1 billion to 3.3 billion years old and growing over a period of 1 billion to 3.3 billion years but in the summary text I think the language changes makes it sound like it a diamond takes billions of years to grow.

In trying to find a reputable external answer to the question of "how long does it take for a diamond to form" I found the this : https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/diamonds-unearthed-141629226/ which states, in answer to the question: "We really don't know how long it takes. There have been attempts to try to date inclusions in different parts of diamonds, and those have largely been unsuccessful. It may be that diamonds form over periods as short a time as days, weeks, months to millions of years. Typically, as with many crystals that grow on the Earth, it's not a continuous process."

Unfortunately this source is from 2006. However, the only other information I could find repeated the "1 billion to 3.3 billion" which I fear might be sourced from the Wikipedia article (sources on the external websites I've looked to are rare to say the least).

Also, apologies if I've submitted this edit request incorrectly, I have not done this before!

Thanks 194.74.96.250 (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 18:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Although it's not a proper edit request, it's a good question, but one that may take some time to answer. The section on the geology of diamonds is rather weak, and I'm hoping to upgrade it soon. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diamond. 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:

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) 08:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diamond. 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:

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) 10:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Find sources notice

This article being FA-quality, do we really need {{Find sources notice}} in the header? RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

There being no objections ... RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Geology

The section on the geology of diamonds was out of date. I updated it and expanded it. This involved a lot of reorganization and replacement of text, so to preserve the FA quality during the rewrite I did it all in my userspace and then pasted it into this article. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Explain the basics first?

I came here to find out how diamonds are formed - having heard it's not from coal. But there is no section that does that basic job. Can this be explained, or can it be explained what we do not know? - Write for the amateurs first, then for the experts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antepali (talk • contribs) 08:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

What about the third paragraph of the lead and Diamond#Origin in mantle? RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Pink diamond in the following......

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-12/rio-tinto-not-worried-about-trade-war/9987788 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.26.30 (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2018

According to latest revised FTC Guides, A diamond is a mineral consisting essentially of pure carbon crystallized in the isometric system. It is found in many colors. Its hardness is 10; its specific gravity is approximately 3.52; and it has a refractive index of 2.42.

Pg 29, [1] 82maverick (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done All that information is already in the infobox of the article. Fish+Karate 12:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Order of sections

When this article passed the FA review, the section on material properties came before geology. This makes sense: first say what diamond is, then where it is found and how it forms. I will boldly go ahead and switch them, and move History to the bottom of the article. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

SMILES

I noticed that there's only one picture of diamond's crystal structure, and it doesn't cover very much of the diamond and isn't rotatable, so I figured out the SMILES of part of the crystal structure, C1(C2(C7))C3(C89)C(C4(C0))C5CC1C(C1)C(C5(C5))C36C3(C21)C(C78)C(C1)C(C90)C6(C54)CC1C3, so we could include a link to an interactive image. Any thoughts? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 04:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

What do the little white balls signify? RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar): They're hydrogen atoms that the program automatically puts in. I can't figure out how to remove them, and I figured that they might help by representing ellipses arrows and showing where the next carbon atoms would go. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 04:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Maybe. I'm not sure the diagram is correct, though. The tetrahedra look very flattened. By the way, I chose the current picture out of several images in Wikimedia Commons, some of which are animated. But I thought it was the most informative. It covers a complete unit cell, so in a sense it covers everything because the unit cell is just repeated in the crystal; and I think it helps to have some tetrahedral volumes highlighted. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar): I think that while the unit cell has its advantages, there are also advantages to having a rotatable view. For example, when the structure is viewed from an angle such that the carbon atoms appear to be arranged in a hexagonal grid, I think that the openness of the structure (as in it is not dense. The atomic packing factor is 0.34, less than half of that of FCC or HCP.) is the most obvious and striking. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 03:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diamond/Archive_7&oldid=1083511475"