Talk:Allotropes of sulfur

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

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

Allotropes
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)


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

cyclo-hexasulfur
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 )