Talk:Sulfur/Archive 2

A note
Article changed over to new WikiProject Elements format by Dwmyers and maveric149. Elementbox converted 10:41, 23 Jun 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 10:41, 23 Jun 2005).

Contradiction
Under "History" it says:


 * "sulfur, in itself, is in fact odorless"

and then under "Characteristics"


 * "Elemental sulfur has only a faint odor, similar to that of matches."

My experience is that sulfur definitely does have an odour -- a quite distinctive one in fact. In any case, the two statements are contradictory and need fixing. 86.165.21.213 (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC).
 * I think the article is quite clear on what causes the smell you mentioned. There was some repetition in the history section which I have removed now. Materialscientist (talk) 04:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Native sulfur redirect
I feel Native sulfur should have its own page, but I don't have time to write it. Placed a redirect in the mean time.--Polymeris (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Todo
I am rearranging some parts to make it compliant to other element articles. The text itself is fairly good. Otherwise, the main reason the article is C-class is because the article needs a lot more references. There are paragraphs in a row without any references. Nergaal (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Gavyns, 8 October 2010
T its about the physiques. the smell of sulfur is sulfur dioxide SO2. it is caused by the slow oxidation of the sulfur in presents of the oxygen of the atmosphere. sulfur wont directly react with hydrogène because there isn't any in the atmosphere and there wont be an exchange of hydrogen's because oxygen is more electronegative than sulfure.

sorry the smell of sulfur is sulfur dioxide SO2 and not H2S (that smell of rotten eggs). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavyns (talk • contribs) 12:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Gavyns (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk)  00:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from ChemicalPotential, 13 October 2010
Chemical reactions under the paragraph Production needs correction: reactants must be H2S not H2 due to the chemical balances/reaction stoichiometry.

ChemicalPotential (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for catching the error and reporting it here. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible lead image replacement
Since a better image is definitely needed for this article, how about this one? It's sharp, hi-res, and has a neutral background. It also appears to be a purified lab sample, rather that the native crystals. We may have to ask Ben Mills for some more information, since there is no description. --Ephemeronium (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the crystals in the present lede are nice, although this is hardly ever how you see the element (usually it's compressed "flowers of sulfur" after sublimation, which I would guess is the image at right). I think they both belong in the article, and I'm agnostic about which should go in the infobox. If the infobox crystals are native sulfur, they could usefully go in THAT section. Or as the first picture in second section of the article. Both images have much to recommend them. S  B Harris 21:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing. Although it's already in the article now, I think it should be the lead image, for reasons described above. It's better than a low-contrast, low-res snap of a museum cabinet in the Smithsonian. I would change it myself, but other editors may disagree. So I would like another person's opinion before doing so. Also if it's a picture of a native sulfur crystal you want, here are plenty of others on Commons. Why choose that one? --Ephemeronium (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I like your suggestion, Ephemeronium. File:Sulfur-sample.jpg as the lead image, a better image from w:Commons:Category:Sulfur (minerals) to illustrate native sulfur (File:Soufre natif 3(Italie).jpg, perhaps), and removal File:Sulfur powder.jpg which is redundant and also low quality.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For an image of native sulfur, I quite like File:SulphurCrystal.jpg, although it was removed from this page a while ago. As for the lead image, I'd be perfectly agreed to changing it now, if there are no oppositions. Do you agree? --Ephemeronium (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources we need
There are several books describing the history and applications up to the 1960s



--Stone (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)



--Stone (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

2008 price peak
The price peak of over 500$/ton from the normal level before and after of 50$ might nice to be mentioned in the text.


 * from sulphur
 * (Inorganics)}}
 * from sulphur
 * (Inorganics)}}

--Stone (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Acid Rain (remove)
I recommend removal of the acid rain photo because it is not referenced in the text, and there is no referenced evidence that the dead trees in the photograph were harmed by acid rain; the photo is neither relevant nor verifiable.--Ryan Westafer (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

quality scale assessment
B-Class review
 * Great. Gunna change the header.


 * The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary.
 * Several sections are unreferenced.
 * Greenwood is cited two times


 * The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
 * Now its nearly 100 years since the wrong claim that crater Aristarchus is made from sulfur (green cheeses would be equally right)
 * Killed it.
 * Where does the sulfur in Sicily come from?
 * The possibility to produce sulfuric acid also from pyrite should be mentioned and that that method was historic the more important one until sulfur became cheap by using the Frash extraction method
 * The history section deals with the use in furniture decoration. Was this the only important use in Modern times??????
 * Fungicide and pesticide says Some livestock owners set out a sulfur salt block as a salt lick. So they use it to kill fungi and pest within the livestock?????


 * The article has a defined structure.
 * ancient bacteria on sulfate deposits is mentioned two times
 * Fixed


 * The article is reasonably well-written.
 * S8 or S8 should be used consistent
 * Polymeric sulfur the fact that the material looks and feels like rubber should be mentioned
 * fossil-based sulfur deposits from salt domes have, until recently, been the basis for commercial production the decade in which the change happened wpuld be good to mention
 * some intestinal gases if it is a fart call it a fart or would this be political incorrect
 * Wikipedia has an article on farts, but in element articles, per Britannica, it's probably as unencyclopedic as other vulgar terms. Certainly, it would cause lots of laughs if we put it in.
 * Flatulence would be also be OK.
 * SO42- → SO32- → H2S → cysteine this very unbalanced reaction needs some explaination


 * The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.
 * An image of Block Sulfur Storage in Canada must be incorporated
 * Anybody got one?
 * flickr has one.


 * The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way.
 * OK

more to come --Stone (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * S B Harris 23:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * -Stone (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sulfur-35
I just came across this article http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/08/11/1109449108.abstract Seems like sulfur-35 can also be produced from chlorine by neutron bombardement apart from spallation of Argon-40. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.206.233.199 (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 151.100.46.19, 23 June 2010
First request. At the beginning of chapter "History", the Latin word for sulfur should be changed from "sulphurium" to just "sulfur". A source for verifying the requested change could be any Latin dictionary. By the way, in the same Wikipedia page under discussion, in chapter "Spelling and Etymology", it is stated that "in Latin, the word is variously written sulpur, sulphur, sulfur (the Oxford Latin dictionary)". Second request. In the table of the oxidation states of sulfur, value 0 is not reported. But this oxidation state does exist, not only in elemental sulfur, but also in several organo-sulfur compounds, for instance sulfoxides (e. g.: alliin). A source for verifying the requested change could be any (non-elementary) organic chemistry textbook, or the same Wikipedia page about "Sulfoxide".

the oxidation level are dependent on which atom in a bound is closer to the electrons. this is dependent on which atom has the highest electronegative. two atoms of same electro negativity will share equally there pair of electrons. two sulfurs do that and so any pure sulfur will have an oxidation state of 0. for the alliin the electro negativity of carbon and sulfur ar almost the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavyns (talk • contribs) 13:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

151.100.46.19 (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Claudio Giomini151.100.46.19 (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Spigot Map  16:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I take the liberty of insisting that an oxidation state 0 (zero) does exist for sulfur, not only in elemental sulfur, but also in several organic compounds. Actually, in the Wikipedia article about sulfoxides, it can be read the following sentence: "For example, dimethyl sulfide with oxidation state of -2 is oxidized to dimethyl sulfoxide with oxidation state 0. Further oxidation converts the compound to dimethyl sulfone wherein sulfur has the oxidation state +2". The electronegativity of carbon (as given also by wikipedia in the article about carbon is 2.55, vs. 2.58 for sulfur. It is true that the two values are very close to each other, but in assigning oxidation states it is not important how much different are the electronegativities, but just to acknowledge they are different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.100.46.19 (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

History section: inaccuracy in transliteration from Sanskrit
In the history section it is stated that:

"Sulfur (Sanskrit, गन्धक sulvari; Latin Sulphurium) was known in ancient times and is referred to in the Torah (Genesis)."

The devanagari word preceding "sulvari" when transliterated is, however "gandhak" and it does mean sulfur but in hindi. I do not know where 'sulvari' comes from. As far as I could ascertain "gandhak" is also used in Sanskrit. The point is, however, that the transliteration is incorrect. 122.176.184.248 (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Wernervdc


 * Here is a source suggesting that the Sanskrit word starts with a "g" cognate, (something like gulviri) and that accords with your observation that the Hindi word also starts with a "g." This old source: claims this shows they are not cognates. However, in List of chemical element name etymologies it is suggested that the element name is from Arabic "sufra" (bright yellow) and passed into Sanskrit from that route (or at least into Latin from that route). Arabic is a Semitic language while Sanskrit is Indo-European and they are not closely related. Probably there is a loan from one to the other here for sulfur, but we don't know it what direction. Latin is in the Indo-European line, of course, but Latin drew many chemical words from Arabic alchemists. The source given in the Wiki etymolgists article is  which actually doesn't mention either Sanskrit or Arabic, but only goes back to Latin. So the trail of verifiable references ends there for now. I'm going to just delete the Hindi word for now, and let this end at Latin, until somebody has better references. Sorry it took more than a year to fix this request.  S  B Harris 16:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"All elements except the noble gases"
Surely we haven't tested whether sulfur forms compounds with all of the transuranic elements, nor francium or astatine.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Allotrope count
This page states that sulfur has the most allotropes of any element; the allotrope page states that carbon the most. Not sure on which is actually correct. Traditionally carbon is frequently mentioned as having the most, but I lack an authoritative source.

128.255.74.111 (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)aepd
 * probably the most known allotropes before 1980 or some other recent date. Carbon is going to have more and more discovered. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Burning, Boilng Temp in Fahrenheit???
I may well have missed it, but does the editor say at what temp F sulfur burns, boils??? Because near the end of "The Book of Revelation" (21,8), John tells us that about eight types of people will experience a horrible SECOND death in a LAKE of fire in brimstone, which I interperet as a heat being so hot it actually liquifies the sulfur.User:JCHeverly 17:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Look at the infobox (the big table at the top right of the article). Sulfur boils at 832.3 °F (444.6 °C). Double sharp (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Pretty damned hot.User:JCHeverly 18:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

"Sulvere" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sulvere. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Spelling
The article begins "(in British English: sulphur)" but states later that "sulfur" has been the correct spelling in British English for at least two decades, so the article contradicts itself. Dadge (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The Oxford English Dictionary (2010) has as its entry "sulphur/sulfur", indicating that OED regards both spellings as acceptable in British English. However, IUPAC has mandated "sulfur" in technical writings and British chemists have accepted this . This explanation is probably appropriate to include in the article. However, the lead needs to be concise, and it needs to mention "sulphur" as the target of a redirect, since the spelling is still in use in nontechnical British English, and since older writings will remain in circulation for some time. I would prefer making it "(in colloquial British English: sulphur)" to accommodate this, but will hear what other editors think first. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Why is sulfur associated with volcanism?
The article did not answer my question: Why is sulfur associated with volcanism? It is a literally universal phenomenon, most notably on Jupiter's moon Io, so clearly there is something critical being left unmentioned in this article. I suspect it is a combination of the element's abundance, density, and melting points, but I'm not sure how that interplay works out. Badon (talk) 09:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The synonym brimstone, despite wrong information given in this article, derives from sulphur's abundance at the conal rim of volcanoes.


 * Nuttyskin (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This turns out not to be the case. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the etymology as "late Old English (12th cent.) brynstán", meaning "burn stone". It's a reference to the combustibility of sulfur. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Direct reactions between elemental sulfur and other elements
I have removed the following claim (formerly the last sentence of the opening paragraph):
 * Chemically, sulfur reacts with all elements except for gold, platinum, iridium, tellurium, and the noble gases.

The "except" portion directly contradicts the assertion in Wikipedia's own article on Iridium(III) sulfide, which specifically states that this compound can be "prepared by heating a mixture of elemental iridium and sulfur." An unfortunate complication: when I tried to find further documentation for this assertion, the reference I found described synthesis of a different compound, iridium disulfide [iridium(IV) sulfide], by direct reaction between the elements at atmospheric pressure. I have therefore created the new article Iridium(IV) sulfide Iridium disulfide, using that reference. The basic point still remains: iridium and sulfur do react directly, contrary to the "except" clause of the claim I have removed.

I would have preferred to correct, rather than simply remove, the false claim. Unfortunately, to make this possible, a correct statement about the exact extent of sulfur's reactivity with other elements will need to be found in a source; synthesizing this information ourselves, from multiple sources, would be WP:OR (specifically, WP:SYNTH).

—Syrenka V (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well said. I probably was the one who committed the crime of overstatement.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This dependence upon the establishing of authoritative sources, and not simply upon assertions based in scientific proof, will ultimately prove the doom of Wikipedia.


 * Nuttyskin (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I think we can justify omitting iridium, if we also add the reference that says it does react. Very simple logical deductions are acceptable OR, such as knocking one element of the list when another source contradicts the one used. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * (Old conversation, I know, but:) The spirit of the rule is verifiability -- that an editor of ordinary skill can verify the statement. Knocking iridium off the list because we have a source that mentions iridium sulfide is something editors of ordinary skill can verify and seems perfectly acceptable to me. Saying "does not combine" is much harder; all you need is one counterexample, but an editor of ordinary skill is not in a position to exhaustively search the literature for that counterexample. In that case, we _do_ need an expert source to cite. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to try to deal with the situation. On the one hand we editors are trying to convey information that is broadly useful to readers (that S reacts with almost every element), but it might be awkward verifying such claims perfectly.  Awkward = hard to find a source for such blanket statements or we would need cite 100+ sources to 100+ S compounds with representation from 100+ elements.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We really only have to deal with the specific elements for which non-reactivity with sulfur is claimed. It should not be hard to find a source that asserts that helium and neon form no neutral compounds; that takes care of two of the noble gases. Likewise, there is probably a review article listing known compounds of other noble gases, which can be cited to show that sulfides are not among them. The gold article actually describes synthesis of a gold sulfide, so if the sourcing there is good, we can drop it from the list. And so on. I'll see what I can do later today. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's already adequately addressed. Yeah, old conversation. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Molar Mass of Sulfur
This article either does not contain the molar mass of elemental sulfur or this information is not easy enough to find. I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia to know where it should be put here, but it is a very important piece of information that should be easily accessible for all the elements. 209.56.53.3 (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Standard atomic weight is the fourth line of the infobox. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Properties of Hair and Feathers and the Role of Disulfide Bonds
The article (in a subsection Protein and organic cofactors in a section Biological role) says: ″The high disulfide bond content of hair and feathers contributes to their indigestibility and to their characteristic disagreeable odor when burned.[citation needed]″ It seems like there is no valid citation for the whole statement, or the statement is incomplete, or misemphasized. I found a source directly saying that hair and feathers are indigestible, but not indicating the role of disulfide bonds (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25420637/). However, this is an issue of a digesting organism. Keratinase does exist. I did not find, that someone seriously assessed how disagreeable burning hair odor is, however the mentioned sulfur contribution to the odor helps to distinct some natural fabrics form artificial ones in the burning test of fabrics. Odor of burning synthetic polyamide fiber differs from natural silk, which technically is polyamide too. But the last has nothing to do with the biological role of sulfur. Tosha Langue (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an article on a common and important chemical element, yet it has not gelled to good article status. I think it may be appropriate to start being ruthless about removing unsourced material. Source what you can and remove the rest. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Trying to rewrite a subsection Protein and organic cofactors:
 * In all forms of life, most of the sulfur is contained in two proteinogenic amino acids (cysteine and methionine), thus the element is present in all proteins that contain these amino acids, as well as in respective peptides. Some of the sulfur is comprised in certain cofactors (iron-sulfur clusters and vitamins).
 * Proteins, to execute their biological function, need to have specific space geometry. Formation of this geometry is performed in process called protein folding, and is provided by intra- and inter-molecular bonds. The process has several stages. While at premier stages polypeptide chain folds due to hydrogen bonds, at later stages folding is provided (apart from hydrogen bonds) by covalent bond between two sulfur atoms of two cysteine residues (so called disulfide bridges) at different places of a chain (tertriary protein structure) as well as between two cysteine residues in two separated protein subunits (quaternary protein structure). Both structures easily may be seen in insulin.
 * Other prominent examples: collagen and keratin. These proteins form pretty long strong fibers via their quaternary structure, that is provided by a lot of disulfide bridges.
 * As the bond energy of a covalent disulfide bridge is higher than the energy of a coordinate bond or hydrophylic either hydrophobic interaction, the higher disulfide bridges content leads the higher energy needed for protein denaturation. One of the consequences of this property is that feathers and hair have relative strength, and keratin's considered indigestible by most organisms. However, there are fungi and bacteria containing keratinase, and are able to destruct keratin.
 * This is a substitute of the first two paragraphs (yet without references). Need help in style and of course mistakes.
 * Essentiality of methionine and genetic lack of sulfite oxidase are the particular cases. They may be put in the end. Tosha Langue (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph is inserted into the article. However, I find the second paragraph sounding as a lecture rather than as an encyclopedia article. What do you think? Tosha Langue (talk) 08:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Inserted the second paragraph, but still do not like everything. Insulin isn't that good example. It derives from proinsulin, which originally is a united chain. Tosha Langue (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition, the authors of the source that supports the second paragraph, say an idea, that disulfide bridges appear in extracellular space, and within a cell there is a mechanism preserving cysteine residues in the -SH form, not allowing formation of -S-S- bonds.Tosha Langue (talk) 07:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Good idea, but even much sourced material should be removed. The initial issue, as with many element articles is how much of the content should be on elemental S (and various allotropes) and how much should be on compounds and materials that contain S.  I guess there is consensus that elemental S content is higher priority.  The following sections could be removed IMHO:

--Smokefoot (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Protein and organic cofactors
 * Metalloproteins and inorganic cofactors
 * most of Precautions
 * most of Other important sulfur chemistry
 * most of Organic compounds
 * much of Metal sulfides
 * much of Pnictides
 * much of Halides and oxyhalides
 * much of Oxides, oxoacids, and oxoanions
 * Then would splitting that content to a new article, Sulfur compounds, be a good idea? I'll raise the split tag if I get an affirmative response. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 02:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Smokefoot!
 * I find your proposition to remove (among other things) most of material in the Biological Role section reasonable. But will the section become more clear after that? I think, it's better to restructure the material (of course, some of it should be thrown away). It may be done in a somewhat evolutionary order:
 * 0. Mention that there are sulfur-based chemosynthesizing ecosystems.
 * 1. Mention Sulfur cycle, and a role of plants in transferring inorganic sulfur into composition of nutrients.
 * 2. Mention aminoacids (methionine, cysteine), which are significant part of proteins. It may be mentioned that methionine is essential, and cysteine is not, but it's for humans.
 * 3. Mention a role of sulfur in protein folding. Many structures of proteins are provided by disulfide bonds made by two cysteine residues (i.e. two sulfur atoms).
 * 4. Mention a bunch of sulfur-containing biological compounds (so called cofactors), that may be both nutrients (thiamine, taurine and so on) and antinutrients (e.g. beta-lactam antibiotics -- they are important drugs for humans, while for mold they are defense factors). Tosha Langue (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed on all fronts. I recently made some cuts to Applications, which seems to be in the spirit of this discussion; please vett those changes sternly. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Biological role
I have just rewritten the section. I did my best, but still don't like some things. For example: too many "there is..." "there are..." The longest (if not too long) subsection title is mine: couldn't invent a laconic one. Trivial errors. Please copyedit! Tosha Langue (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * There is a statement in this section: "It is vital for the production of insulin, keratin and collagen." supported by a source. This makes an impression, that sulfur is vital for those compounds only, but it's not (only). Moreover cysteine residues content in collagen is about 1 in 1000 other amino acids. The key role in stability of collagen is played by hydroxyproline, that doesn't contain sulfur. Tosha Langue (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Another group of biologically significant compounds (certain representatives of which contain sulfur) is glycosaminoglycans. Namely, chondroitin sulfates, the base of cartilage tissue (gristle), heparin, the known anticoagulant. They are bio-polymers. If add, the section may be restructured into subsections like:
 * Macro-molecular compounds (proteins along with glycosaminoglycans), and
 * Other low-molecular compounds (cofactors and others),
 * Metalloproteins and inorganic cofactors,
 * or something like that. Tosha Langue (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * One approach, alluded to above this section, is to remove or compress all sections that are not about elemental sulfur. Otherwise this article would grow to be unmanageable.  I might try that approach and watch how the community responds. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Smokefoot, I've just looked how it's made in the Iodine article (an element biologically similar to Sulfur): only well-known information is presented, and it technically is not related to mainly elemental Iodine. Other biological roles are conveyed to a separate article (Iodine in biology). What about such approach? Tosha Langue (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What you describe is the tricky and important part that is still unfinished. It would be easy for me (or others) to strictly describe what elemental S does, but we need to acknowledge other forms of S, which loom larger than the element in some ways (like sulfate, organoS drugs and S in proteins and minerals).  My preliminary idea is that when it comes to "reactions" or "reactivity", we only describe S + various reagents, but the section on occurrence would describe the messier aspects of S, especially in organic chemistry.  You are welcome to dig in. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Chiming in as a non-chemist non-biologist scientist: When I look at element articles, I appreciate some discussion of oxidation states and of bonding patterns. For sulfur, it seems reasonable to mention the importance of disulfide bonds between cysteine residues on proteins -- and that is about as much detail as I would expect in the element article. FWIW,YMMV, etc. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I vote for disulfide bonds between cysteine residues too. Tosha Langue (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me that the other major biological role of sulfur worth a brief mention is transition metal-sulfide complexes found in enzymes. They're pretty important in biology. But just a brief mention and suitable links for further details. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kent G. Budge
 * @Smokefoot
 * I've just cut the whole section Biological role (except Deficiency subsection) and pasted it to a new draft Sulfur in biology. Tosha Langue (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I've glanced over the biological role section, and it seems about right to me now. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ERTH 4303 Resources of the Earth
— Assignment last updated by RYNO FIVE (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)