Talk:Graphene

Category: Graphene nanoribbons

• The following paragraph is added to Graphene nanoribbons section:

Graphene nanoribbons may be classified as symmetry-protected topological insulators in the absence of disorder. Armchair nanoribbons display chiral symmetry and function as $\mathbb {Z} _{2}$ topological insulators , similar to graphene zigzag nanoribbons with zigzag edge states . Disorder, acting as a singular perturbation, alters the topological class to a topologically ordered insulator with universal topological entanglement entropy (long-range entangled) . Additionally, midgap states with $e/2$ fractional charges exist, residing on opposite zigzag edges and displaying spin-charge separation.

• Reason for the change:

Recent developments in topological aspects, including both symmetry-protected and topologically ordered features, are outlined. Key papers and books relevant to each aspect are cited.

Not done for now: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The change has been improved and been declared explicitly. Lehoanganh1112 (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Lehoanganh1112: I'm not sure what is preventing you from making this edit yourself? Polyamorph (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I was accused of adding promotional materials. The solution is to create a section in this Talk page. I appreciate it so much if you could review my proposal. Lehoanganh1112 (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Go ahead. @Lehoanganh1112: I have reviewed these proposed changes and suggest that you go ahead and make the proposed changes to the page. I fail to see any conflict of interest, or how that could impact this edit. I'd go for it. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 21:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

This was part of a pattern of self-citation across many articles. Adding cites to yourself in that way is in fact a conflict of interest. It should just be added without the final sentence/cite. MrOllie (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Way too technical ("universal topological entanglement entropy"???) and out of scope for this article. We do have Graphene nanoribbons, though I'm not sure if it belongs there either, for the same reason. This article is already bloated and full of WP:REFSPAM hype. Ponor (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Guessitsavis Thank you for reviewing Lehoanganh1112 (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Basics

A short paragraph description for lay people near the beginning would be helpful. Any suggestions? BlueBellTree (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree and so does the Wikipedia manual of style. So I have flagged the article for technical content, pending some rewriting. Humpster (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I have written a two paragraph plain language introduction. They contain neither links nor references. The original overly technical description is still there following the simple introduction. With this done, I have removed the technical flag from the article.

Humpster (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Merge Potential applications of graphene here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge; discussion shows clear opposition; no consensus to merge -Robertjamal12 ~🔔 15:25, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

---

I believe we should merge Potential applications of graphene with this article (Graphene) because I believe it doesn’t meet notability and most other “Potential Applications of” Pages are redirects to a subsection of the main page on the topic. Sir_Macaw 17:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: with a readable prose of 11877 words, Graphene is too long to accomodate a merge (see WP:SIZERULE), it is best to maintain the estisting WP:SUMMARY format. Klbrain (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: per WP:SPLIT: "If an article becomes too large, or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it may be appropriate for some or all of the article to be split into new articles." Certainly the case here. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:58, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Discussion shows clear opposition. -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 15:09, 11 August 2025 (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.

B-Class?

It's a very extensive article with supporting materials and no issue templates. Only issue I can see is certain sections being potentially too technical. Wσlrεη⎇ (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

No, there are still several "citation needed" tags throughout the article. Mgasparin (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2026 (UTC)