Talk:Biomineralization

Untitled

Since the word biomineralisation also can be spelled biomineralization I created the article biomineralization just to catch those that punch in the word biomineralization but cannot find any article on biomineralisation because the wiki search engine only looks at the title word, and thus miss any list of synonyms inside the body of text. Bedrupsbaneman 19:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Biomineralization was brought back here to reflect the correct spelling of the topic. 68.197.211.117 (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Copy/paste move reverted. The article has been at the "s" spelling for several years and was started that way. Please read WP:ENGVAR. Vsmith (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Biogenic minerals

I propose merging Biogenic minerals into Biomineralization. The former is simply the result of the latter, so they are not really two different subjects; and some of Biogenic minerals is already covered better in Biomineralization. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

There being no response, I will proceed with the merger. As I will be doing a full-content merge, this page will look rather disorganized for a short while. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

"List of minerals" section is wrong

The substances listed there are not minerals (beside opal, pyrite and marcasite). They are rocks or mineraloids.22:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Eudialytos (talk)

@Eudialytos: Thanks for pointing this out. It looks like the list is a mixture of biogenic minerals and places they can be found. I can make a quick fix to that. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

However, I see this list as more of a placeholder waiting for a more comprehensive treatment of each subject. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Eudialytos (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

No such thing like "hydroxyapatite"

There's no such thing like "hydroxyapatite". Such a mineral is non-existent. This is an extremely common error, especially among medicine and biology representatives. The correct name is: hydroxylapatite. See: https://www.mindat.org/min-1992.html Eudialytos ~2026-58059-9 (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia article for the mineral spells it as hydroxyapatite, but notes in the lead sentence that the IMA spells it as hydroxylapatite. That is the correct summary version of how the name is spelt. Both versions are used, but "hydroxyapatite" is currently the more common and more widely accepted form in modern scientific literature, medical contexts, dentistry, biomaterials research, and everyday usage (check for yourself: PubMed articles, toothpaste formulations...).The official mineral name approved by the IMA is "hydroxylapatite" (with the "l"). This is why you'll see it listed that way in mineralogy databases like Mindat.org or older geological references. However, "hydroxyapatite" (without the "l") is clearly the dominant spelling elsewhere, in chemistry, biology, medicine, and materials science. It's the version almost always used when talking about bone/tooth composition, nano-hydroxyapatite in toothpaste, implants, bone regeneration...

• Merriam-Webster – main entry "hydroxyapatite", with "hydroxylapatite" as a variant
• Cambridge dictionary – likewise
• Oxford dictionary – doesn't even bother to mention "hydroxylapatite" as a variant
• PubChem / Chemical databases → often use "hydroxyapatite" or list both
• Scientific papers (especially post-1990s) → overwhelmingly prefer "hydroxyapatite" (check yourself on Google Scholar)

"Hydroxylapatite" is used, comparatively sparsely, as formal nomenclature in the strict context of mineralogy or geology. But otherwise, "hydroxyapatite" is used, overwhelmingly, in biology, medicine, dentistry, and biomaterials. Which makes "hydroxyapatite" correct and preferred in almost all current contexts. — Epipelagic (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Hmm... I see I wasted my time formulating the above reply, because you did not mention your history previously wrangling this issue. Wikipedia article are aimed at general populations and not just at specialised groups. The readership of the articles on biomineralization and hydroxyapatite might include a small number of professional mineralogists and geologists. These people are likely to already know that hydroxylapatite is the formal term appropriate in the context of mineralogy or geology. For everyone else, that formal term is not appropriate, because the reality is that version is hardly ever used outside of mineralogy and geology. For chemists, biologists, medical and material scientists, grandmothers, woke activists, buddhist nuns, dentists, precocious children, and everyone who has so far not been mentioned at all, hydroxyapatite is the more appropriate spelling. Because it is overwhelmingly the common usage, the way our language has evolved.

I gather from your user page that you seem to think people who do not have your views over whether a word does or does not have a particular letter are scientifically ignorant. I can assure you that doesn't follow. — Epipelagic (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2026 (UTC)