Talk:Gold

The four main types of gold mining include placer mining, hard-rock mining, byproduct mining, and gold ore processing that can all negatively impact the environment by changing the hydrology of streams, destroying land, and polluting soil and water with toxic chemicals such as mercury and cyanide. ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}

Gold not reacting with KOH/NaOH in solution or molten state can be debated, typical etching with KOH will take time, visible in nano scales.

This page has over 12k words of prose, per WP:Article size it should be split. I propose to split the history of gold discoveries into History of gold (this would be in agreement with other element articles like History of aluminium). Additional splits might be necessary. ReyHahn (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The article Gallery of gold art and artefacts was created from many images formerly in gold. Not clear if editors will allow this gallery to stand.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

While the move might have been necessary for the overall size of the article, moving images does not affect prose size.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Not seeing the need for a split at this time. Jusdafax (talk) 11:30, 13 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Please refer to the WP:SIZERULE. We are over 12k words of prose.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

>9k still says that not splitting the article can be justified (only >15k says that the article should almost certainly be trimmed), and so unless the article goes above >15k or unless there is a reason to split the article other than "there are a lot of words," the article should remain as is. QuisEstJoe (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

But 12k should still probably be trimmed by WP:SIZERULE better to discuss it now than when it gets bigger. Is there a problem with splitting the history section in order to make the article more manageable? I can do the split if that is the issue. It would be very natural as we have already history articles for fluorine, aluminum and lead.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I think leaving the article as is will keep it more concise, and my issue with splitting it is that I (and possibly other readers) generally prefer to have all the information of a specific Wikipedia subject be in one article rather than having to have to have multiple tabs open to access all of the information of that subject. This also may be something I'm wrong on and/or don't need to worry about, but I also am concerned about if removing the history section from this article will change elements of the text or how the information is presented.

Besides, unless readers actually feel confused or overwhelmed by the amount of words on this article, I don't see any problem with the word count in spite of WP:SIZERULE recommending (though not mandating or insisting on) trimming an article of this size. QuisEstJoe (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'd like to be able to have a lot more history than we do now. For such an important concept, this really isn't very much. 3df (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I wonder if Gold in culture would turn into a more useful article that covers much of the same material. 3df (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

That could work too, maybe there is more there. Keep the main article for chemistry and other physical properties.--ReyHahn (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Done creating gold in history

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 14:49, 22 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for bypassing the discussion and going for it! Now we are under 9k of prose.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

That is good. But it is still needed to paraphrase the History section, or else it will sound like it has been copypasted.

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 17:08, 22 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The image in the infobox has been changed 8 times in its history, with 6 distinct images over its lifetime. If the longest-lived image, File:Gold-crystals.jpg, is not adequate, we will need to decide which image to use in its stead.

• July 2008–August 2009
  July 2008–August 2009
• August 2009–September 2009
  August 2009–September 2009
• September 2009 (cropped version of July 2008 image)
  September 2009 (cropped version of July 2008 image)
• September 2009–July 2010 (previous deemed "not pure")
  September 2009–July 2010 (previous deemed "not pure")
• July 2010 (only page-image vandalism)
  July 2010 (only page-image vandalism)
• July 2010–January 2020
  July 2010–January 2020
• January 2020–February 2024
  January 2020–February 2024
• February 2024–May 2026
  February 2024–May 2026
• May 2026–present (chosen because it's "as commonly seen in the real world")
  May 2026–present (chosen because it's "as commonly seen in the real world")
• Offered by May 2026 editor as an alternative
  Offered by May 2026 editor as an alternative

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:13, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I love the chemical transport crystals! It's by a long shot the highest quality picture of the set (and a featured picture). The uploader was my inspiration to get into object photography. (If I had the means to create any image for the infobox, I would take a picture of a vapor crystal and a gold nugget side by side.) 3df (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I have reverted that change to the infobox because it was not discussed and was clearly a controversial change. Most uses are about the chemical element. If anybody wants a bullion image, it can be added in the articles where it is relevant. The original (and now reinstated) image is far more illustrative of Au as a metal. JMF (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I have reverted similar changes by the same user at Infobox silver and Infobox copper. Their change of Copper is, however, supported by the likely higher purity of the sample in the newer image (File:Kupferbarren_2019.JPG, a piece of bullion) versus the status quo (File:NatCopper.jpg, a native copper sample). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:27, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

This is putting cart before horse. The priority for metallic element is to show it in its unprocessed form. The degree of purity is irrelevant in the image for the infobox. (削除) I will revert that now too. (削除ここまで) JMF (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC) You got there first. Thank you. --JMF (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Probably it will eventually be replaced by a lab-crystallized ultrapure sample, like the electrolysis-deposited one for silver (File:Silver crystal.jpg) and the chemical-transport one used to make File:Gold-crystals.jpg. Most other stable metals are represented as crystals grown in such a reaction. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:52, 20 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't think it would be an upgrade unless the photo had both native copper and a pure sample. I would have taken one, but my native copper has a bunch of inclusions! I do have a copper cube, which I thought would look nice (and match with many of the other metals' infobox pictures) if that were in there, too. When I have any disposable income at all, and if nobody else does it first, I'll certainly get new samples and take a picture. 3df (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]