Talk:Tungsten

In the section "Chemical compounds", there is link that is supposed to go to article "Organotungsten chemistry", but it goes to "Organomolybdenum chemistry". Please fix that. Also why this is protected article? Too much hate against tungsten? 91.153.111.4 (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Fixed. Double sharp (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The values given are not realistic. Pure tungsten is softer than pure chromium, there is no discussion on the matter, yet the values given here for tungsten in the wikipedia article , taking just the Vickers, converted in MPa, are supposedly "3430–4600 MPa" yet on the wikipedia article for chromium, the latter in pure form is circa "1060 Mpa" HV. On the AZO materials website ( https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=9119 ), pure tungsten is listed as having a Rockwell hardness C of circa 31 (akin to pretty soft steels), Vickers hardness of 310 and Brinell hardness of 294. Just regarding the converted Rockwell hardness C (31HRC), it does not convert at all to the supposed maximum converted Vickers in the wiki article (4600 MPa or 4.6 GPa which is outrageously high), whereas conversion of values for Vickers , Brinell and Rockwell hardness C for pure tungsten all give circa ....990 MPa (0.99 GPa) thus the wiki article needs to be revised and updated ASAP to remove the wrong values. Even highly purified, tungsten will never reach the values claimed in the present state of the article. For a trustworthy hardness converter (HV, HB, HRC, MPa) https://www.stainless.eu/en/steel-hardness-conversion-calculator/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:e0a:208:4130:9cc4:e7e6:9dc2:79b9 (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

People in charge of the wikipedia article need to correct this as soon as possible. Pure tungsten is circa 310HV not "3100Mpa". the conversion from HV (vickers hardness ) to megapascals (MPa) is correct on the link provided above ( https://www.stainless.eu/en/steel-hardness-conversion-calculator/ ), and 310HV ~ 900MPa. Refusing to update the article will just give the unaware public the impression that wikipedia is not serious at all with its sourcing of scientific information. Comparing the hardness values in vickers and brinell given in the wiki article for pure tungsten to that of tungsten carbide and diamond, you'll immediately see the discrepancy. ~2026-97540-2 (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Vickers and Brinell hardness are typically quoted in kilogram-force/mm², which is 1/9.80665 of a megapascal, so the quoted figures are approximately correct. The original reference for this value is likely the same as in Hardnesses of the elements (data page). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:05, 13 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

https://discoveryalert.com.au/tungsten-market-2025-supply-demand-influences/

Total global reserves are ~4.6 million tons. China alone has ~2.4 million tons. ~2025-41612-91 (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It has been a while since this article was reviewed, so I took a look and noticed lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 03:57, 22 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

There are a few books with missing page numbers as well, such as the one in the Archaea section. I'll add an Infobox for the hazards at least and see if I can find some of the more basic facts in Ullmann's/Chemistry of the Elements. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]