Talk:Tantalum

Tantalum has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Tantalum is part of the Group 5 elements series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 21, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
June 8, 2023	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Elements High‑importance

	Chemistry portal This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Rocks and minerals Low‑importance

	Earth sciences portal Tantalum is part of WikiProject Rocks and minerals, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use rocks and minerals resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Rocks and mineralsWikipedia:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsTemplate:WikiProject Rocks and mineralsRocks and minerals articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Untitled[edit]

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 11:03, 14 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 09:59, 12 July 2005). 12 July 2005

Information Sources[edit]

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Tantalum. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Tantalum Statistics and Information, from the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org), Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via dict.org) and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via dict.org). Data for the table was obtained from the sources listed on the subject page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements but was reformatted and converted into SI units.

Capacitance[edit]

In case anyone wonders about my "capacitance" edit: it is not correct to say that tantalum has a higher capacitance than other substances (as the pre-edit version did). Capacitance is a property of an electronic component, not of a material; it would be like saying that titanium has a higher velocity than iron. (Sure, if you build a high-performance jet out of it, but...) I substituted what I think the author of that sentence probably meant, which is that tantalum's main electronic application is in capacitors with high capacitance.129.97.79.144 21:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely makes sense even without an explanation. Femto 17:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wrong geochemical-mineralogical data[edit]

"Most commonly encountered are oxides of Ta(V), which includes all minerals." Not true. Native tantalum has Ta(0), and Ta is also not pentavalent in tantalcarbide, TaC. And that's not all the exceptions. See: (1) https://www.mindat.org/min-7329.html; (2) https://www.mindat.org/min-7327.html; (3) https://www.mindat.org/min-7120.html; (4) https://www.mindat.org/min-39368.html; (5) https://www.ima-mineralogy.org/Minlist.htm Eudialytos (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Picky, but true.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Eudialytos (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Eudialytos (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Map[edit]

Text around map says Rawanda, highlight isn’t. 2601:281:D57F:950:E5EB:A6C9:CA9D:472F (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which map? The 2015 map has Rwanda highlighted in green. I do agree, however, that the color scheme chosen is very misleading, as it overemphasizes the minor producers over those with ~50% share. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]