# Talk:Tungsten

The sentence about how steel can be alloyed with tungsten should be just that.  Not that tungsten is alloyed with steel.  It is steel (iron and carbon) that is alloyed not the tungsten.  I suggest the wording of that sentence be rewritten.  [this would be neither a visual edit or source edit. 23.93.72.184 (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Tungsten has the second-highest melting point of all known elements, not the first as this article states. Carbon has the highest melting point. 2601:47:4087:9E60:204A:A89F:ABB2:7B99 (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
At standard conditions, carbon doesn't melt (it sublimes). Double sharp (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

In December 2024, Canada and the US announced the development of a large tungsten deposit in the Yukon territory. (See https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/mactung-mine-fireweed-metals-us-department-defence-1.7412022) Rexwoollard (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. also not sure how WP:DUE that bit of info would be here, especially if this is still "investing in pre-development activities" Cannolis (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Minor spelling error in biological section, bullet point "WptB is a permease" should be changed to read "WtpB is a permease". 82.4.46.92 (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning Tungsten's use as a substitute for gold due to their very similar high densities? EditorPerson53 (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

maybe 2 piece isreal (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

just asking if I could add it 2 piece isreal (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

why? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 16:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
tungsten cube is already there   2 piece isreal (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Not anymore. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 18:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

It is also the densest element for that also?  Jokem (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an ENORMOUS reach...so why do this? i dont understand why this site continues to make itself a lackey of the english revisionism of world history of science of SO MANY topics and subject.
If you do something long enough in good faith aware or unaware you are being used by those that try to do harm. You become part of those who do harm. 
IN THE ARTICLE ITSELF it states the discoverers of this element credited with it NAMED IT WOLFRAM!? I have only one question.
Where this the other way around? And they would not be basque but the entire world would call it the basque name. Yet its discoverers are american. Would you call it that.
Have back bone. Have dignity. Have the unbiased science and reality oriented Wikipedia in mind that you as it looks very much sadly only pretend to be. 
You have no problem calling it the gulf of Mexico after all? How long is that still going to last? Also just a question of how long back in time it happens? 2A02:2455:8698:F100:6608:69A6:1AFB:E162 (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

We're an English-language encyclopedia, and it's not our job to right what we see as great wrongs, in terminology or otherwise. Remsense 🌈 论 02:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

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

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)