Talk:Cobalt

Information Sources

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Cobalt. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Cobalt 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dwmyers (talk • contribs) 16:31, 20 February 2003 (UTC)

K.H.J. BUSCHOW (ed.), Handbook of magnetic materials, volume 12, 1999 Elsevier page 126 for the hcp->fcc transition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marc Tobias Wenzel (talk • contribs) 17:01, 20 May 2003 (UTC)

Image of cobalt metal

Is the image of cobalt metal included in this article really cobalt? I looked online for more images of Cobalt metal and all the other pictures I have seen look much more silvery and much less golden.

Addition: The image is the same as on the Iron page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.92.247.101 (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• 
  Iron
• 
  Cobalt

The images for iron and cobalt are not the same image. They were uploaded by Alchemist-hp who has uploaded many excellent images of elements, many of which have been assessed as the best quality images on commons. I'm certain the image is indeed cobalt. Polyamorph (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

This is right. Iron chis are iron chips and cobalt chips are cobalt chips. Take an exact look on a calibrate monitor, so you can see the difference: cobalt is redish and iron more silvery. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Medical uses

Hey Guys

In medical uses of cobalt you should mention its use as an Implant material. Its used as for dental implants when alloyed with chromium and molybdenum, refered to as "CoCrMo" in scientific journals or "Vitalium" as a tradename

cheers

Chris

Cobalt Poisining of firefighters due to a lithium battery fire

In Victoria (Australia), two firefighters have been permanently disabled as a result of heavy metal poisoning when they absorbed cobalt compounds from a lithium battery fire. Unfortunately, I have no further details, which is why I havent added this to the main article. 2001:8003:E490:7D01:70EE:4AFD:8B72:B12F (talk) 06:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Etymology

The "Etymology" is very long, detailed, and ultimately is equivalent to "gee we have no idea where this word really came from". I think the section length is WP:UNDUE. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I reverted two additions by @Kiyoweap. We need to cut more content not add. The section is too long for this article. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Johnjbarton: Do not claim to delete first contending it wasn't sourced clearly enough for you, then re-delete after I demonstrate clear indication of sourcing, but now flip-flopping your motive to it being too much of an addition in your own mind.

That different commentators and linguists cannot agree on etymology happens quite often. The situation is not of my making. You clearly show a dearth of knowledge on this when you mock this situation as one of "gee we have no idea where this word really came from". Wikipedia is not a place to voice your ridicule of scholars and researchers when they do not reach a consensus.

You saying "section length is WP:UNDUE" is not correctly invoking the spirit of the guideline. The guideline is not meant to strictly mandate bytesize equality of theory A vs. theory B (assuming they are of equal due weight).

Anyone with common sense would understand that theory A can be simplistic and virtually self-explanatory, while theory B may may be more complicated, and would require more room to explain.

However, I can make the argument more succinct in the main text as theory A (by Grimm et al. vs. theory B (by recent commentators Ball and Wothers) and wrap the details inside explanatory note.

So do not hatchet down the explanatory notes where I supplement the details for those who care to know further. Again, there is no bytesize quota that you imagine you can act on.--Kiyoweap (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC) user link corrected --Kiyoweap (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

My sincere apology: I used the incorrect words. I should not have pointed to WP:UNDUE when I complained about the length, but rather to WP:NOTEVERYTHING, specifically "An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." In this case the subject is the element Cobalt, not the history of word "Cobalt". Many articles in wikipedia have a sentence or two -- a summary -- of the origin of the word behind subject of the article. Here we have 10 paragraphs!

After reading ten paragraphs what "knowledge" have we gained about the element Cobalt? In my opinion the content makes it completely clear that we do not know the origin of the name of the element Cobalt. That is my "summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject".

The next question is how to present this summary. In my opinion there is no reason to provide a history of the etymology of the word Cobalt. In this article on the element Cobalt, all we need is the answer(s). If there are two or three possible origins, then we need two or three sentences. If some or all of these possible origins are especially interesting, as I see is certainly true in this case, maybe we need four or eight sentences. We do not need 10 paragraphs and 22 references! We do not need to present a case study of the process of historical analysis of etymology as we have now.

This content may be suitable in other articles in Wikipedia or even in its own article. I appreciate the deep level of scholarship applied here, but the depth here is simply not closely related to the element Cobalt. Maybe a History of the Etymology of the Elements? Johnjbarton (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Please unpack the footnotes. Either the content is notable and should be in the article or it is not and should be deleted. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Last paragraph is redundant.

@Catfurball reverted this delete by @188.28.106.160. The delete edit summary was spot on in my opinion: the paragraph should be deleted. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)