Talk:Tin

Elements Top‑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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Metalworking Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metalworking, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Metalworking on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalworkingWikipedia:WikiProject MetalworkingTemplate:WikiProject MetalworkingMetalworking articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rocks and minerals Low‑importance

	Earth sciences portal Tin 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.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Tin was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 30, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 14, 2018	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Cassiterite's colour[edit]

Cassiterite is never purple. This is an evident error. It may however be brown. Eudialytos (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tin/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Double sharp (talk · contribs) 08:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this and work on it while I'm here; while I don't feel that it meets the GA criteria now, I think it could be pushed up there without requiring as much time as if you had to work from scratch. Double sharp (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: - the user who instigated this GA review has since claimed, in the Teahouse, that it was an unintentional edit, and that they don't actually wish to participate in this GA review. As such, bear this in mind if you wish to proceed or suspend the review. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Stormy clouds: Well, this puts me into a conundrum. I had originally intended to make suggestions and help the nominator work on them while reviewing, as I would like to see this article finally reach GA (it failed back in 2011). But if the nominator does not wish to participate, then it would be just me working on the article, in which case I would effectively be reviewing my own work, which is quite absurd. I guess I could work on it and then ask someone else to take over the review when I feel like I've done too much to legitimately review it, but then it feels like jumping the queue. What do you think? Double sharp (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stormy clouds: Well, this seems to be moot as Kpgjhpjm told me on my talk page that he was asking on the Teahouse about Talk:1982 Formula One World Championship/GA1 instead (which appears to be formatted wrongly). As such, I will continue this one. Double sharp (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: - plow ahead would be my advice. The wider issue is that Kpgjhpjm has started three GA nominations, doing all of them under an "accidental" pretense, and created a really confusing mess over at the Teahouse. The editor has attempted to distance himself from all three cases, and lacks the expertise to properly format, let alone fulfill, a nomination. However, I apologise for dragging you into this and creating an unnecessary conundrum. The situation was, and remains to be, difficult to comprehend, but if you feel that the work on Tin would be worthwhile, do not allow me to deter you from doing it. Keep up the good work, and sincerest apologies, Stormy clouds (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before I start the review proper, I would suggest looking at germanium and lead for inspiration. Both of them are tin's neighbours in group 14, and are FAs, which goes beyond our goal here. A comparison may reveal some things covered for those elements that are not covered in the Sn article that you might consider adding. Double sharp (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: If you work on the article, I can review it. Feel free to close this and renominate, pinging me. Kees08 (Talk) 04:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08: OK, given the confusion surrounding this on the nominator's intentions, I think your suggestion is the soundest course of action here. I will now close this review and work on the article and renominate (pinging you) when I think it is ready. Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: any activity here, any bottlenecks, any chance we could make this GA? -DePiep (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @DePiep: I won't have the source I need for this one till December; perhaps then, assuming we are not too swamped by RL and the ongoing work on Hs and Al. Double sharp (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All fine. Will be OK before Wikipedia closes editing. -DePiep (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tinn[edit]

Does anybody have info on the etymological links between tin and the Norwegian town of Tinn, which has a significant decorative pewter industry? Neither article mentions anything, and I can't find any info by googling. --Ef80 (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry[edit]

What is the chemical properties of tin 197.156.118.254 (talk) 03:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity needed in "Isotopes" section[edit]

The second paragraph of the Isotopes section talks about ¹⁰⁰Sn having a doubly magic nucleus, then in the next phrase it says that it has a "very uneven neutron-proton ratio" which is obviously incorrect; since tin is element 50 it would have 50 protons in its nucleus, and an isotope at 100 amu would thus also have 50 neutrons, making the ratio 1:1 (which is about as even as you can get). The other isotope referenced, ¹³²Sn, would certainly have an uneven ratio, and the following portion of the sentence states that 100 and 132 are the endpoints above/below which isotopes are much more unstable, but I'm not sure how to reword this to keep the relevant information and get rid of the contradictory information. Lumberjane Lilly (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add pronunciation of this element.[edit]

Above. 2001:EE0:4BC9:4070:C19F:C86:76EB:92C7 (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary, it is phonemically trivial (/ˈtɪn/). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]