This article is within the scope of WikiProject Materials, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Materials 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.
Closing as merge. Not a fan of merging into Good Articles, but we have 6:3 in favour. Judging the arguments reinforces this consensus. Merge side argues duplication, reliable sources and even provide some guidance on what to merge. The opposition seems to take a philosophical view that merge is deletion by stealth, other stuff exists and potential. AIRcorn(talk) 08:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article duplicates much existing content, and offers little about the issues of investing in the trading of Lithium that couldn't be reasonably covered in a few short sentences in the main article. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Merge as per argument above, also because it is under a title unlikely to be searched. Suggest it be merged under the heading Production. Under its current title it looks more like advertising although it does have valid production information. Ex nihil (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Merge as proposed. --Zefr (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Don't merge. This topic is potentially worth an article; ideally, a daughter article for lithium, which this article does appear to look like. See other examples: compounds of fluorine, lead poisoning, etc. This concept should be introduced in the main lithium article and explained here in detail. If there is any advertisement right now, of course, it should be removed.--R8R (talk) 09:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC
Merge There are quite a few other "as an investment" articles. But I couldn't find any RS covering lithium investment; if there is it could be created but even then could be added to alternative investment, or kept here as a short section. The non-production sections look pretty awful and are based on awful, some commercial, nonRS. The production sections look to need verification before merging; someone has pointed out an error in the talkpage. Galobtter (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
@Chrissymad: I think it's better to leave some information on flotation method. And why not to fix spelling instead of removing all changes? That's counterproductive. Have you seen WP:BABY? DAVRONOVA.A.✉⚑ 18:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
The chart does not show the real lithium reserves worldwide, as of March 2018. Here you can see the real reserves. Tokota (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
There was just one small error, corrected per USGS source.--Jklamo (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I am too lazy to login.. someone consider changing "brines" to "brine". That sounds more correct, at least to me in North America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 1) Lithium is a problematic case – the natural variability of its isotopic abundances is very small (the abundance for 7Li varies from 92.27% to 92.78%), but there is a lot of Li on the market that is depleted in 6Li (which has valuable nuclear applications). So the isotopic abundances for most Li you will actually get on the market varies a lot: 7Li can then have abundance ranging from 92.2% to 98.1% (these bounds given by CIAAW), and the 95% value was deliberately in the middle of this and snapped to five percentage points to imply a lack of precision. I see DePiep has already made the requested edit, so I have gone on to correct the infobox so that it says that the variation happens in commercial samples, not natural samples. Double sharp (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Isn't it irregular to mention non-natural abundances? Irregular as in: we don't do that at enwiki, except for topical descriptions (where that abundance is the topic). Anyway, not in the infobox then (especially wwhen this is not in the body text as is the case here). -DePiep (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
It's important because these abundances will impact samples of Li you actually get and are the entire reason why the atomic weight of Li is now standardly quoted with such imprecision. As this issue is in fact mentioned in the body text (see the second-last paragraph of "Isotopes", albeit without precise figures) I think it should be left in the infobox. Double sharp (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)