From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Vanadium 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 28, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed
February 4, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Elements (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Natural sciences.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

New format[edit]

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by Dwmyers 15:20 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC) and Maveric149. Elementbox converted 14:30, 2 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 20:16, 5 June 2005).

Information Sources[edit]

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Vanadium. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Vanadium Statistics and Information, from the Elements database 20001107 (via, Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (via and WordNet (r) 1.7 (via 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.


Paragraph two of the "History" section read like it had been translated from a foreign language. I have attempted a more concise and aesthetically pleasing replacement. Also I've removed redundant text regarding the element's namesake since Vanadis only needs to be explained once. --lizardo_tx (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


How can an element with Mohs hardness of 7.0 be described as 'soft'? (Puna)

Good question. The "soft" (but not the Mohs hardness) is found in the CRC Handbook, and all over the Web. The only reference for the Mohs hardness is hardnesses of the elements (data page) (Samsonov as quoted by So far I have found neither proof nor disproof on the Web which isn't based on WebElements or Wikipedia itself. Anyone with a Gmelin? Femto 12:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Otavan Suuri Snsyklopedia (an encyclopaedia) dercribes vanadium as hard and easily malleable, but it doesn't mention its Mohs hardness. (Puna)


Why is Vandium described as a "bright white metal" in the article, while the sidebar states that it is "silvery gray metallic"? (

"Pure vanadium is a greyish silvery metal, and is soft and ductile" - WebElements. "Pure vanadium is a bright white metal, and is soft and ductile" - CRC Handbook. "Gray white metal" - CRC Handbook in another place. "A gray or white malleable ductile polyvalent metallic element" - Merriam-Webster. "A bright white, soft, ductile metallic element" - American Heritage Dictionary. "a grayish malleable ductile polyvalent metallic element" - Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary. "Reduced as an infusible, grayish-white metallic powder" - 1913 Webster.
You choose. I edited it to a consistent "gray-white metal" in both instances. Femto 21:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Properties disagreement[edit]

I checked the entry in the Merck Index (12th edition, ISBN 0911910-12-3 ) on Vanadium and it disagrees on several points with the text box on the article..

Merck gives melting point of 1917C , density of 6.11 gcm-3 at 18.7C, electrical resistivity of 248nΩ.m and a half-life for 50V of 6E15 year ( the referenced website gives a third halflife of 3.9E17 years ).

Anyone have definative answers on this? Normally I'd trust Merck as it's THE reference for chemists, but typos or errors in it can't be absolutly ruled out. Astaroth5 21:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Most of the infobox properties are referenced by chemical elements data references. There's always some spread. Unless they're critical assesments of multiple sources themselves, you can consult two books and literally get three different values. Femto 21:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


Does anyone know how to calculate how many protons, neutrons, and electrons are in a Vanadium 2+ ion with a molar mass of 53 grams per mole? If so please post on the comments page the instructions for the calculations. Thanks.

Well, it's fairly simple. The number of protons and neutrons is unaffected by the ion state. The protons in a single ion of Va2+ is equal to the atomic number. To know the number of neutrons you need to know the isotope of Va the ion represents; it is then the atomic weight minus the atomic number. The number of electrons in an electrically neutral atom is equal to the number of protons. To get a given positive charge, you subtract the charge from the number of electrons in the electrically neutral atom.


until disambig it would seem better to leave this stuff in - it could even develop into a separate subsection in the history. as an encylopedia it's better to be encyclopedic than not Mccready 14:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

>> There is a street in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania named Vanadium Road. The US states of Colorado and New Mexico both have towns named Vanadium.
I contest that the addition of subjects which are unrelated other than by name is encyclopedic. There should be separate articles. If there is any historical significance of the road to this element, the fact that it exists can be preserved on this talk page, until further expansion (in the history section, not as trivia). Femto 16:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Femto, Seems we have a disagreement here. How should we resolve it? Mccready 08:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There's you and who added this, and there's Edgar181 and me who removed it, so simply by counting score the support is plus minus zero, and the article should remain as it was before. I still maintain that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", and that the mention of things merely named after the subject lacks notability. Even if it were a globally important mining area, the location itself should be mentioned in this context first, not its particular namings. Femto 14:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


The "isotopes" section is not very clear. I don't want to mess with it too much because I'm not sure what it means. Could someone who knows what it is supposed to say improve its English? --Strait 22:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


What is the meaning of "(although V2O3)" in "used in the manufacture of Ferro-Vandaium (although V2O3) it can be used as a dye and color-fixer."? --Ben Best 13:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"Organometallic chemistry of vanadium is well developed..." What does it mean for it to be "well developed?" --NotWillDecker —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Pentavalent VOSO4[edit]

Pentavalent VOSO4 has been reported to be more than 5 times as toxic as trivalent V2O3 (Roschin, 1967).

VOSO4 is a tetravalent vanadium compound. Is this an error for V2O5?--Syd Henderson 21:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It is good. Make no changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djgrunge (talkcontribs) 18:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Periodic Table Image[edit]


On the image supposedly showing Vanadium on the periodic table, Vanadium is not actually highlighted - it is shown as a plain pink box. Compare with the image showing Titanium - Vanadium doesn't have the darker colour. I lack a program to edit .svgs with - could someone edit the Vanadium image? It's the next element right of Ti (the second image linked), if someone doesn't know where it is but wants to edit. --Danny252 (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


Suggestions for additional material[edit]

  • Lower oxidation states. Greenwood & Earnshaw, Ch. 22 goes down to -3. I discount [V(bipy)3]+; it is a complex of V(III) with bipy-, but that's debatable.
  • polyoxovanadates - some spectacular structures
  • VO4 can substitute for PO4 in some organisms
  • organometallic chemistry

Petergans (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Chem discussion[edit]

Its always fun debating one's perceptions of chemistry, and I am no super expert, but IMHO, the analogy to phosphate should be mentioned but not pushed too much. VOCl3/POCl3 and the very(!) limited existence of VO43- are the heart of the usual analogy. Acidify phosphate and what do you get? Phosphoric acid. One just cannot do that same experiment with vanadate except under extremely dilute solutions and even these resulting vanadic acid" (see the lame articles on titanic acid and silicic acid) are metastable. Phosphates do not readily form pentacoordinate or hexacoordinate alkoxides, hence the polyphosphates are chains whereas the stable polyvanadates feature octahedral V. My reading indicates that vanadate in proteins mainly is used to stabilize pentacoordinate sites: vanadate forms transition state analogues, since the pentacoordinate phoshorus intermediates cannot be observed directly. So in a way, the technique exploits the difference, not the similarity, between phosphate and vanadate.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be some attempt at an explanation for the high vanadium concentration in the crude oil from Venezuela. Why is V is concentrated by certain marine organisms? Petergans (talk) 08:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The two theories are that they are created by exchanging iron and magnesium from hem and chlorophyl by vanadium the second theory is that they where part of ascidian biochemistry and were deposited with the vanadium allready in place.Premović, Pavle I.; Pavlović, Mirjana S.; Pavlović, Nebojša Z. (1986). "Vanadium in ancient sedimentary rocks of marine origin". Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 50 (9). doi:10.1016/0016-7037(86)90248-6.  Text " pages 1923–1931 " ignored (help); Cite uses deprecated parameter |coauthors= (help) --Stone (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


there are entire sections lacking any references. The article cannot pass its GAN with those sections remaining unreferenced. Nergaal (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The following book should be useful in checking and referencing the general physical and chemical properties: Emsley, John (2003). Nature's Building Blocks: An A-Z Guide to the Elements. Oxford University Press. pp. 483–487. ISBN 0198503407.  Xasodfuih (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Vanadium steel[edit]

It's mentioned a lot, including uses and how it's manufactured, but an explanation for the improved qualities would be nice. Xasodfuih (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

English Variation[edit]

Is there a compelling reason to change the spelling from American to British English? The first version of this article that has a word spelled in a distinct American/British variation spells the word "oxidized." Is there a reason to change this?The Seeker 4 Talk 16:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


A user has begun changing American English spellings to British English. Is there a compelling reason to make this change? According to the MOS the article should remain in American English unless a reason is presented to change it and consensus is established to change the spelling. I have reverted these spelling changes and notified the editor to discuss it on the talk page here. If someone demonstrates to me the article should be in British English, I will gladly revert my actions, but I believe my revert of these spelling changes is in line with MOS. Comments? The Seeker 4 Talk 16:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems like they just want to have it consistent, too. So, just stick with one and change them all in the entire article so that there is no confusion as to which type the article uses. Gary King (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Theseeker4: Is your current version free from error? Are all the words spelled consistently? While sanctimoniously reverting my last 5 good faith edits, why didn't you revert the next last 20? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, just saw this as I was correcting the other words with British spelling. I am not sure what you mean by "why didn't you revert the next last 20". I also am unsure why you describe my actions as "sanctimonious". That smacks of bad faith to me. I reverted your edits and let you know, and asked if there was an historical reason to change the article to British English and awaited your response. When it was clarified above by Gary King that consistancy was the goal, not converting the article to British English, I proceeded with converting all spellings I could find to American English, as per the MOS. I am sorry if you took my actions and statements as being "sanctimonious" but they were good faith, as evidenced by the fact that I notified you of what I did and asked if there was a reason. If you did have a reason in keeping with the MOS that said the article should be in British English, I would gladly have restored your edits and helped change all other American spellings to British. As I said, the version was not perfect, and I simply awaited clarification by Gary King before proceeding with converting all spellings to American, which is the reason for the delay between my reverting you and my correcting the remaining spellings. As an aside, if anyone sees any remaining British spellings in the article, please change them as I must have missed them. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, please note Rifleman that I did not blindly revert your edits, I reverted 3 edits and in the process preserved the change you made that had nothing to do with EngVar. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Biological Role[edit]

Vanadium has a significant biological role aside being present in an alternative nitrogenase. For example, V(III) has a role in tunic synthesis in ascideans, V(IV) is involved peroxidase and catalase activity in some toadstools, and V(V) is certain defensive halogen peroxidases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Semoderm (talkcontribs) 06:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

And it's part of an oxygen-transport system in some animals, isn't it? Eldin raigmore (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
This is speculation and not yet proven.--Stone (talk) 12:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't Vanadium also be in Category:Biology and pharmacology of chemical elements ? Eldin raigmore (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Wanted to suggest additional information on biological vanadium. Scientific American blog recently published an article on Pyura Chilensis, in immobile, invertebrate sac-like filter feeders that belong to the Tunicata subphylum and practically bleed vanadium. From the blog post - "Their blood is clear and, strangely, can accumulte extremely high [quantities] of a mysterious and rare element called vanadium. The concentration of vanadium in the blood of P. chilensis and other tunicates can be up to 10 million times that of the surrounding seawater. Just why and how these creatures are able to accumulate vanadium in such huge quantities remains unknown." [1] Smash591 (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Why on earth is this article protected?![edit]

There is no discussion that I can see. Does it have a history of vandalization? (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, click on "history" of the article. Please register or propose changes at this talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Quite frankly, I was surprised just the same. It seems far less vandalized than many of the other articles on my watch list. Do you really think this is so necessary? Kbrose (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The IPs are of no help, the only good edit I found for ages was a revertion of a IP vandalism by a other IP. The talk pages are well monitored and any request is answered. --Stone (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but statements like "IPs are of no help" are against WP philosophy.
I also think that this semi-protection was done lightly and should have been discussed on this page first. Please note WP policy on semi-protection Wikipedia:PROTECT#Semi-protection, from which I quote

At some point an administrator might determine that the semi-protection should be made indefinite. This is reserved for only the most vandalised articles

The history does not suggest such grievous vandalism. Some very recent vandalism seems (with high likelihood) to have concentrated in one editor.
A final protection should be done as a last resort. I propose we establish a more reasonable duration than "indefinite" or lift this altogether. Thank you. (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Misplaced. Such pages are never semi-protected indefinitely, so is this case. Materialscientist (talk) 02:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Excuse my ignorance then, but how is indefinite semi-protection defined? Also looking forward to see my other points addressed. Thanks. (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Indefinite refers to time, this page (and all such pages) are semi-protected only temporarily, and the protection can be removed any time considering the situation. Regarding other points, I fully agree with Stone (and this is what I had in mind when protected) that there was no useful anon. contribution to this article in ages, and that several editors are watching closely the talk pages. In any case, it is never a bad idea to discuss changes at a talk page first. I also agree with Kbrose that vandalism here is not exceptionally strong, but it was significant enough to consider semi-protection. Materialscientist (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Apologies, I did not realise the protection had a term.
Still, I do not understand how we can reassess the situation without any further input, i.e. without removing the protection first. Six months of protection still seems a disproportionate response. To me, the amount of vandalism we were having was not sufficient to justify any protection anyway. As someone else pointed out, there are unprotected pages that suffer from worse unregistered vandalism.
Also, I think that the figure of merit here is not just the signal-to-noise ratio. You also need to take into account the potential of unregistered users. If the levels of unregistered vandalism are bearable, I think semi-protection is not justified even when the ratio is zero. Nowadays bots take care of most blatant vandalism anyway.
You say, "it is never a bad idea to discuss changes at a talk page first" - this certainly applies to major changes like semi-protecting a page, but I disagree with the general principle for casual editing. All editors (including unregistered ones) should in most cases feel empowered to edit without discussing first, as per "be bold" philosophy. (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
(i) There are several signs for reassessment, such as increasing anon. activity at the talk page and at other relevant articles (other elements, for example). Those are not favorable at the moment. (ii) Bots take care of minute part of vandalism only. (iii) Semi-protection does not aim to infringe a general right for anonymous editing wikipedia. Materialscientist (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
(i-a) This assumes that unregistered (which incidentally is different from anonymous) activity in the talk page is a decent indicator of both potential unregistered vandalism and unregistered contributions on the article page.
(i-b) Activity in other unprotected articles does not necessarily have much correlation either.
(iii) I'm sure your goal is not to prevent unregistered editing, but we really need to look at the effects, not just the intentions of our actions.
I still think 6 months protection is uncalled-for. (talk) 05:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
If you're so intent on contributing to this article, is it really that hard to register for an account?—Tetracube (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
You are missing the point entirely, I have no intention to contribute to this article.
So let's analyze the history then. We had
  1. Some unregistered contributions
  2. About 5 (five) episodes a month of unregistered vandalism (grouping the most recent spur of 20th November into one episode), some of which fixed by a bot. Compare this rate to the (unprotected) color article.
  3. Practically no vandalism prior to September
I call this 6-month protection an overreaction. (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to edit the article: either post a request here and it will be considered - or - post an unprotect request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and an uninvolved admin will look the situation over and discuss it with the protecting admin and maybe it will be done.
We're done here, no more arguing needed. Good-day. Vsmith (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Done, thank you. (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so I had a long chatter with the protecting admin, and decided to shorten the protection period. The length was probably too long, but know my time shortening isn't an admonishment to Materialscientest to not reprotect if it becomes necessary. Note that while the level of vandalism wasn't high, the article has been very stable since before the (American) schoolyear began, which means the rest of the edits are probably vandalism. I just glanced at the history, so apologies if I missed legit contributions from IPs. tedder (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine, understood the rationale, thanks. (talk) 05:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


Just a little unclearity about how Henry Enfield Roscoe "produced the metal in 1867 by reduction of vanadium(III) chloride, VCl3, with hydrogen". Vanadium(III) chloride article says "VCl3 is prepared by simply heating VCl4 at 160-170 °C under a flowing stream of inert gas, which sweeps out the Cl2." Vanadium tetrachloride says "VCl4 is prepared by chlorination of vanadium metal." Surly this is not how Roscoe first produced the metal, or at least not the VCl3. Can someone please clarify? JTTyler (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right! There has to be a look into the original publication from Roscoe to get exactly what he has done. gives the dichloride others whould give the trichloride and the most stable one would be the tetrachloride. --Stone (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Roscoe describes two methods the first is chlorination of VN with chlorin gas the other is reduction of VOCl3 in red heat with carbon. He always gets the brown liquid of VCl4. This compound is that heated to form the peach blossom coloured VCl3 and that is than reduced with hydrogen to get VCl2. He changes than to a special setup where he uses ultrapure oxygenfree hydrogen at high temperatures to reduce the material. --Stone (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes a lot more sense - tracing the metal back to the rock ore. I,m assuming the VN was made by treating the powdered ore with ammonia. These methods are no longer used to make vanadium so this "Roscoe process" might be worth mentioning in the article space with these details. JTTyler (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Roscoe used ore from Alderley Edge, which was at that time a copper and cobalt mine, he says that this was the first source of larger quantities of vanadium he was aware of. He uses the reaction of vanadium oxide with ammonia, the same reaction berzelius claimed to have used to produce vanadium metal.--Stone (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The discoverer's name in this section was somehow temporarily vandalized to "a loser who lives in his parents basement" even though the reference was correct. With no edits, after several minutes the text again displays correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Oxidation state typo?[edit]

The page currently states: "Roscoe eventually produced the metal in 1867 by reduction of vanadium(II) chloride, VCl3, with hydrogen." There's got to be something wrong with that, since vanadium(II) chloride is VCl2, not VCl3. I'm not sure which of the two is really meant, but it seems worth pointing out for others who might. Norman Yarvin (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It was the dichloride. Nice pick-up. [1]Novangelis (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Vanadinite2 sur goethite (Maroc).jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Vanadinite2 sur goethite (Maroc).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Mohs' hardness vs. hardness[edit]

In the article, it states that vanadium is a soft metal. The Mohs' hardness is 6.7, though, which is not soft. Why is this? -- (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Good pick up. I've fixed it. Other Mohs figures I find for V are about 7.0, which compares with the hardest steels and pure tungsten at 7.5. There really aren't any metals much harder. Just because a metal is ductile and malleable (i.e. not brittle) doesn't mean it is soft. Despite all this, some sources list V as "soft." With hard numbers saying otherwise (excuse pun) they must simply be considered as being in error. SBHarris 20:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


The creation section says Vanadium is formed in supernova, via the r-process. However, in the R-process article states that R-Process is responsible for half of the heavier-than-Fe elements, and that S-Process is responsible for the other half of heavier-than-Fe elements.

Notice the same problem with this concept that I did? Vanadium is lighter than Fe.

The section needs correction before expansion. :) Unfortunately being an electron microprobe specialist and not a particle physicist, I can't help any further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Vanadium etched.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Vanadium etched.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 4, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-12-04. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 08:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A disc of vanadium, a silvery-gray transition metal named after the Germanic goddess of beauty and fertility, Vanadís (Freyja). The element occurs naturally in about 65 minerals and in fossil fuel deposits, always in chemically combined form. It is mainly used to produce specialty steel alloys such as high speed tool steels.

Photo: Alchemist-hp
ArchiveMore featured pictures...

Image of V[edit]

Highpure (99.95%) vanadium cuboids, ebeam remelted and macro etched

As you see, I just replaced this soon-to-be image of the month (above) with what I thought was a better one of vanadium bars at 99.95% (surface identical). Wups. I didn't know that this one was already "famous." Both are excellent images. My preference for the latter was a better scale sense and bulk sense in the bars (although you can see that the disc is about an inch wide). user:Alchemist-hp naturally prefers the other image, which he contributed. Do you have any idea about the purity, alchemist?

If anybody else working on this article has another opinion, please note it here (you can go back to one of my former versions of this article to see what the infobox looks like with the bar image). I'm going to go back to my second choice, which is to move the high purity bars out of the "alloy" section where they were misplaced, and at least begin one of the "pure metal" sections with them. If anybody votes with me on the infobox image, we'll do the same with the disc instead, and use it as an early section lead-off image, but not in the infobox (that is, trade it with the bar image as now placed). SBHarris 17:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sbharris, both images are made by Alchemist-hp :-) Both samples, the disc and the cuboids, have the same purity of 99.95%. Current I prefer the "V-disc" for the info-box. It has a much better quality (high resolution + sharpness). It is featured and it was POTD. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


I object to calling Rio's work the "discovery" of the element Vanadium. Finding a wacky compound and claiming "I think there is a new element in here", is not discovering an element. There are plenty of people who have falsely claimed to "discovered" an element based on strange qualities of some compound. To discover an element you either have to isolate the element and prove it is an element or, prove that your compound contains a new element, and Rio emphatically failed to do either of these.

This whole subject has a political element to it, because Mexicans have an intense nationalistic pride about this so-called "discovery" since Rio is the greatest Mexican chemist. Nevertheless, allowing false claims of discovery to make Mexicans feel good is not objective and is not in the interests of an honest encyclopedia. It was Selholm who first proved that vanadium existed and to him belongs the honor of discovery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Chamberlain (talkcontribs) 17:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The discovery of elements is not always assigned to the first person to isolate them. Look at helium for an extreme example. Many other elements have been discovered and indeed named for their spectral lines before being isolated (thallium), and rare earths from isolation of their oxides quite a long time before. It would be silly to think that Moissan discovered fluorine-- everybody knew it was there and had known that for 75 years; they just couldn't get it out. Radioactives are discovered by their signatures: Marie Curie discovered polonium (do you want take away that credit?) but it wasn't isolated as a metal until 1944. [2]Indeed, there are some elements like francium that haven't been isolated even today; are we to regard them as still undiscovered? No.

Basically we give credit to somebody who thinks they've found a new element by some criterion, gives the places it can be found, and turns out later to be RIGHT. That is all. People who later first isolate the element (if that is even possible) get honorable mention. SBHarris 18:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Vanadium crystal bar and 1cm3 cube.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Vanadium crystal bar and 1cm3 cube.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 17, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-01-17. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 17:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Three bars of pure vanadium in various states of oxidation made using the crystal bar process, and a 1 cm3 cube of it for comparison. Vanadium is a hard, silvery gray, ductile and malleable transition metal named after Vanadís, the Germanic equivalent of the Norse goddess Freyja. In nature, vanadium only exists in chemically combined form.

Photo: Alchemist-hp
ArchiveMore featured pictures...

Vakuum vs vacuum[edit]

I changed vakuum to vacuum, thinking this was an error in translation from a German page. It was reverted in two minutes. I'm curious as to the reason, and I expect there is one. SpareHeadOne 00:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpareHeadOne (talkcontribs)

Native vanadium[edit]

The IMA have, since 2012, recognized vanadium as a mineral. See Min Mag 77 (and the current master list). Also Discovery of Native Vanadium, a New Mineral from the Colima Volcano, State of Colima (Mexico). Legacy comments in the lead, and in the occurrence section, state otherwise. My prose is too bad to touch a GA, but maybe this is of interest to other editors. Dong, where is my automobile? (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^