Talk:Copper

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Copper article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This  level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elements Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Mining High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Occupational Safety and Health Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health 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.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Materials High‑importance 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.MaterialsWikipedia:WikiProject MaterialsTemplate:WikiProject MaterialsMaterials High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Metalworking (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metalworking, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.MetalworkingWikipedia:WikiProject MetalworkingTemplate:WikiProject MetalworkingMetalworking Rocks and minerals Low‑importance Copper 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Arizona Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arizona, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Arizona 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.ArizonaWikipedia:WikiProject ArizonaTemplate:WikiProject ArizonaArizona Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Copper 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 October 2, 2006 Good article nominee Listed September 23, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted April 14, 2011 Peer review Reviewed May 1, 2011 Good article nominee Listed July 15, 2025 Good article reassessment Kept Current status: Good article

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball (talk), for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: Important. Before starting the task, please check here.

Section sizes Section size for Copper (48 sections) Section name Byte count Prose size (words) Header Total Header Total (Top) 3,036 3,036 293 293 Etymology 790 790 37 37 Characteristics 381 10,831 19 677 Physical 3,468 3,468 280 280 Chemical 1,861 1,861 127 127 Isotopes 2,335 2,335 101 101 Occurrence 2,786 2,786 150 150 Production 3,569 19,602 213 990 Reserves and prices 3,366 3,366 209 209 Copper demand 2,048 2,048 72 72 Extraction 4,185 4,185 184 184 Recycling 4,088 4,088 222 222 Environmental impacts 2,346 2,346 90 90 Alloys 4,958 4,958 344 344 Compounds 786 12,878 37 598 Binary compounds 1,410 1,410 87 87 Coordination chemistry 3,825 3,825 230 230 Organocopper chemistry 3,395 3,395 128 128 Copper(III) and copper(IV) 3,462 3,462 116 116 Biological role 48 20,110 0 1,140 Biochemistry 4,563 4,563 255 255 Nutrition 859 11,047 64 661 Absorption and regulation 2,789 2,789 131 131 Dietary recommendations 3,942 3,942 313 313 Deficiency 3,457 3,457 153 153 Toxicity 2,614 2,614 116 116 Bioleaching 636 636 35 35 Human exposure 1,202 1,202 73 73 History 12 27,519 0 1,691 Prehistoric 18 14,578 0 699 Copper Age 10,606 10,606 396 396 Bronze Age 3,954 3,954 303 303 Ancient and post-classical 8,202 8,202 618 618 Modern 4,727 4,727 374 374 Applications 2,432 25,412 131 1,094 Wire and cable 4,351 4,351 215 215 Electronics and related devices 900 900 60 60 Electric motors 2,075 2,075 84 84 Architecture 5,881 5,881 211 211 Antibiofouling 1,351 1,351 91 91 Antimicrobial 5,643 5,643 222 222 Fungicide 421 421 31 31 Folk medicine 2,358 2,358 49 49 See also 393 393 0 0 Notes 636 636 0 0 References 45 45 0 0 Further reading 1,158 1,158 0 0 External links 1,542 1,542 0 0 Total 128,910 128,910 6,864 6,864

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 365 days are automatically archived 2 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 2.

Netther the "Applications" section, nor any other part, makes any mention of the popularity of copper cookware, and the like... 185.113.96.31 (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Cookware might not be a major app. All domestic uses account for 12% according to Ullmann's. Cookware has a big section on copper. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

That can be copied in from the cookware article. ← Metallurgist (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Actually its unsourced so thats not ideal ← Metallurgist (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I added a sentence with a source.  Done Johnjbarton (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone else think there's far too many images in this article (especially when combined with the long infobox)? Was about to take an axe to a few of them, moreso in the production section, but unsure which to keep and how best to reformat Kowal2701 (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Also I'm not sure it does a great job at summarising the Copper extraction article Kowal2701 (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

About half the time I find that the problem is the summarized article rather than the summary, so I'd check that possibility. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I cut some images recently and moved them around. I actually think the infobox is too long but that ship has sailed. One note in case you don't know: the right hand infobox pushes default-positioned images down (and of course the results depend upon the screen size. On mobile the infobox is folded up and in general the images work fine.

I would cut the Copper bullion image. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

On mobile it works really well, on computer it looks a bit like pop-up ads because they appear on both sides of the text (MOS:SANDWICH), have different sizes, and are pretty disjointed. For instance, the image of the drainage pushes the next heading down so there’s white space.

For Production I would have gotten rid of the bullion, the disc, the native copper (because it’s a duplicate of the lead image), and moved price and world production up to "Reserves and prices" on the right. And moved melting copper and the mine to "Extraction", also making flash smelting line up w the flow chart. Maybe that’s too drastic and all it needs is removing bullion and making the mine and world production line up w the others above.

For Coordination chemistry idk but I would have ditched the Pourbaix diagram as too technical and moved the blue copper to the right.

Thoughts? Kowal2701 (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I applied a couple of things you suggested and I agree with.

I would not get too hung up on the image layout. I do think on-topic images add interest to articles but their layout on desktop sites is not stable. Different engines, different browser window widths, subsequent edits all shift things around. So "line up with" won't generally work out. You can try to alternate left-right. If you put everything on the right the images will be pushed out of sequence with the sections. I think MOS:SANDWICH overstates the case because it uses two very horizontal images, but many images are vertical or square.

The Environmental impacts section has {{clear}} to prevent overlap of the images on the right side; that is what causes the white space. YMMV.

You could put Price of Copper and World Production in a gallery so it sits horizontally.

I agree, the Pourbaix is in Copper compounds so it can go. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

That's much better, happy to drop other suggestions Kowal2701 (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

The bioremediation section was deleted by @Smokefoot in this edit. I did not agree with the edit summary. The content had nothing to do with geologic scale; bioleaching is an industrial process. The source

• Gadd, G. M. (2010). Metals, minerals and microbes: geomicrobiology and bioremediation. Microbiology, 156(3), 609-643.

has over 2400 citations. The source

• Harbhajan Singh (2006). Mycoremediation: Fungal Bioremediation. John Wiley & Sons. p. 509. ISBN 978-0-470-05058-3.

has over 600 citations, again well above any reasonable bar.

However I do agree that the content itself is weak and after further investigation I replace the Bioremediation with Bioleaching based on the first source and added a section on application as a fungicide based on a source discovered from the Singh source.

I think a section on Bioremediation would need to establish the issue with environmental copper first. This source

• De Groot, Rodney C., and Bessie Woodward. "Using copper-tolerant fungi to biodegrade wood treated with copper-based preservatives." International biodeterioration & biodegradation 44.1 (1999): 17-27.

does that but it is also clearly just an early investigation. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well the main thing is thank you for your diligence and politeness in response to my comments. I will leave that aspect alone. Bioremediation and related topics with respect to heavy metals are irksome to me because I think that they offer false hope to serious problems. But I will desist. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Slag remova" "to Slag removal" in "Flowchart of copper refining". ~2026-46821-7 (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Done –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Could someone with the appropriate edit permissions please correct the minor grammatical error in the image caption below?

"The East Tower of the Royal Observatory, Edinburgh; the original copper was install in 1894 and the refurbished copper in 1994"

should be

"The East Tower of the Royal Observatory, Edinburgh; the original copper was installed in 1894 and the refurbished copper in 1994" SpotTheLooney (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Done Johnjbarton (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

cheers!! long live wikipedia!! ~2026-10957-81 (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

"The maximum possible current density of copper in open air is approximately 3.1×10⁶ A/m², above which it begins to heat excessively."

A source is cited for this, but it seems incorrect. The value cited is equivalent to 3.1 A/mm², (in amperes per square millimeter.) However, typical house wiring for lights, switches and outlets throughout North America is #14 AWG, which is 2.08 mm² in cross-sectional area. This is rated to carry 15 amperes of current safely in enclosed insulated spaces without much opportunity for heat dissipation. A value of 7.2×10⁶ A/m² is safe by this standard inside insulated walls, and even more in open air, where #16 AWG (or 1.31 mm²) would be amply sufficient to carry the same current in open air without overheating, say in a common heavy duty extension cord or appliance cord, giving a value of 1.145×10⁷ A/m² for electric current density generally considered safe in copper without excessive heating. Justina Colmena ~biz (talk) 11:56, 13 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

The source cited says 2000A/in². However this is in the context of spot welding electrodes.

I'm not convinced that this sentence can be repaired. The length of the wire, the installation, purity of the copper, etc all affect the maximum. With a suitable source we could add the standard safe current limit as you outline above. I'll remove the sentence in the meantime. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

National Electrical Code unfortunately is proprietary, copyrighted $700++ per volume. Building codes are generally something you need a legal defense for. If it isn't one thing, it's another, and don't quote me on that. Justina Colmena ~biz (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I can't comprehend what this comment is trying to say. I certainly can't figure out why this comment is relevant. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I guess this editor is just complaining about the difficulty of finding a suitable source, a common problem. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have plenty of sources to back me up to say what I said above but you've got to kick low class Mafia dudes like that public laundry pizza party brother off of Wikipedia or it just isn't worth reasonably intelligent people editing or discussing. Thank you. Justina Colmena ~biz (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sure, what other sources do you have? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:32, 14 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Justina Colmena ~biz Please be WP:Civil, it is requirement on Wikipedia. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am being civil. Others are airing dirty laundry. Justina Colmena ~biz (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

LaundryPizza is probably unaware that their comment was misplaced. We are required to assume good faith (WP:AGF). However, even if a comment is intended as trolling, the best way to react would be to say nothing. That would also be the best way to react if the comment was a mistake. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am certainly being civil here, but I can't help you because you aren't communicating clearly about what you have. Do you have an alternative source for this figure, or are you having trouble finding one? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:37, 15 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

The OP reported a problem in the article and correctly explained the issue. The first reply included "With a suitable source we could add the standard safe current limit as you outline above". The OP then commented that the US standard is difficult to access. Meanwhile, the dubious sentence has been removed. The information would help the article, but, as mentioned, a source is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)Reply