Talk:Tungsten

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Reviewed version: May 8, 2008
Peer review Tungsten has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Peer review Tungsten has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
WikiProject Elements
Chemistry Portal
This article is supported by the Elements WikiProject, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.
This article has also been selected for the Version 0.5 release of Wikipedia.
Chemistry WikiProject This article is also supported by WikiProject Chemistry.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Article changed over to new Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements format by maveric149. Elementbox converted 11:12, 14 July 2005 by Femto (previous revision was that of 15:26, 12 July 2005).

Contents

[edit] Information Sources

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Magnesium. Additional text was taken directly from USGS Tungsten 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.

[edit] Talk

Measuring the half life of Tungsten

Given that the half-life is so long and that decay is therefore a very rare event I would like to ask how it is possible to accurately measure its half life? For example if a reasonable mass of Tungsten only has one theoretical atomic decay a year there is a real statistical chance (by random variation) that none or more may occur and so one would surely need to measure over an unfeasible period of time? Also such a low rate would surely be masked by contamination and background radiation or re-absorption of emitted particles? Could an explanation of the method be added as a link? [ManInStone].

I would suggest changing the reporting of half lives to standard form i.e. x*10^n.

Are +2, +3, +4, +5 common oxidation states?

I also question this. By far the most common oxidation state is +6, as found in WO3, WO4-2, H2W12O40-6 , etc
I have modified the page to reflect this. Humanist

There were minimum oxidation state -2. Replaced it with +2, because metals do not have negative oxidation states. --Yyy 08:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The minimum should be -2. A real example is the compound Na2W(CO)5 (sodium pentacarbonyltungstate), where assigning CO as a neutral ligand gives you a tungsten oxidation state of -2! I think there also may be a [W(CO)4]4- salt also. John Ellis and his group at the Univ. of Minnesota were very active in these low oxidation state compounds. habrahamson 08:55 CDT 2006-10-25

[edit] Wolfram is German word, right?

I thought Wolfram was a German word, and so the "W" symbol was the only chemical element symbol to come from a language other than Latin. But the article claims a Latin form. Isn't it more likely that the Latin form is modern, taken from the German?

Likely, I heard that the word comes from an archaic german form of "wolf-rust" or similar... Maybe we should add "New Latin" or something.
Chlorine comes from the Greek χλωρóς chloros, meaning "pale green". Do you mean the only chemical element symbol to consist of a letter that was not used in the ancient Latin alphabet? Booshank 14:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not latin: don't be misled by the "ium" in "Wolframium" My understanding of the naming is:

  • The mineral Wolframite (origin of name unknown)
    • Extracted from this was a metal named Wolfram after the mineral

Malcolm Farmer 23:06, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here are some references and suggestions. Somebody else may put it into a useful edit of the article.

This [1] includes the etymology of Wolframite \Wol"fram*ite\, n. [G., wolframit, wolfram; wolf wolf + rahm cream, soot; cf. G. wolfsruss wolfram, lit., wolf's soot.] (Min.)

[2] (also contains other reference data): Tungsten - (Swedish, tung sten, heavy stone); also known as wolfram (from wolframite, said to be named from wolf rahm or spumi lupi, because the ore interfered with the smelting of tin and was supposed to devour the tin)

http://www.tungsten.com/tunghist.html however gives a more detailed etymology than most dictionaries and it appears that the origin of the word wolfram is more or less obscure.

The name "wolframium" seems to be only of historical interest (but definitely label it New Latin). It shouldn't be mentioned in the lead paragraph (the W symbol is already explained with wolfram), but in the history section where there is more room for writing things out and explaining, together with "spumi lupi".

>> wolframite (which was later named for Woulfe)

I removed it until somebody can provide a cite for it. It seems that "wolf-rahm" was used well before Woulfe, and I couldn't find any connection to the common convention (introduced 1820 by A. Breithaupt) to give the name "wolframite" to the mineral.

>> In 1781 Carl Wilhelm Scheele ascertained that a new acid could be made from tungstenite

I believe Scheele worked on "tung sten", later named "scheelite" after him, which would be calcium tungstate (the 'compound of tungstic acid and lime'). However, tungstenite is tungsten sulfide in modern use. Could somebody check this?

Femto 20:53, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

I don't see why it should necessarily have to come from German? Anyhow, "everybody else" doesen't ignore the name Wolfram, as a matter of fact, most languages still retain it over Tungsten.--TVPR 07:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, all Germanic languagues that I know of apart from English use Wolfram or similar form rather than Tungsten. So do most Central and Eastern European languages and some others such as Turkish. Booshank 14:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tungsten Oxide

I thought tungsten oxide is a volatile oxide (hence not protective), which is why light bulbs need to be evacuated or filled with inert gas - to prevent the oxidation of the tungsten at elevated temperatures.

It depends on the temperature: "Forms a protective oxide in air and can be oxidized at high temperature." [3] (added to article) Femto 20:53, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Most bulbs are filled with Argon to preven oxidation, and although Tungsten is a self protective metal, consider this.

The oxide would tend to crumble due to repeated expansion and contractions from dramatic heating and cooling of a light bulb filament as the light is repeatedly turned on and off. Even some air would get through at the super hot temperatures of the filament. The oxide would tend to block the light given off.

[edit] Edited applications list regarding hastelloy, stellite, tool steel, high speed steel

I moved the hastelloy and stellite links from "high speed steel" to "superalloy" since neither are steels. Stellite is cobalt-based and hastelloy is primarily nickel. I also removed tool steel from the superalloy line since it is not a superalloy and rarely contains tungsten. Tungsten's added heat-resistance is what differentiates high speed steel from plain tool steel. Ryanrs 08:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Melting point

How about rewording this -

(also for the fact that it has a higher melting point then any other non alloy in existence)

to this -

(also for the fact that it has the highest melting point of any metal, and the highest of any element except carbon)

[edit] Isotopes

Why is there a sentance stating the "resistance" of tungsten at the bottom of this paragraph? The material properties column already lists the resistivity of tungsten which is a much more fundamental material property.

[edit] wrong info here

The isotope stability information on this page is wrong [4]

[edit] Heavy Stone?

Why is called "Heavy Stone" in english? isnt that ilogical when the sign for it is W, and that the one who discovered it called it wolfram?

Because tung sten (Swedish) means heavy stone in English.

[edit] Melting temperature

On other wiki's the melting temp is mentioned to be 3407, also searching on G00gle for wolfraam 3407 shows me enough resources to believe that 3407 is correct. Do we use the wrong temp on the en:wiki ?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 57.67.146.66 (talk • contribs) .

High Google counts don't say anything about correctness. There are a lot of collections on the Web that just copy some outdated and unsourced data from each other, including many Wikis.
This temperature is a secondary fixed point on the International Temperature Scale of 1990 and thus exact by definition—though there have been going on some redefinitions in the past years. Until someone can dig up the most recent specifications, I'd say the value from the CRC handbook is reliable (reference is melting points of the elements (data page)). Femto 11:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm more interested in the wokability and physical characteristics of Tungsten

Wednesday 9-27-06 Portland, OR 3:31pm Pacific Coast Time

Who on the discussion page would be the expert on pure tungsten metal? Considering my extremely low income level, What is the best, lowest price, retail source of this metal? There are plenty of websites that sell both scrap tungsten and new tungsten; but unfortunately the purity of these various forms can vary from website to website. The purist form that I found on one particular website is 99.95% in foil form(apparently pure tungsten is quite difficult to extract.). (It's unfortunate that no one has ever experimented with more cost effective "Sci-Fi" methods of producing tungsten - such as attempting to artificially produce tungsten from simpler metals - similar to how artificially produced diamonds are manufactured. But artificial tungsten is another story and for a PHd - which I'm not!) Does anyone in the discussion page have any physical work experience with tungsten? Is the metal compatible with common workshop tools such as tin-snips, powerdrills, saws, etc. ? I wish to design my own storage/ holding container for "Dry Ice"; This is for a personal, experimental science project that I'm cogitating; Is tungsten tough and strong enough to tolerate physical contact with "Dry Ice" for an indefinite duration of time, or does tungsten undergo any adverse chemical reaction with "dry ice"?

From: MyPresentCPUisTooSlow, registered User (I know, I need to shorten my user name - eventually)

Thanks for your message on my talk page, though I don't have any experience on working with tungsten, and have to pass on these questions. I can only remark that artificial diamond is just a different allotrope of the same element, carbon, while creating tungsten from other materials would involve nuclear transmutation which is rather unfeasible. Note also that this page is primarily for the discussion of the tungsten article. For practical advice, you might try asking at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Femto 20:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Pure tungsten is too hard (roughly 3000 Brinell, compared to common construction steel which is around 250 Brinell) to cut with most tools. It is much harder than, for example High-speed steel, commonly used in drills. Tungsten is mostly worked by sintering and grinding with diamonds.

Mark Hubbard here: REMBAR, a New York company that fabricates tungsten parts, discusses briefly the difficulties of working with tungsten under the heading, "Physical Properties of Tungsten": http://www.rembar.com/Tungsten.htm

Mark Hubbard here: A better storage/holding container for dry ice is ordinary styrofoam, the thicker the better. You can start with an inexpensive cooler and build additional insulation around the sides, bottom and top using whatever is at hand, sealing the seams with duct tape. It works surprisingly well.

Tungsten currently retails for $3 to $8 an ounce. One seller on eBay is currently selling high purity tungsten rod for $4.89 an ounce.

Tungsten is alloyed with other metals to improve its workability and to reduce its brittleness. These alloys commonly have a range of densities from 17 (90% tungsten - Class 1 Heavy Metal) to 18.5 (Class 4 Heavy Metal), although copper/tungsten alloys are sometimes as low as 50/50 or less. As mentioned above, because of its extremely high melting point, W is usually not melted and cast like other metals. Instead, it is powdered and sintered (heated and put under intense pressure) to form a solid metal product. See the article on powder metallurgy if you are interested in this aspect.71.128.36.112 04:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amorphous tungsten alloy?

Does anyone know anything about this substance, and would it be a good addition to the article? Someone please answer. I heard that it is just like depleted uranium in that it is self-sharpening and pyrophoric, but not radioactive. DebateKid 20:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing history

The history section needs some work, and has some contradictory information. The first paragraph (which shouldn't be the first paragraph) gives the etymology of the name "Wolfram", with a 1747 date for Wallerius' denomination thereof. But then the next paragraph says it was first hypothesized to exist in 1779. I imagine there's something about it existing as an element in 1779, but I'm unsure just what's being said there. We probably need something more along the lines of Niobium#History, since they have similar naming issues. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Measuring the half life of Tungsten

Given that the half life is so long and that decay is therefore a very rare even I would like to ask how it is possible to accurately measure its half life? For example if a reasonable mass of Tungsten only has one theoretical atomic decay a year there is a real statistical chance (by random variation) that none or more may occur and so one would surelyneed to measure over an unfeasable period of time? Also such a low rate would surely be masked by contamination and background radiation?

[ManInStone]

I have no idea how they measure it, but here are some references that might help: http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/ensdf/getrefs.jsp?recid=180074002 --Itub 14:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the refernces, I followed them up, but they just seemed to contain tables of values rather than an explanation of the method. Perhaps this method should be covered by the "half life" page. I gather Bismuth has an even lower decay rate.--ManInStone 14:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Weight

Hoping to find how much Tungsten Carbide weighs relative to gold or platinum. Figure others would also be interested when evaluating for jewlery purposes. DE66.104.16.162 16:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Mark Hubbard here: One provider of tungsten carbide powder lists its density as 15.63: http://www.reade.com/products/Carbides/tungsten_carbide.html Pure gold is around 19.32 (densities vary from source to source) and Platinum around 21.09. So WC would be slightly heavier than 18K gold.71.128.36.112 03:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apparent copyright violation / lack of attribution

Mark Hubbard here: at least two sections have extensive text that appears to have been copied verbatim from http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Tungsten. If this text is being used with permission, then I assume there should be a linked attribution.71.128.36.112 22:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

(moved here) - Wikipedia's copyrights allow anyone to mirror its content, provided that proper attribution is given. - The site is a copy of this article, not the other way around, so there's no problem. Femto 15:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed scrolling to the bottom of that site reveals their notice: The contents of this article are licensed from Wikipedia.org under the GNU Free Documentation License. How to see transparent copy. IvoShandor 17:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Mark Hubbard here: Thank you for setting me straight on this and moving my concerns to the proper place. I'll be more careful in the future in both regards.71.128.36.112 19:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] At what temperature does tungsten burn

"Tungsten metal forms a protective oxide when exposed to air but can be oxidized at high temperature."

From what I read in a research paper a while ago (in which they heat tungsten by induction in still air), the oxide has a lower melting point than the tungsten metal, which allows it to be ablated away by a hot enough flame, and the layers of tungsten underneath oxidized and ablated away and so on. But what temperature, exactly?

Which of these forms under a hot flame? All of them? What's the minimum temperature flame required to turn a piece of tungsten into smoke (rather than just heat it up)? Would a pure oxygen atmosphere make a difference? — Omegatron 18:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

what is the price for Tungsten

[edit] Aqueous polyoxoanions

At some stage during extensive edits of Tungsten by User:Ziggy Sawdust on 2nd May, the following section has been removed. That appears to have done that without explanation or discussion, and the result is that the Chemical properties and Compounds sections of the article are badly degraded.

"Aqueous polyoxoanions

Aqueous tungstate solutions are noted for the formation of heteropoly acids and polyoxometalate anions under neutral and acidic conditions. As tungstate is progressively treated with acid, it first yields the soluble, metastable "paratungstate A" anion, W7O246−, which over hours or days converts to the less soluble "paratungstate B" anion, H2W12O4210−. Further acidification produces the very soluble metatungstate anion, H2W12O406−, after equilibrium is reached. The metatungstate ion exists as a symmetric cluster of twelve tungsten-oxygen octahedra known as the "Keggin" anion. Many other polyoxometalate anions exist as metastable species. The inclusion of a different atom such as phosphorus in place of the two central hydrogens in metatungstate produces a wide variety of heteropoly acids, such as phosphotungstic acid H3P W12O40 in this example."

Your changes to the Applications section are also unhelpful. They have degraded the information content of the section, and again the changes appear to have been made without discussion with the article's editors. Plantsurfer (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What I'm trying to do is nuke the unsourced content. If I can find a reference for any of the applications, I'll put them back in, or if (better yet) you could find something, I'd be fine with that, but until then... Ziggy Sawdust 18:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I replied to you on my talk page. Plantsurfer (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review

  • I think the high melting temperature is mentioned one times too many. I admit this is minor but the article starts and ends mentioning this property.
  • The Chromium page combines the etymology within the history section. Consider this because both sections are relatively short and the topics seem to complement each other. The Helium page has history down the page a bit but where you guys have it seems fine.
  • I think I found and fixed the punctuation after reference problem. Also removed a redundant sentence that mentioned fluorescent lighting.
  • There's still some cases of Celsius being spelled out. I don't think this is desired per the MoS.
  • The first sentence of the Chemical Properties seems to need a home or some other sentences around it to keep it company. "Tungsten resists attack by oxygen, acids, and alkalis."
  • The first sentence of the Biological role also seems to be hanging. Why not combine it with the next sentence without a break.
  • The tungsten (VI) oxide link doesn't work. The red link is distracting. If it's not essential consider removing it.
  • I realize this is a chemistry page but the chemical formulas that open up the first sentence of the Production section are over-kill.
  • How is it that the Spanish isolated the element but the Swedes named it? I'm just curious. There might be an interesting bit of history there.
  • Look at the reference section on the Gold, Mercury and Helium pages. The type is smaller, there's no underlining and they look cleaner. I know formatting references are a pain but consider this.
  • Consider the wolframite picture for the page.
  • I hope this review helps. I've given this review hoping for a reciprocal review of the Solar energy page. No worries, if you can't get through it but any suggestions would help. Mrshaba (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review notes

A very well-written article that was interesting and a pleasure to read. I've included in this review stuff that isn't a deal breaker for GA status because a little bird told me someone wanted to take this to FAC. (You go, Ziggy!) (Apologies for the weird additions to this review, I'm at work, so I keep having to save the page, log out, and hop up. Also I'm realizing too late that I should have put these on the PR page.)

[edit] Not that important, but would be nice to fix

  • Flesh out the references with author, date, title, publisher, and accessdate, especially the ones that are currently just raw URLs.
  • I think the hacksaw thing is a little too detailed for the third sentence, I would leave it more general and get into the specifics of what you can cut it with further down. Similarly, I don't know if you need "as both the filament and target" for the X-ray stuff in the lead.
  • Under "Physical properties", the word "work" is repeated a lot. Maybe you could substitute "metalworking" or something to cut down on the repetitiveness. Also, those sentences are a little choppy and could maybe stand to be combined into fewer, longer ones.
  • Perhaps you should check with WikiProject Elements, but my instinct is that you should expand 'yr' to 'years' to avoid unnecessary abbrev.'s. :P (I notice the FA Titanium has 'years').
  • It's best to avoid starting a sentence with a numeral, as in "27 artificial radioisotopes of tungsten..." Spell out or reword.
  • The sentence "Tungsten resists attack by oxygen, acids, and alkalis" is a little lonely there by itself; maybe you could expand on the concept and explain for the lay reader what attack means. It might be good to bulk up this part of the section to give the reader a bit of an introduction to the rest of it.
  • A few sentences could probably be explained more for the lay reader, e.g. "Aqueous tungstate solutions are noted for the formation of heteropoly acids and polyoxometalate anions under neutral and acidic conditions." Maybe define aqueous, heteropoly acids, and polyo-who-juh-muh-what-uh-muh (though it's good that it's wikilinked).
  • It strikes me as odd that the physical and chemical properties sections are separated. Titanium has a "Characteristics" section with physical and chemical properties as subsections. What about Characteristics, with subsections physical, chemical, and isotopes?
  • "Enzymes called oxidoreductases use tungsten in a way that is similar to molybdenum by using it in a tungsten-pterin complex."--I would explain how they use it, and what they use it for, I'm sure your average reader won't understand how organisms use molybdenum. Plus, this and the sentence before it make very short paragraphs, which it's better to avoid if possible, for better flow. Also, a citation would be good here.
  • You should check the bot generated titles and remove the commented-out notes if they're correct (in addition to adding the other needed info to the citations).
  • What does 'produce hardness at high temperatures' mean?
  • I would move 'the second highest of any known element' to the properties section, where it's already discussed.
  • The sentence beginning "The hardness and density of tungsten find uses..." is too long.
  • I like how you explain why the uses in darts and fishing lures are due to the high density. Can you do that for the musical instrument strings too? Otherwise it's not clear why that belongs in that paragraph.
  • What is thermal expansion, and why is it useful for glass to metal seals?
  • What property makes tungsten useful for shielding?
  • Since the applications section is long, it could stand to have another image, and there are plenty of opportunities for cool ones: armaments or rings, for example. I bet you could find some nice ones on commons.
  • The "Production" section tells us "The extraction of tungsten has several stages..." but doesn't tell us what the stages are.
  • Can you explain better the difference between China having 57% of the particular minerals and 75% of the world's tungsten resources? It's not necessarily a contradiction, but it does make the reader do a double-take.
  • I would mention the density and hardness in the physical properties section. They're discussed extensively under "applications" and it would be good to have an introduction to these ideas. I was surprised how short the physical and chemical properties sections were, but I'm not really qualified to know whether important aspects are being left out. Is there anything you could expand on there?

[edit] Important

  • Is this a contradiction? In the lead it says it has the highest melting point of all non-alloyed metals, lower down it says "of all metals". Can this be clarified?
I think it means that there are alloys with higher melting point, but no pure metals. Nergaal (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Even if it is well known, you should give citations for the statistics in the "Isotopes" section. The GA criteria say to provide citations at a minimum for statistics. This can be helpful, for example, when vandals come in and change a number (us vandal fighters appreciate a quick way to check the facts).
I think it is better now. Nergaal (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

More to follow in a bit delldot on a public computer talk 00:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I think the applications section could use a bit of reorganizing. It has many very short paragraphs that disrupt the flow. I think it should be organized by property, which you've already done partly. For example, a paragraph on its hardness and which applications it useful for because of that, one on high temperature, one on density, and maybe an 'miscellaneous' paragraph. That way, it flows better and it's clearer why tungsten, rather than some other metal, is being used (e.g., why's it used as filler for plastics? If it's because it's dense, that sentence can go in the density paragraph). Basically, I'd work on grouping similar concepts. For example, maybe the thermal expansion sentence can go in or after the temperature uses paragraph. Since the section is pretty long, you could even do subsections by property.
Rewrote the section and divided it in metal/element uses, alloys and compounds. Nergaal (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Great work so far! Much more organized. What properties make it useful for the applications listed in the second paragraph? delldot talk 09:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
how is now? Nergaal (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "Typical contact holes can be as small as 65 nm." -- citation needed. At a minimum, all statistics need citations. Same with "some tungsten steels contain as much as 18% tungsten" and the sentence beginning "There are major deposits of these minerals in China..."
I think I've solved the problem. Nergaal (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Citations still needed for the 18% and China sentences. delldot talk 09:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
China fact has a ref. 18% also. Nergaal (talk) 10:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting this on hold for now, primarily to deal with the citation needed issues, but the article is quite well done and it's very close. It should be able to be quickly fixed. The reorganization of the Applications section would be good to get dealt with too, which doesn't seem like it'll be too hard; just group the similar concepts. Definitely keep me posted and let me know if I can offer any help or clarification! delldot on a public computer talk 01:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No progress, the nom's indef blocked. Failing the article. Anyone should feel free to fix these concerns and resubmit. delldot on a public computer talk 11:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Looking much better due to Nergaal's hard work! Any plans to work on my less important suggestions? There is still one section completely lacking in references: "Aqueous polyoxoanions". There are also a couple paragraphs lacking references, it would be best to provide at least one per paragraph. delldot talk 10:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I will try to work on some of them, but I was hoping for a quick fix:) Nergaal (talk) 11:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)