Talk:Holmium

Information Sources

Some of the text in this entry was rewritten from Los Alamos National Laboratory - Holmium. Additional text was taken directly from the Elements database 20001107 (via dict.org) and from 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.

---

Magnetic Properties

In the introduction it states that Holmium has the highest magnetic permeability of any element and is there element and therefore is used for the polepieces of the strongest static magnets. It should say highest magnetic saturation moment. It is the moment rather than the permeability that is reason it is used in pole pieces for "strong" synthetic magnets. In the section Application Also magnetic strengthis a poorly defined quantity, it would be better to use magnetic moment or magnetic saturation moment

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that holmium has the highest magnetic moment of any naturally occurring element? Source: Emsley, John (2011). Nature's Building Blocks: An A-Z Guide to the Elements. Oxford University Press. p. 226. ISBN 978-0-19-960563-7.
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Praseodymium-141 (talk). Self-nominated at 13:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Holmium; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• article looks good, was recently improved to GA status, is long enough and is within policy. The hook looks good, is short enough and interesting. Praseodymium-141, you should consider using File:Holmium2.jpg in the nomination, as I think it is pretty eye-catching. It appears this is the user's fifth nomination, so no QPQ needed. Note the source is offline, AGF. However the fact also appears widely cited in other online sources. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Earwig alerts to a mirror. Lightburst (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Unexplained edits

@Burzuchius made two edits without edit summaries. One removed a {{dubious}} tag with no comment. The other edit removed a {{failed verification}} tag but left the source in place. I have reverted these changes pending an explanation. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@Burzuchius Please do not delete secondary references without comment or discussion. See WP:PSTS. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Popular culture

Is it too transient, or is the popular Tik-Tok slang 6-7 fro 'Ho' worth mentioning?

Fustbariclation (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2025 (UTC) Fustbariclation (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

You will need a reliable reference that links the element to the meme. It would not be due weight for this article, possibly for the 6-7 (meme) article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:02, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Scientific articles, such as those about elements, do not mention popular culture references unless they are exceptionally significant and well-documented in reliable sources. ^Complex/_Rational 14:22, 18 October 2025 (UTC)