![]() | Discovery of the nonmetals was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 10 January 2024 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Discovery of chemical elements. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
I took this out :Lead was first purified and clearly differentiated from tin by medieval [[Alchemy and chemistry in Islam|Middle Eastern chemists]]<ref name=El-Eswed>{{Cite journal|title=Lead and Tin in Arabic Alchemy|first=Bassam I.|last=El-Eswed|journal=Arabic Sciences and Philosophy|year=2002|volume=12|pages=139–53|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|doi=10.1017/S0957423902002060}}</ref> as lead and tin were purified and clearly differentiated from at least Mesopotamian times. J8079s ( talk) 02:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
"The elements are listed generally in the order in which each was first defined as the pure element, as the exact date of discovery of most elements cannot be accurately defined."
What is this misconceived sentence supposed to mean? What does "defined as the pure element" mean ?? There is a problem with the word "defined". You can infer the existence of, discover, extract, measure, determine the properties of a chemical element, but you cannot "define" it. And what is a "pure element" ? All elements are "pure". Is the sentence intended to mean, the preparation of a sample of the element which is not mixed or compounded with any other element ? To what degree of purity ? For many elements, preparation of "pure" ( uncontaminated ) samples occured decades after the existence of the element was scientifically conclusive. Eregli bob ( talk) 04:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Queen Zer I suggest never existed. There are lots of websites that mention her and her gold or turquoise burial goods, but many are plainly humbug, for example many date her to 5500 BC. The earliest mummies are no earlier than about 3300 BC. I can find this reference [1] to a queen Zur, wife of an Athotis.
I suggest that Zer is a old variant of Djer(Aka Athothis), and hence not a queen. Gold was found associated with Djer, see [:File:CeremonialFlintKnife-Djer.png] for example. This site purports to have a picture of the gold and turqoise bracelet found on a human wrist at tomb O, identified as the tomb of Djer. I'll mark the article as "dubious".
In the "Recorded discoveries" table is a column headed "Isolation (widely known)". I have no clue what this means. What is it that is "widely known"? The element? The person who isolated it? The fact that it was isolated? 86.160.83.63 ( talk) 20:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
It needs to be clarified whether "discovery of smelting" refer to the smelting of iron or to the general technique. If the former, then why was there a 1800 year gap? If the latter, then it contradicts the statement earlier that "lead smelting began at least 9000 years ago". 86.181.201.159 ( talk) 13:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
When referring to Carbon, "Samaritans" are mentioned. This might be a mistake. Perhaps, Sumerians are meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.29.164 ( talk) 10:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
"chemical elements discoveries" is not idiomatic English. I would say it requires an apostrophe ("chemical elements' discoveries", i.e. the discoveries of the elements) or, better, should be changed to "chemical element discoveries". 86.135.115.218 ( talk) 10:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Platinum was known to native Americans before Columbus; shouldn't it be placed in the first table with a note about European discovery? - Soerfm ( talk) 14:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Why Bismuth is in the unrecorded list when it's clear steated that it was discovered in 1753? OTAVIO1981 ( talk) 15:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 20:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Timeline of chemical elements discoveries → Timeline of chemical element discoveries – Per comment above, current title is not proper English. 86.146.106.166 ( talk) 03:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
The current entry for 'chromium' under 'Unrecorded discoveries' is inconsistent with the Chromium article which states:
"Chromium oxide was used by the Chinese in the Qin dynasty over 2,000 years ago to coat metal weapons found with the Terracotta Army. Chromium was discovered as an element after it came to the attention of the Western world in the red crystalline mineral crocoite (lead(II) chromate), discovered in 1761 and initially used as a pigment. Louis Nicolas Vauquelin first isolated chromium metal from this mineral in 1797."
-- Kevjonesin ( talk) 09:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
"Chromium...Before 1 CE... Terracotta Army...China...Found coating various weapons in China because of its high strength and corrosion resistance"
It seems clear the swords are not ‘chromed’ in the sense we understand it today, nor was the identified material used to coat them chromium as such, but a reduction of chromium in combination with other material (into Potassium chromate) and it may be that chromium was created in a reduction process rather than actual isolated. [2]
When I typed in "When was Zinc discovered" in Google, it was discovered in 1746. But in the article, it was discovered before the Middle Ages. Should I change Zinc to "Discovered to Middle Ages?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erbium Is Awesome ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
He was not a person. This is the title of a book. Double sharp ( talk) 04:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Timeline of chemical element discoveries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I find the "in widespread use" for this element and the source given rather questionable. As far as I can gather, the sulfide (stibnite, Sb2S3), was used (in cosmetics) but not known as an element or metal until much later. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] The "in widespread use" bit implies the element, not a compound. Kleuske ( talk) 23:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
References
A lot of earlier sources (and even the Wikiepdia article on it) claim 2003, but why so recent here?
Same thing for the others. I'm sure flerovium was 1999 and livermorium was 2000.
Vandalism? Or something further?
8.40.151.110 ( talk) 23:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Note that after the IUPAC reports accepting the discoveries of moscovium and tennessine, there have appeared new articles noting some incongruencies in the decay chains ( one, two). Burzuchius and I have remarked on this at Talk:Tennessine#Number of atoms and isotopes): the nuclides involved are probably still Mc and Ts isotopes and their daughters, but they might not be the ones claimed, and some of the more removed daughters may have been misidentified more significantly (the extremely short half-life of 277Mt to spontaneous fission that is claimed is rather unusual given its odd proton that should hinder this, but if it is not the daughter of 281Rg but is instead the granddaughter of 280Rg via 280Ds, then it would make perfect sense as the even-even 276Hs). So it is plausible that in the future IUPAC will push back the discovery date even further, when future studies confirm these two elements beyond all reasonable doubt. (The names have already been officially assigned and will not change even if that happens, as it did with nobelium.)
It is honestly rather a pity that IUPAC has not commented on the discoveries of the first hundred elements. Different sources often give slightly different dates for some of them, and there are quite a few truly controversial cases such as lutetium and actinium. Double sharp ( talk) 04:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
P.S. The reason I chose this option is that otherwise it gets difficult to explain Nh. If you say Mc was discovered in 2003, then so was Nh, the year before the RIKEN team saw its first event, and so JINR should be the discoverers; but then it gets named Nh by RIKEN instead. Maybe rewriting it like Lu would be better. Similarly I'd add a note that Fl, Lv, and Og were discovered earlier but only published a bit later and recognised by IUPAC in even later experiments. But then if you use the earliest experiments for Fl and Lv the difficulty is that these seem to have undergone electron capture along the way, which would move forward the discovery of Nh; I think we would need to rewrite that like Pa.
All right, I seem to have convinced myself that it would work fairly well! So I guess I'll do it to avoid this confusion. Double sharp ( talk) 03:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Timeline of chemical element discoveries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
This article claims that "Hafnium was the last stable element to be discovered." The article on Hafnium calls it the penultimate stable element to be discovered. The article on Rhenium claims it to be the last stable one. I have no idea what's correct, just trying to point out the inconsistencies.-- 37.201.181.76 ( talk) 12:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
They seem to have been discovered after classical times (or else why wouldn't they be "planetary metals"?) but before phosphorus. Since the discovery of phosphorus is famous as the first one recorded I would imagine arsenic, antimony, zinc, and bismuth as "unrecorded medieval discoveries" but I can't find a source that really makes sense of that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:71BA:CFD0:BDF2:8137 ( talk) 16:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
P.S. even Co was called a semi-metal upon discovery. :) Double sharp ( talk) 08:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
According to this it's possible that Pd should be 1802: http://www.vanderkrogt.net/elements/element.php?sym=Pd
Also, I've seen some sources claiming 2005 for Og and 2009 for Mc and Ts. Is that when the first events were seen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:B1FB:9425:19EF:D9E4 ( talk) 14:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Did Berzelius actually think he had discovered it rather than simply isolating it? It's mentioned in works of his from before 1823... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:C95:5EFB:69C9:5AB5 ( talk) 12:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Should its discovery and isolation be the same date? Would that be 1797 or 1798? I can't tell from looking at the paper... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:4D19:7809:37F:4C7D ( talk) 17:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Antoine Lavoiser named Hydrogen in 1783 while reproducing the 1781 Cavendish experiment not 1793. The Hydrogen wiki page reports it correctly. The website cited ( http://elements.vanderkrogt.net/element.php?sym=h) does say 1793 in its header, but if you read the explanatory text below, it references the correct naming year twice. That 1793 in the header appears to be a typo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MC152 ( talk • contribs) 14:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
What do you make of what's said here? https://books.google.com/books?id=EFzuCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=beryllium+1828+yttrium+1828&source=bl&ots=-xmLzhddbd&sig=dDPDYLMsN8WQ_5VHTM2Hj-zM23c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjH75bin8TaAhWDesAKHRcPBms4ChDoATABegQIABA0#v=onepage&q&f=false If it's not true, I feel we can consider Wöhler the isolator of Y since we're considering Ørsted the isolator of Al. Squee3 ( talk) 18:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't helium be the first noble gas discovered technically? I know that they found out that the noble gases were a thing when they discovered argon, but helium is a noble gas. So can you please fix it?Porygon-Z 03:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 ( talk • contribs)
Another version of the plot showing the date of discovery that includes the Chemical Symbols. Plot of year and accumulative number of elements discovered
How can we have Scheele first observing O in 1771 and Sendivogius isolating it in 1604. How did Sendivogius manage to isolate it without observing it? The column heading says "widely known". Neither Scheele nor Priestley seem to have been aware of Sendivogius' work (or any other important scientists) so I don't see how that can be claimed to be widely known. This book backs up that idea (of not being widely known). Inserted in this edit by user:Double sharp. Spinning Spark 16:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Five trace radioactives actually have two significant discovery years: the year they were first made in a lab, and the year they were first found to be natural after all. (A sixth and seventh might be possible if live 247Cm is ever found.) These are already in the article, but maybe they could be clarified a bit more.
Element | Synthesis | Discovery in nature |
---|---|---|
Technetium (43) | 1937, Perrier and Segrè | 1962, Kenna and Kuroda |
Promethium (61) | 1945, Coryell, Marinsky, and Glendenin | 1965, Erämetsä |
Astatine (85) | 1940, Corson, MacKenzie, and Segrè | 1943, Karlik and Bernert |
Neptunium (93) | 1940, McMillan and Abelson | 1952, Peppard, Mason, Gray, and Mech |
Plutonium (94) | 1940-1, Seaborg, Wahl, Kennedy, and McMillan | 1941-2, Seaborg and Perlman |
Double sharp ( talk) 20:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Plantsurfer: The SD you have added is pointless. The page title is already sufficiently explanatory so WP:SDNONE applies. The only additional information is that there are 118 elements which, beside being superfluous and open to change, causes the SD to exceed the recommended 40 characters. Spinning Spark 22:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Who was the first person to recognize that yttria is a metal oxide, and when? Should that person be given credit for the discovery of Y?
Does it make sense for Be, Al, Si, and Zr to be listed as discovered by Davy in 1808? I know that he failed to isolate them, but this work certainly proved that glucine, alumine, silex, and zircone are metal oxides. The thing is, I've already been told elsewhere that this is incorrect, but it doesn't seem to be...
The reason I'm asking is because, to me at least, it would make the most sense to regard the discovery of an element as when the literature began to treat it as known. Squee3 ( talk) 18:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Timeline of chemical element discoveries's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "CRC":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
@ Apaugasma: I agree that my wording wasn't ideal, but I am uncertain about calling c.1500 (bismuth) "medieval". Do you have another suggestion? Double sharp ( talk) 15:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Should we split the list of modern discoveries? I feel it's a bit unwieldy, since it has roughly 100 rows.
We could simply split it by century: 1700s (ca. 25 entries), 1800s (ca. 40 entries), 1900 until present (ca. 35 entries).
(A less arbitrary / more scientific criterion would be nice, but the only one I can think of is the switch from discovery to synthesis, around 1940. Were there simliar fundamental changes in earlier times?)
The downside of separate lists would be that one cannot sort the whole table (e.g. by atomic number), but since we've already split the pre-modern elements from the rest, I guess that's OK.
— Chrisahn ( talk) 19:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia article Antimony:
An artifact, said to be part of a vase, made of antimony dating to about 3000 BC was found at Telloh, Chaldea (part of present-day Iraq), and a copper object plated with antimony dating between 2500 BC and 2200 BC has been found in Egypt. Austen, at a lecture by Herbert Gladstone in 1892, commented that "we only know of antimony at the present day as a highly brittle and crystalline metal, which could hardly be fashioned into a useful vase, and therefore this remarkable 'find' (artifact mentioned above) must represent the lost art of rendering antimony malleable."
The British archaeologist Roger Moorey was unconvinced the artifact was indeed a vase, mentioning that Selimkhanov, after his analysis of the Tello object (published in 1975), "attempted to relate the metal to Transcaucasian natural antimony" (i.e. native metal) and that "the antimony objects from Transcaucasia are all small personal ornaments." This weakens the evidence for a lost art "of rendering antimony malleable."
The Roman scholar Pliny the Elder described several ways of preparing antimony sulfide for medical purposes in his treatise Natural History, around 77 AD. Pliny the Elder also made a distinction between "male" and "female" forms of antimony; the male form is probably the sulfide, while the female form, which is superior, heavier, and less friable, has been suspected to be native metallic antimony.
The Greek naturalist Pedanius Dioscorides mentioned that antimony sulfide could be roasted by heating by a current of air. It is thought that this produced metallic antimony. Burzuchius ( talk) 19:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia article Potassium:
It was first suggested in 1702 that they were distinct elements that combine with the same anions to make similar salts...
Georg Ernst Stahl obtained experimental evidence that led him to suggest the fundamental difference of sodium and potassium salts in 1702...
The Russian book Популярная библиотека химических элементов presented the following sequence of discoveries:
... 15. Phosphorus (H. Brand, 1669) 16. Hydrogen (R. Boyle, 1670) 17 & 18. Potassium & sodium (it is not said who, but probably G. E. Stahl, 1702 is meant?) 19. Calcium 20. Silicon 21. Cobalt (G. Brandt, 1735) ...
Burzuchius ( talk) 20:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Per this AfD discussion—looking at this article, I don't necessarily see why it needs to be a "timeline" article. There's certainly enough connective tissue to write a full prose article, and many of the entries are prose anyway. A question is whether this article should be kept and trimmed, or whether it should just be moved and reworked into a proper prose article. Thoughts? Remsense 留 09:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus ( talk) 02:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Timeline of chemical element discoveries → Discovery of chemical elements – This is almost a prose article already, and I think there's enough connective material historically to simply make it one. See above. Remsense 留 21:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Discovery of the nonmetals was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 10 January 2024 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Discovery of chemical elements. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
I took this out :Lead was first purified and clearly differentiated from tin by medieval [[Alchemy and chemistry in Islam|Middle Eastern chemists]]<ref name=El-Eswed>{{Cite journal|title=Lead and Tin in Arabic Alchemy|first=Bassam I.|last=El-Eswed|journal=Arabic Sciences and Philosophy|year=2002|volume=12|pages=139–53|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|doi=10.1017/S0957423902002060}}</ref> as lead and tin were purified and clearly differentiated from at least Mesopotamian times. J8079s ( talk) 02:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
"The elements are listed generally in the order in which each was first defined as the pure element, as the exact date of discovery of most elements cannot be accurately defined."
What is this misconceived sentence supposed to mean? What does "defined as the pure element" mean ?? There is a problem with the word "defined". You can infer the existence of, discover, extract, measure, determine the properties of a chemical element, but you cannot "define" it. And what is a "pure element" ? All elements are "pure". Is the sentence intended to mean, the preparation of a sample of the element which is not mixed or compounded with any other element ? To what degree of purity ? For many elements, preparation of "pure" ( uncontaminated ) samples occured decades after the existence of the element was scientifically conclusive. Eregli bob ( talk) 04:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Queen Zer I suggest never existed. There are lots of websites that mention her and her gold or turquoise burial goods, but many are plainly humbug, for example many date her to 5500 BC. The earliest mummies are no earlier than about 3300 BC. I can find this reference [1] to a queen Zur, wife of an Athotis.
I suggest that Zer is a old variant of Djer(Aka Athothis), and hence not a queen. Gold was found associated with Djer, see [:File:CeremonialFlintKnife-Djer.png] for example. This site purports to have a picture of the gold and turqoise bracelet found on a human wrist at tomb O, identified as the tomb of Djer. I'll mark the article as "dubious".
In the "Recorded discoveries" table is a column headed "Isolation (widely known)". I have no clue what this means. What is it that is "widely known"? The element? The person who isolated it? The fact that it was isolated? 86.160.83.63 ( talk) 20:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
It needs to be clarified whether "discovery of smelting" refer to the smelting of iron or to the general technique. If the former, then why was there a 1800 year gap? If the latter, then it contradicts the statement earlier that "lead smelting began at least 9000 years ago". 86.181.201.159 ( talk) 13:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
When referring to Carbon, "Samaritans" are mentioned. This might be a mistake. Perhaps, Sumerians are meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.29.164 ( talk) 10:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
"chemical elements discoveries" is not idiomatic English. I would say it requires an apostrophe ("chemical elements' discoveries", i.e. the discoveries of the elements) or, better, should be changed to "chemical element discoveries". 86.135.115.218 ( talk) 10:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Platinum was known to native Americans before Columbus; shouldn't it be placed in the first table with a note about European discovery? - Soerfm ( talk) 14:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Why Bismuth is in the unrecorded list when it's clear steated that it was discovered in 1753? OTAVIO1981 ( talk) 15:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved. -- BDD ( talk) 20:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Timeline of chemical elements discoveries → Timeline of chemical element discoveries – Per comment above, current title is not proper English. 86.146.106.166 ( talk) 03:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
The current entry for 'chromium' under 'Unrecorded discoveries' is inconsistent with the Chromium article which states:
"Chromium oxide was used by the Chinese in the Qin dynasty over 2,000 years ago to coat metal weapons found with the Terracotta Army. Chromium was discovered as an element after it came to the attention of the Western world in the red crystalline mineral crocoite (lead(II) chromate), discovered in 1761 and initially used as a pigment. Louis Nicolas Vauquelin first isolated chromium metal from this mineral in 1797."
-- Kevjonesin ( talk) 09:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
"Chromium...Before 1 CE... Terracotta Army...China...Found coating various weapons in China because of its high strength and corrosion resistance"
It seems clear the swords are not ‘chromed’ in the sense we understand it today, nor was the identified material used to coat them chromium as such, but a reduction of chromium in combination with other material (into Potassium chromate) and it may be that chromium was created in a reduction process rather than actual isolated. [2]
When I typed in "When was Zinc discovered" in Google, it was discovered in 1746. But in the article, it was discovered before the Middle Ages. Should I change Zinc to "Discovered to Middle Ages?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erbium Is Awesome ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
He was not a person. This is the title of a book. Double sharp ( talk) 04:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Timeline of chemical element discoveries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I find the "in widespread use" for this element and the source given rather questionable. As far as I can gather, the sulfide (stibnite, Sb2S3), was used (in cosmetics) but not known as an element or metal until much later. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] The "in widespread use" bit implies the element, not a compound. Kleuske ( talk) 23:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
References
A lot of earlier sources (and even the Wikiepdia article on it) claim 2003, but why so recent here?
Same thing for the others. I'm sure flerovium was 1999 and livermorium was 2000.
Vandalism? Or something further?
8.40.151.110 ( talk) 23:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Note that after the IUPAC reports accepting the discoveries of moscovium and tennessine, there have appeared new articles noting some incongruencies in the decay chains ( one, two). Burzuchius and I have remarked on this at Talk:Tennessine#Number of atoms and isotopes): the nuclides involved are probably still Mc and Ts isotopes and their daughters, but they might not be the ones claimed, and some of the more removed daughters may have been misidentified more significantly (the extremely short half-life of 277Mt to spontaneous fission that is claimed is rather unusual given its odd proton that should hinder this, but if it is not the daughter of 281Rg but is instead the granddaughter of 280Rg via 280Ds, then it would make perfect sense as the even-even 276Hs). So it is plausible that in the future IUPAC will push back the discovery date even further, when future studies confirm these two elements beyond all reasonable doubt. (The names have already been officially assigned and will not change even if that happens, as it did with nobelium.)
It is honestly rather a pity that IUPAC has not commented on the discoveries of the first hundred elements. Different sources often give slightly different dates for some of them, and there are quite a few truly controversial cases such as lutetium and actinium. Double sharp ( talk) 04:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
P.S. The reason I chose this option is that otherwise it gets difficult to explain Nh. If you say Mc was discovered in 2003, then so was Nh, the year before the RIKEN team saw its first event, and so JINR should be the discoverers; but then it gets named Nh by RIKEN instead. Maybe rewriting it like Lu would be better. Similarly I'd add a note that Fl, Lv, and Og were discovered earlier but only published a bit later and recognised by IUPAC in even later experiments. But then if you use the earliest experiments for Fl and Lv the difficulty is that these seem to have undergone electron capture along the way, which would move forward the discovery of Nh; I think we would need to rewrite that like Pa.
All right, I seem to have convinced myself that it would work fairly well! So I guess I'll do it to avoid this confusion. Double sharp ( talk) 03:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Timeline of chemical element discoveries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
This article claims that "Hafnium was the last stable element to be discovered." The article on Hafnium calls it the penultimate stable element to be discovered. The article on Rhenium claims it to be the last stable one. I have no idea what's correct, just trying to point out the inconsistencies.-- 37.201.181.76 ( talk) 12:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
They seem to have been discovered after classical times (or else why wouldn't they be "planetary metals"?) but before phosphorus. Since the discovery of phosphorus is famous as the first one recorded I would imagine arsenic, antimony, zinc, and bismuth as "unrecorded medieval discoveries" but I can't find a source that really makes sense of that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:71BA:CFD0:BDF2:8137 ( talk) 16:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
P.S. even Co was called a semi-metal upon discovery. :) Double sharp ( talk) 08:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
According to this it's possible that Pd should be 1802: http://www.vanderkrogt.net/elements/element.php?sym=Pd
Also, I've seen some sources claiming 2005 for Og and 2009 for Mc and Ts. Is that when the first events were seen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:B1FB:9425:19EF:D9E4 ( talk) 14:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Did Berzelius actually think he had discovered it rather than simply isolating it? It's mentioned in works of his from before 1823... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:C95:5EFB:69C9:5AB5 ( talk) 12:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Should its discovery and isolation be the same date? Would that be 1797 or 1798? I can't tell from looking at the paper... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:4D19:7809:37F:4C7D ( talk) 17:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Antoine Lavoiser named Hydrogen in 1783 while reproducing the 1781 Cavendish experiment not 1793. The Hydrogen wiki page reports it correctly. The website cited ( http://elements.vanderkrogt.net/element.php?sym=h) does say 1793 in its header, but if you read the explanatory text below, it references the correct naming year twice. That 1793 in the header appears to be a typo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MC152 ( talk • contribs) 14:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
What do you make of what's said here? https://books.google.com/books?id=EFzuCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=beryllium+1828+yttrium+1828&source=bl&ots=-xmLzhddbd&sig=dDPDYLMsN8WQ_5VHTM2Hj-zM23c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjH75bin8TaAhWDesAKHRcPBms4ChDoATABegQIABA0#v=onepage&q&f=false If it's not true, I feel we can consider Wöhler the isolator of Y since we're considering Ørsted the isolator of Al. Squee3 ( talk) 18:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't helium be the first noble gas discovered technically? I know that they found out that the noble gases were a thing when they discovered argon, but helium is a noble gas. So can you please fix it?Porygon-Z 03:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 ( talk • contribs)
Another version of the plot showing the date of discovery that includes the Chemical Symbols. Plot of year and accumulative number of elements discovered
How can we have Scheele first observing O in 1771 and Sendivogius isolating it in 1604. How did Sendivogius manage to isolate it without observing it? The column heading says "widely known". Neither Scheele nor Priestley seem to have been aware of Sendivogius' work (or any other important scientists) so I don't see how that can be claimed to be widely known. This book backs up that idea (of not being widely known). Inserted in this edit by user:Double sharp. Spinning Spark 16:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Five trace radioactives actually have two significant discovery years: the year they were first made in a lab, and the year they were first found to be natural after all. (A sixth and seventh might be possible if live 247Cm is ever found.) These are already in the article, but maybe they could be clarified a bit more.
Element | Synthesis | Discovery in nature |
---|---|---|
Technetium (43) | 1937, Perrier and Segrè | 1962, Kenna and Kuroda |
Promethium (61) | 1945, Coryell, Marinsky, and Glendenin | 1965, Erämetsä |
Astatine (85) | 1940, Corson, MacKenzie, and Segrè | 1943, Karlik and Bernert |
Neptunium (93) | 1940, McMillan and Abelson | 1952, Peppard, Mason, Gray, and Mech |
Plutonium (94) | 1940-1, Seaborg, Wahl, Kennedy, and McMillan | 1941-2, Seaborg and Perlman |
Double sharp ( talk) 20:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Plantsurfer: The SD you have added is pointless. The page title is already sufficiently explanatory so WP:SDNONE applies. The only additional information is that there are 118 elements which, beside being superfluous and open to change, causes the SD to exceed the recommended 40 characters. Spinning Spark 22:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Who was the first person to recognize that yttria is a metal oxide, and when? Should that person be given credit for the discovery of Y?
Does it make sense for Be, Al, Si, and Zr to be listed as discovered by Davy in 1808? I know that he failed to isolate them, but this work certainly proved that glucine, alumine, silex, and zircone are metal oxides. The thing is, I've already been told elsewhere that this is incorrect, but it doesn't seem to be...
The reason I'm asking is because, to me at least, it would make the most sense to regard the discovery of an element as when the literature began to treat it as known. Squee3 ( talk) 18:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Timeline of chemical element discoveries's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "CRC":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
@ Apaugasma: I agree that my wording wasn't ideal, but I am uncertain about calling c.1500 (bismuth) "medieval". Do you have another suggestion? Double sharp ( talk) 15:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Should we split the list of modern discoveries? I feel it's a bit unwieldy, since it has roughly 100 rows.
We could simply split it by century: 1700s (ca. 25 entries), 1800s (ca. 40 entries), 1900 until present (ca. 35 entries).
(A less arbitrary / more scientific criterion would be nice, but the only one I can think of is the switch from discovery to synthesis, around 1940. Were there simliar fundamental changes in earlier times?)
The downside of separate lists would be that one cannot sort the whole table (e.g. by atomic number), but since we've already split the pre-modern elements from the rest, I guess that's OK.
— Chrisahn ( talk) 19:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia article Antimony:
An artifact, said to be part of a vase, made of antimony dating to about 3000 BC was found at Telloh, Chaldea (part of present-day Iraq), and a copper object plated with antimony dating between 2500 BC and 2200 BC has been found in Egypt. Austen, at a lecture by Herbert Gladstone in 1892, commented that "we only know of antimony at the present day as a highly brittle and crystalline metal, which could hardly be fashioned into a useful vase, and therefore this remarkable 'find' (artifact mentioned above) must represent the lost art of rendering antimony malleable."
The British archaeologist Roger Moorey was unconvinced the artifact was indeed a vase, mentioning that Selimkhanov, after his analysis of the Tello object (published in 1975), "attempted to relate the metal to Transcaucasian natural antimony" (i.e. native metal) and that "the antimony objects from Transcaucasia are all small personal ornaments." This weakens the evidence for a lost art "of rendering antimony malleable."
The Roman scholar Pliny the Elder described several ways of preparing antimony sulfide for medical purposes in his treatise Natural History, around 77 AD. Pliny the Elder also made a distinction between "male" and "female" forms of antimony; the male form is probably the sulfide, while the female form, which is superior, heavier, and less friable, has been suspected to be native metallic antimony.
The Greek naturalist Pedanius Dioscorides mentioned that antimony sulfide could be roasted by heating by a current of air. It is thought that this produced metallic antimony. Burzuchius ( talk) 19:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia article Potassium:
It was first suggested in 1702 that they were distinct elements that combine with the same anions to make similar salts...
Georg Ernst Stahl obtained experimental evidence that led him to suggest the fundamental difference of sodium and potassium salts in 1702...
The Russian book Популярная библиотека химических элементов presented the following sequence of discoveries:
... 15. Phosphorus (H. Brand, 1669) 16. Hydrogen (R. Boyle, 1670) 17 & 18. Potassium & sodium (it is not said who, but probably G. E. Stahl, 1702 is meant?) 19. Calcium 20. Silicon 21. Cobalt (G. Brandt, 1735) ...
Burzuchius ( talk) 20:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Per this AfD discussion—looking at this article, I don't necessarily see why it needs to be a "timeline" article. There's certainly enough connective tissue to write a full prose article, and many of the entries are prose anyway. A question is whether this article should be kept and trimmed, or whether it should just be moved and reworked into a proper prose article. Thoughts? Remsense 留 09:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus ( talk) 02:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Timeline of chemical element discoveries → Discovery of chemical elements – This is almost a prose article already, and I think there's enough connective material historically to simply make it one. See above. Remsense 留 21:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)