![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Hi there
For those who have not been following, the Chemistry MOS has been ratified in its current form ( WP:CHEMMOS) by WP:CHEM and WP:CHEMISTRY. I think it would be quite appropriate for the structure of elements articles to be formalized in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/Elements. Especially so in light of recent discussions.
Would WP:ELEMENTS be interested? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 01:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
(reset) The main synching you need will be the "summary" paragraph on the main page ( WP:CHEMMOS). Take a look at the *source* of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry)/Nomenclature to see how it works. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 07:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC) That said, it would be best that your document is stable, before we do anything like that. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 07:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
(Reposted from the Magnesium TALK page, as a topic that needs general RfC):
Vandalism by IP users is getting out of hand on this article and so I've requested semi-protection. -- Marc Kupper| talk 07:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Protecting these articles is only a quick fix and does not solve the problem. If the IPs are making unconstructive edits, they should be blocked. The amount of vandalism coming out of educational institues is absurd. And if there are students who are actually trying to contribute, then they can create an account at home and use it at their educational institute. Of course, these IPs are most likely already blocked but what i'm saying is that proctecting these articles does not solve the problem.
I don't mean that we shouldn't protect the articles, while I agree that high profile articles should be protected if there is a large amount vandalism, but protecting these articles to prevent possible vandalism is not the answer. We should concentrate on blocking these troublesome IPs instead of stopping all IPs from editing the articles.
I also agree that a large amount of editors come from school IPs. I for one started editing on my schools IP for a while till it was blocked (not my fault, or was it?) then I created an account and have been here since. Jerry teps ( talk) 01:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
My rule of thumb for any decent-sized article (>30kb) is > 1 edit/day by multiple IPs --> semiprotect. Life is too short for this. Mav also has a point. Gets even worse when there are 2 or 3 IPs in quick succession. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
As someone who has every element page on his watchlist and is very active in reverting vandalism, I don't think element articles are ones that receive a particularly large amount of vandalism. Although I'm fairly quick to protect pages compared to other admins, and would probably favor protecting all the element pages if it were entirely up to me, I don't think the Wikipedia community will be all that accepting of the idea. If a request were made at WP:RFPP for a page that has the amount of vandalism that an element page gets, it would probably be turned down. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 11:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Asked for my opinion as an occasional reverter, I would think that a lot depends on the level of targeting of an article. IP-idiots are a major pain - I strongly feel all schools need a policy on policing the activities of their own students, and that Wikipedia should be more active in contacting the schools concerned to establish a dialog with the responsible teachers. And also that we should be more active in tracking down the IP addresses and identifying the schools - but that is a major hassle when there is so much else to be doing, so it does not get done much. Bottom line - semi-protection would be a good idea, but I really like the idea mentioned above - tokens and penalties. docboat ( talk) 13:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Being a vandal fighter asked for an opinion, I have to say I haven't really seen much vandalism in this topic compared to most other areas. I don't think mass protection of all element articles is required, nor would the rest of the community support this proposal of effectively shutting off a whole section of Wikipedia, especially when there are thousands of unprotected BLP articles and the like vandalised far more often. I would suggest prehaps semi-protecting just a few articles that have the biggest problem. QueenCake ( talk) 19:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Being a vandal fighter and recent page patroller as stated above by Queencake I agree with what Queencake has said that vandalism in these pages is less compared to vandalism in other pages.I too would suggest semi-protecting a few articles . I do not support mass protection of all element articles nor would the rest of the Wikipedia would support this proposal of effectively shutting off a whole section of Wikipedia, especially when there are thousands of unprotected BLP articles and the like vandalised far more often andd further Wikipedia is where anyone can edit hence do not feel the community will accept any blanket proposal. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 00:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
As for the other comments on this, the best is enemy of the good. I'd like to see flagged revisions and sprotection of BLP, too. But we have a simpler proposal before us now. S B H arris 05:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
As a dedicated anti - vandal, I would have to say that: I do not think that Element pages are vandalized more (or less) than other page categories. This is not to say that anonymous IP vandalism isn't a widespread problem on WikiPedia as a whole (Boy, is it ever!). Really, IMO those of us who Huggle manage to catch quite a bit of the random vandalism that occurs. Outside of huggle, I don't find vandalism in articles very frequently. Maybe because I mainly read history.. My two cents. 𝕭𝖗𝔦𝔞𝔫𝕶𝔫𝔢𝔷 talk 23:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
List of Radioactive Elements has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.201.179 ( talk) 04:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:56, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
I tried to upgrade the chromium article in the last few days. I will try to finish with the Biological role and the Precautions section soon ( already some hidden text there), but for the first two thirds I would be glad if some native speakers could help me to get it to be brilant pros, which is out of my reach, I think. Thanks.-- Stone ( talk) 22:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm building an easily-browsable list of all isotopes articles at
User:Headbomb/Sandbox5See below. Dunno if this is article material, but it certainly is of interest to this project. Feedback/help is appreciated.
Headbomb {
ταλκ
κοντριβς –
WP Physics}
00:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The tables are now complete (minus the metastable states). Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
This should probably not be in article space. Template or wikispace is more appropriate methinks. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest to include EC number in Element fact boxes, as CAS number is already. I've made a template for this purpose: Template:Elementbox_ec_number. -- Eivindgh ( talk) 21:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The addition of User:Dwmyers in february 2003 is still the major part of the histrory section and for me it looks like a little changed sentence by sentence copy of the book Production of Manganese Ferroalloys page 11, chapter history of mangneses. What is the right action to take if this is a real copy right violation? -- Stone ( talk) 07:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Take a look and feel free to debug it. With this all the isotope articles can be tagged, without clogging the stub/start list of articles of the main template. Nergaal ( talk) 01:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
at present, in the infobox, the stable isotopes have only natural abundances and the number of neutrons in each isotope. Imo the latter is really redundant, and I believe that for example, having the nuclear spin of the stable isotope (perhaps not only for the stable one) is incredibly more useful for an encyclopedic article. thoughts? Nergaal ( talk) 05:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi I posted something to the Project chemistry talk page and wanted to add it also to this talk page:
Hi, there is something happening at the boron aticle which needs a hand from more experienced admin or a editor, better familiar with the politics. Two groups discovered the new allotroph of boron and now one is accusing the other that he copied from his paper, because he got it previous to publication. This two groups are now plying a little bit with the boron article. Could we use some of the original research things on both groups to calm down the situatiuon? Thanks
--- Stone ( talk) 10:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't know if you guys have ever heard of Sporcle, but it's a game in which you're given a category and have to name all members of that category as fast as possible. I found one for the periodic table:
http://sporcle.com/games/elements.php
After about 10 tries, I was able to name all 118. Booyah! -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Many different issues have been mentioned with the current set of nav images (wrong/misleading neutron numbers, elements in wrong category/series, misleading crystal structure, almost useless empty shells, etc). The German version of WikiProject Elements, however, long ago abandoned nav images in favor of a small HTML table that highlighted the relevant box representing the element being viewed. I translated that and created a mock-up for discussion here. See below link.
The big benefit I see is that (in addition to having a clickable mini periodic table), we can change the format of the table much more easily; one table to edit vs 118 nav images.
Current format/layout is just for demonstration purposes; we can change it however we like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Zinc&oldid=281977709
Here is the source table:
Here is a compact version that would allow us to finally put images of elements at the top of the infobox; just to the right or left of the nav table:
So - what does everybody think? -- mav ( talk) 22:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
{{ElementImageMap
| symbol=O | name=oxygen | crystal structure=cubic | period=2 | number=8
}}
The google sholar search on the sentence A copper pendant was found in what is now northern Iraq that dates to 8700 BC. [1] yields two hits, but I think as the sentence is there since 18:22, 22 October 2002 I think this a copy from wiki. Any suggestions?-- Stone ( talk) 22:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Read and comment here if you like. -- mav ( talk) 14:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Plan now enacted and discussion is archived here. -- mav ( talk) 01:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Oxygen-24 , Oxygen-15 , Oxygen-13 - have been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.129 ( talk) 07:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I've been tagging some isotopes and there seems to be some confusion with which templates articles should be tagged. Here are certain suggestions (the general idea, the details could differ) which could give the project a lot more structure, with very little effort from your part (<3 bots!):
This would make it very easy to monitor the AfDs/PRODs of specific isotopes, ensure that all isotopes and elements are tagged and properly categorized, as well as reduce the confusion about which template to use. Bots could also create redirects based on the isotope tables (not necessarily all of them). Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed the old element banner pretty much placed everything in WP0.5. Was this correct/desired behaviour? Should it also do the same for isotope articles? It would probably be much better to have a |WP0.5=yes parameter so WP0.5 doesn't get cluttered with lists, redirects, categories, bad taggings, etc... Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
See WP:BOTREQ#Tagging and categorizing for WikiProject Elements (somewhat complex)
Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Does someone know when/if the IUPAC publishes a decision on the discovery rights for ununbium? After the independent confirmation of Uub by the Swiss in 2008, I don't see why they shouldn't accept the GSI's discovery now. The article ununbium claims the Joint Working Group's report would be published in "early 2009", but gives neither sources nor an exact date.-- Roentgenium111 ( talk) 13:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
You will get an answer from the press release on the webpage of the GSI.- Stone ( talk) 18:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Discovery of the element with atomic number 112 (IUPAC Technical Report) Nergaal ( talk) 20:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
A related question: When will the GSI suggest a name for this element? (I just pray they don't want to name it "wixhausium"...) -- Roentgenium111 ( talk) 19:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Most of the unnamed chemical elements (112-118) have the boilerplate claim
According to IUPAC rules, names used for previous elements that have ultimately not been adopted are not allowed to be proposed for future use.
but none gives a reference. Is this actually true? If so, IUPAC broke its own rule in the element naming controversy by proposing hahnium for element 108 (already proposed and used for 105), among others. -- Roentgenium111 ( talk) 22:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
There are currently no category for them. What should it be named? Metastable isotopes? Metastable isomers? Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Feedback/comments are welcome. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
A comment on the talk page of magnesium (which I couldn't answer to my shame) brought me to this conclusion: the atomic radii in all elementboxes are copied from Atomic radii of the elements (data page), which in turn are copied from webelements.com, which in turn are copied from the articles J.C. Slater, J. Chem. Phys. 1964, 41, 3199 ("empirical") and E. Clementi, D.L.Raimondi, and W.P. Reinhardt, J. Chem. Phys. 1967, 47, 1300 ("calculated)". The data are simply wrong and must be replaced. An easy check would be comparing the "metallic radii" and "empirical" radii at Atomic radii of the elements (data page). Checking the Slater's paper reveals that both are defined in the same way, i.e. half interatomic distance in the elemental solid, but the Slater's values are way off the current XRD data. An easy answer to that is that in 196os both the experiment and calculation did not have enough accuracy (not only measurements but also sample preparation). People who know me know that I have little tolerance to such blunders :), especially if they turn out at numerous FA and GA element pages. My intention is to (i) delete calculated radii, as they only mislead the reader and are subject to numerous theoretical assumption; (ii) replace the atomic radii in the elementboxes with proper values, which are just half of nearest-neighbor distances in elemental solids at room temperature. Whenever there are several crystalline forms at room temperature, I suggest taking an averaged value. Materialscientist ( talk) 01:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Sure. Good source for experimental values is "metallic radius" or simply X-ray diffraction data. I do not want to look for better calculated radii (sure they improved since 1967) because I do not see a reason to use them. Materialscientist ( talk) 03:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I went through the elementboxes and (i) deleted theoretical radii; (ii) replaced "atomic" with "metallic" from Atomic_radii_of_the_elements_(data_page) (reasonably recent ref), a few missing values took from X-ray data; (iii) updated "covalent" radii by values from Covalent_radius (again recent source, from a respectable database); (iv) updated oxidation states; (v) marked three test elementbox pages for quick deletion ( Template:Infobox_Fluorine, Template:Infobox_lanthanum and Template:Infobox_rhenium). Yes, whatever can be done there with bots, should be done with bots. Materialscientist ( talk) 09:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
As I understand, chemists like using those radii, because they got used to them, since 30s when Pauling had introduced them. However, they got used to those "imaginary" radii, which are just half of the interatomic bond (i.e. naively assuming spherical electron density and not using any modern quantum calculation methods). Speaking practically, if you look at carbon, you notice that I added 3 radii for sp³, sp² and sp cases; if you look at inert gases, you notice that I deleted most radii, because such solids as Ne, Ar, etc. have no "bonding" (perhaps vdW only), and molecular solids (O2, N2) etc. are again just molecules piled together, i.e. solid interactions are negligible compared to molecular ones. Materialscientist ( talk) 04:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
(i) As I explained above (you don't have to look, I can repeat), the previous values of "atomic radius" were too old and too wrong; I know they were wrong for metals and thus can't trust them for other elements; (ii) We should be careful about the name of a radius. Could you please explain the bonding in solid Ar ? I thought it is van der Waals type and thus keeping "atomic" and "vdW" radii is misleading. I thought that Ar has no other bonding than vdW, but I'm keen to learn. Regards Materialscientist ( talk) 10:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Lets go step by steps without calling each other idiots. (i) vdW of Ar is 188pm, not 234pm, is it or is it not ? (ii) the "atomic radii" of the elements listed at elementboxes before I changed them were taken from Atomic radii of the elements (data page) from the column "empiricial" with a reference to J.C. Slater, J. Chem. Phys. 1964, 41, 3199. (iii) That paper by Slater defined atomic radii as half nearest neighbor distance in elemental solid, which is exactly the definition of "metallic" radius. Materialscientist ( talk) 10:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Here is what I thought while updating: I have all XRD data for noble gases, which immediately gives the "atomic radius". For argon it is 186 pm, which is same as vdW radius. I backed off and just left one vdW radius. I guess I should copy it into "atomic radius" instead of deleting. If agreed, I'm glad to do that. Regarding ideal gas calculations, I am also amazed they are so close (well, Ar atom is indeed close to a ball), but I would not use those data simply because they are limited to few elements only. As mentioned, a major point of "radii" is to see the atomic trends (BTW, they were grossly distorted due to some accidental blunders around lanthanides in previous elementbox version). Materialscientist ( talk) 04:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Ironically, I just published a paper on solid xenon in Al matrix. What I can tell is that (i) knowledge on noble gas solids is very limited; (ii) if you put an atom in solid xenon (e.g. through implantation) it diffuses out. Those crystals are very "fluid", we saw dislocations healing themselves during TEM observations. Materialscientist ( talk) 04:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I came because I thought you may be having an arugment over definition :) I guess you really have to look at overall objective. If you are trying to convey to a reader who believes in a hard sphere model some idea of parameter values, then you can just go with that. If you want a table of lattice constants( scaled to get interatomic distance ) or bond lengths, you may just as well have different labels for the "radii" or differnt elements- one for noble gasses could even be called a radius, the others may be bond lengths. Trying to make up a definition for an imprecise term will only lead to calling each other idiots as there is no basis for a decision... Alternatively, you could have a huge table of bond lenghts between element X and Y with multiple entries in many cases, blanks in others. Nerdseeksblonde ( talk) 13:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, you could also get a consistent breakdown of each "element" into its components of earth,wind,fire, and water but I'm not sure what good it would be. I'm not dissing any particular method, but pointing out issues with model fits where the underlying assumptions aren't right. IF they aren't hard sphere, or composed of earth,wind,fire, and water, then a fit parameter needs to be considered more carefully. What is it you are trying to tell the reader by defining a radius for each element? Thinking about that may help. Further, there is little reason today to just pick one. Size is not an issue and in fact there may be existing tables which are curated more frequently, maybe NIST or CRC has something to which you could just link. NIST maybe a good resource to which to appeal more generally in these issues. Nerdseeksblonde ( talk) 20:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I refurbished my svg periodic table and wanted to start a discussion. The used image has been taged with the should be a svg and now I ask vor your oppinion. The nice thing is that everybody is able to modify it with a text editor and upload it. Wide colour changes can be done by simply search and replace options and singel places by searching in the svg for the element name and replace the colour at that place.-- Stone ( talk) 21:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Visually, I prefer the PNG version, though I realize that can be changed by editing the SVG version. When you first told me about the SVG version, I tried to figure out how to edit/preview it, but failed. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Links in the svg: This is absolutly no problem in a svg everything can be clickable. BUT wikipedia does not show the svg as svg, but as a converted graphic and the link information does not survive this process. Have a look at the new uploaded version, in the svg (click several times on the image [2]) the hydrogen and the helium are clickable (sorry but I put in relative path not absolute path and therefore it does not work properly.-- Stone ( talk) 06:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Changed the colours and made the links work. [3] (sorry still only in the svg)-- Stone ( talk) 07:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Forgive this unnecessary call, but thulium is a rarely visited page. Please vote at Talk:Thulium section "fiction". IMHO, Tanada's reverts are getting impolite; that is why asking third opinion. Materialscientist ( talk) 23:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
This paper would probably make a very good reference for the infoboxes. Nergaal ( talk) 04:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This userpage has been blanked. If this is your userpage, you can retrieve the contents of this page in the page history. Alternatively, if you would like it deleted, simply replace the content of this page with {{db-u1}}. |
I have just reverted the editor ( Wizard191) who moved the etched copper image into the alloys subsection. This is a nice picture for the lede inserted by another editor, Alchemist-hp, but unfortunately messed the layout a little. To fix the layout, I put the image in as a left-aligned image, since the infobox is already occupying the right-aligned position. Wizard191 moved it citing MOS:IMAGE. I presume he is referring to Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or infobox. It does not exactly forbid left-aligned images and this seems like a reasonable exception even if it were so. In any case, an image of pure copper is quite inappropriate for the alloys sub-section. SpinningSpark 12:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
<-- outdent. Okay, I'll copy this section over there, as all the general issues need addressing. Infoboxitis is something that (IMHO) can be dealt with inclusively, by adding infoboxes but making sure they don't replace other good stuff, and they don't end up dictating everything else. They're meant to help, not be fashion-nazis. In this case, where they tend to inhibit addition of a nice photo in the LEAD, they hinder the project. And for the record, I think it's a crying shame that Pussy Galore has been forced into a "James Bond franchise character" infobox. What's this encyclopedia coming to? It's some kind of obscessional madness. S B H arris 23:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
just realised you are having to write this out twice. SpinningSpark 09:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
How about the example I placed at the top of this section? Of course, a better image is needed, but this is the only one that is horizontally-oriented (which I think we should try to continue to use in the infoboxes). -- mav ( talk) 19:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Note to all: I plan to start seeding infoboxes with a few extra values that will be needed for the updated infobox to work. Protest now if you don't like the updated layout. -- mav ( talk) 02:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
We already got rid of the redundant boxes. As to image extension, can't you just take any possible image ? The situation is that elementbox takes an image file without extension and assumes it is .jpg. Can this be fixed to recognize that the file is actually .jpeg or .JPG or etc. ? Materialscientist ( talk) 04:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I just went through all elements and would not do that again just to add .jpg :) As I understand your solution, entering either x or x.jpg will put file x.jpg into the box, but inputing x.jpeg would place x.jpeg. This is fine. One note is that two types of infoboxes are being used for elements. Can you do that for both ? Materialscientist ( talk) 12:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
|image ext=.jpg
to each infobox. That should prepare things for your mods to the master template..jpg
to the end of each image name. So I updated the bot request with that. The downside will be broken image links for a few minutes before the bot swaps the master template code. --
mav (
talk)
03:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)What you described sound great. I am only slightly confused by that it seems same to what I said :) Regading "two boxes": look, e.g., at Template:Infobox_boron and Template:Infobox_tungsten. They both formally use same template, but quite different inputs. Also, I had to use a bypass to get to edit tungsten (I start editing boron and than retype tungsten in the url; I thought it is done on purpose that outsiders don't mess with it). Which 2nd box did you mean ? If you meant second image in elementboxes, it has not been used yet, but it is very much used in files using sister template Template:Chembox, thus it might be useful. Materialscientist ( talk) 22:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Updated master template now live. However, most elements were never converted over to it. So we now need to focus on that. Additional tweaks to the master template are most welcome. -- mav ( talk) 03:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
My intuition was right telling me not to edit that template :-) I address my questions below to Spinningspark (S) and Mav (M), but welcome cross checking and reaction by everybody:
M1) What do we do with tungsten and alike (I'm pushing up my old question on those two "types" of inputs) ?
S1) Could you please move "Crystal structure" from top of "Atomic properties" to the top of "Miscellaneous"
Then let us consider Phosphorus - one of those elements which have several forms (allotropes). Because this substance is not healthy, someone asked at the Phosphorus talk page to be clear on sublimation temperature of red and white phases. The template did not accept two values. I used some text-based bypass, but user:Tetracube instead hacked the template to show two melting temperatures and explained me how he's done that. Then the template was updated and all that was gone as it seems here (look at Melting and Boiling temperatures, which are now singled). Now questions:
M2) Why changes by Tetracube to the template are gone? What do we do with this problem of elements having several forms? I do believe we should list some basic properties for several allotropes in the elementbox (graphite/diamond, etc).
S2) If we accept those template changes by Tetracube, could you please check his coding, as he himself wasn't sure about that. Materialscientist ( talk) 05:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
M1) Those need to be converted. I tried to hack a conversion by editing the heading template, but it broke due to free form values in the crystal structure field. Meaning, each infobox will need to be edited to fix the crystal structure part before we go live with the new version of the heading template. But if we are going to have to edit each infobox already, we might as well do a full conversion.
M2) Allotropes: This is a sticky issue due to the fact that values in the crystal structure field are used to link to the crystal structure image. In retrospect, I think it will be much better if we had a separate 'crystal structure image name' field so that 'crystal structure' can do its old (and more important) job of describing nuances when they exit. Once I get back from vacation, I'll see about readding some of the info that I removed or hid to get the images to work.
-- mav ( talk) 15:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Allotrope A | |
Parameter 1 | Value 1 |
Parameter 2 | Value 2 |
Parameter 3 | Value 3 |
Allotrope B | |
Parameter 1 | Value 1 |
Parameter 2 | Value 2 |
Parameter 3 | Value 3 |
Allotrope C | |
Parameter 1 | Value 1 |
Parameter 2 | Value 2 |
Parameter 3 | Value 3 |
A fresh morning gives better ideas :-) It is hard to say which value should and shouldn't be split up for allotropes (e.g. melting is same for graphite/diamond, but different for phosphorus). Besides, I agree that the template design gets complicated by that. A proposed solution is to kill autoconversion of temperatures. Kelvins are already redundant there. Why ? No need for complex template solutions for individual cases (allotropes are few) - we can fix them by clever text input in one entry, but. Those extra brackets and 2 extra conversion values in "melting point" and "boiling point" hinder all reasonable attempts. After all, we can always input °F and K values manually. The proposal hinges on setting °C as default - no slight to US system; we need to select one, and °C seem the best choice. Materialscientist ( talk) 22:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
boiling point=nnnis placed under the general heading and
boiling point 1=nnnnis placed under the allotrope 1 heading. Same for other parameters and allotropes. That's a big increase in the total number of parameters, but no one template is going to use them all and it avoids having to think about which ones to include/not include - it is completely general. I am not able to work on this for a few days, please let me know what you want to do and I will deal with it when I get back. SpinningSpark 06:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I am often inaccurate on details, sorry. Here is what I meant: I would prefer to enter all three temperatures in one input line, e.g., as "(white) XX1 °C <br>(red) XX2 °C <br>(black) XX2 °C ". As far as I remember, the template will not allow such thing and will "demand" Farenheit and Kelvin values to be entered along, which clutter the whole thing. Same for density. Technicality is (i) This will happen for a few elements only, and thus I'm fine to do that manually (ii) You can easily design (I guess :-) a setting so that all previous values for single-allotrope elements will stay as they are. My line above is compatible with current settings (just cut off last °C and assume °C is added as default); and my proposal allows removing all that unnecessary fuss with second and third values in the template. Materialscientist ( talk) 07:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Second thought: At this stage, I suggest leaving auto addition of °C, K and °F - thus "usual" elements don't have to be changed. The alteration will be for few allotrope elements only; those I'll add myself manually into the "°C line", writing the line so that the auto-end-addition °C will fit. What I'm asking is to tweak the template so that it does not require inputing K and °F to have the °C entry (current setting). Another required tweak is to change the display of multiple temperatures. Currently it is XX K <br> (YY °C, ZZ °F) for 3 entries XX, YY, ZZ of one temperature parameter. Such entry does not seem nice anymore on wider new boxes and it is not compatible with my proposed text tweak (too much clutter). I suggest changing to XX °C; YY K; ZZ °F. You might have a better idea on the separation sign. Density can be left for now (I'm not much worried by its current multi-line look).
The second and separate issue is on having all three values of °C, K and F. Here I am asking the opinion of the project. IMHO, °C is enough for most elements, and kelvins need to be added only for a few gases which boil at low temperatures. Materialscientist ( talk) 00:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Great. I've checked and slightly updated phosphorus (reshuffled densities; can't find boiling point of black phosphorus though). All this hassle is not in vain, there are other elements with allotropes (tin, sulfur, carbon, etc.). I think the next priority now is to auto-convert "some" elements (actually several dozens, mostly heavy ones) to the new elementbox format. Materialscientist ( talk) 07:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I would like to propose that a row be added to the element infoboxes, underneath the name, where the pronunciation information can be placed. This would help avoid the irregular wrapping issues that can occur with the pronunciation entry in the lead (when the browser is a certain width), and improve the flow of the text. The same technique has been employed with various astronomy infoboxes and it has (IMO at least) worked out well. See, for example: Jupiter, Andromeda (constellation) and Canopus. Thank you for your consideration.— RJH ( talk) 16:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Periodic table is currently being nominated for the next ChemAID, but I'd like to go ahead and get started soon regardless of whether it gets chosen or not. At the very least, perhaps we should start brainstorming a list of ways to improve the article:
-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The addition to iodine and the addition to selenium from User:Sebastiano venturi are for me a little critical. The person additing the articles is strongly involved in the issue und added several of his own publications. The user researches the Evolution of dietary antioxidants especially the effect of Iodine deficiency on Stomach cancer. All the articles mentioned in the previous sentence have been edited by the user and the publications have been added too.-- Stone ( talk) 19:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I was hoping of working on Rutherfordium a couple of months ago but every time I tried I got stuck on the layout. Since transplutonium elements have clearly different information available to them, in particular little if any applications and biological roles, I think it would be appropriate to create a new set of guidelines for those articles. Any suggestions? Nergaal ( talk) 19:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's see:
what else? Nergaal ( talk) 23:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a few questions:
The cleanup listing bot is no longer getting all our articles due to the fact that we now have two Templates the old Chemical Element, for all the article except the elements and isotopes for which the new Template WikiProject Elements. The bot is only dumping results for the old template, reducing the number of articles in the project from 242 in June to 113 in July. I posted a request to the User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings and hope he can help.
I wanted to see the improvment in July for theclean up, because it came quite away since march
-- Stone ( talk) 21:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I would add another issue: the old half of the templates has "references" at the bottom linking to Chemical_elements_data_references. Most infobox values are taken from there and thus removing that line causes confusion. Editors start adding "citation needed" tags. Would it be possible to restore that line? Materialscientist ( talk) 01:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
All of the articles on elements that I have encountered have a section entitled "History", which seems to be misnamed. One would expect a history section to contain information on the history of the element itself (for synthetic elements such a history might be meaningful), but elements don't really have histories per se. Instead, what you find in the history section is primarily information on the discovery of the element and perhaps it use. Might it not be more appropriate to title these sections something along the lines of "Discovery"? Cool3 ( talk) 05:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll abide by WikiProject consensus, but I don't really think neutronium is an "element" for the purpose of the project, and so shouldn't have the full infobox links, the article (not yet written) isotopes of neutronium and the category category:isotopes of neutronium, etc. If consensus is that it is an element, I'll withdraw the CfD, but not the merge tags for dineutron and tetraneutron. Hypothetical isotopes shouldn't have articles unless they also have hypothetical properties, IMHO. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
To prevent a potential edit war on the article Solid, I am asking the project members to vote here. Thank you. Materialscientist ( talk) 01:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I am going to create this article about the truss, but it really needs a picture. http://www.apsidium.com/element/theory/truss.htm Maybe we should have a Category:Truss elements. Truss elements:
etc.
Attinio ( talk) 04:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Technetium for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt ( talk) 23:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I started to get all the elements which were discovered, but never made it into the PSE. I already created some articles and will try to start more. I have a good list of possible names, but I wanted to have references for the discovery first, so it will take some time. Bohemium, Helvetium, Panchromium , Ilmenium, Pelopium are the first dianium might be the next. A category for those near miss elements would be nice! -- Stone ( talk) 09:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Other article already exist Ausonium, Didymium, Hesperium, Coronium.-- Stone ( talk) 09:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Sequanium is now available.-- Stone ( talk) 20:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Wasium is now available.-- Stone ( talk) 18:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Gnomium is now available!! I like it it is one of the cool ones. Secretly hiding in cobalt only influencing the atomic mass, only to save the periodic table of Mendeleev form inconsistencies. Cool theory, but..... -- Stone ( talk) 21:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Austrium and Decipium are now available!! -- Stone ( talk) 20:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Carolinium, Berzelium and Davyum are now available.-- Stone ( talk) 17:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Lucium is now available.-- Stone ( talk) 18:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Would anyone object if I globally replaced commons:File:Isotopes and half-life 1.PNG with commons:File:Isotopes and half-life.svg? -- BenRG ( talk) 15:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Elements to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 02:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Alrighty, the new edition is done. I'm having problems uploading new versions of the periodic tables. I've posted a notice at the Village Pump. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Here we have another place for some work. The article was promoted January 2008 and no alternative texts for the images are present, and one dab link to unknown exists. The good thing is all the external links work. We have till the 9. October. -- Stone ( talk) 19:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Just wanting some input/clarification for this request for new electron configuration images for three elements. / Lokal _ Profil 23:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
People here might be interested in my proposal here to standardize our diagrams for emission spectra. — J kasd 00:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
At the request of User:Beetstra, I'm proposing to (re-)include the links the the Royal Society of Chemistry's Chemistry World "Chemistry in its Element" series of podcasts among the external links. Before they were contributions were reverted, they were either at the end of the list of links or among them in alphabetical order. Does anyone have any views on this addition? The original discussion began on User_talk:Grunkhead.
In my opinion, the podcasts often give an additional viewpoint from a professional chemist or science writer on a particular part of the element's history, use, etc. that would not deserve their own section on the Wiki page, but would qualify well as "additional interesting information". The source, the Royal Society of Chemistry, is strong. My links to the RSC are minor: I'm a professional research chemist and member of the RSC. Thus, I wouldn't consider them spam or even a solicitation/advert. Grunkhead ( talk) 18:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The untarnished elemental calcium cannot be told from any other silvery metal. Doesn't anybody have a better shot? Incidentally, the most dramatically different thing about elemental calcium is how it burns: it gives off a magnesium-bright light, but rose-red. It's very pretty, but rarely seen (flares and red fireworks are magnesium metal plus strontium salts).
Incidentally, the strontium metal photo is not all that great, either. S B H arris 07:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it is good for deletion, but I have no time for a proper look! Thanks.-- Stone ( talk) 00:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I was shocked to notice today that Lawrencium has a grand total of 2 inline citations, plus a couple of non-inline references. For a non-trivial article of its length, this seems really unacceptable. Help is greatly needed to improve this situation!— Tetracube ( talk) 01:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The element category for zinc was recently changed on the wiki from transition metals to post-transition metals. Previous discussion about what element category group 12 should be in resulted in maintaining the status quo of including it in the transition metals b/c it often, but not always, is considered to be part of that category. IUAPC's 2005 Red Book recommendations (on page 51) states pretty much the same thing but the American Chemical Society's Periodic Table does not include group 12 in the transition metals. I think part of the reason that the status quo was kept last time was due to the difficulty of changing all the nav table images. The updated elementbox template (when fully implementated in all element articles) makes it much easier to change things. I'm willing to table this until all element boxes are converted but still wanted to see what everybody thinks we should do. Note that, post-transition metal, by itself, could not be a perfect replacement for our "Other metal" category b/c it does not include aluminium and the post-transition status of mercury is not as clear. But I see no problem with stating that in element boxes (such as in zinc) when appropriate. What say you? -- mav ( talk) 19:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I went through pretty much all the non GA/FA articles we have and I have tried to re-rate them more consistently among them, based on a general view of how well organized, how broad, and how well referenced are they. I have rated a few as A which means that to me it appeared that they are ok organized and pretty much have everything the guidelines require; with a bit of work, they can/may be submitted for GAN. B's are ok articles, but which may for example require a non-stubby chemistry section. C's are missing more than one noticeable section and have only slightly more than 10 refs. Start's are just above stubby and usually have under 10 refs. If anybody cares and wants to change some of the ratings feel free to do so. Nergaal ( talk) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Cybercobra has added simple English pronunciation guides to the element articles, alongside the existing IPA ones. He is now insisting that elements ending in -ium are pronounced "ee-um" rather than "i-um". Nobody I know says them that way. It makes me wonder whether these pronunciation guides actually add any value. I don't see any consensus to use them and they seem redundant to the IPA ones. If they are to remain they should be accurate and I suppose that means making them verifiable. Seems a lot of hassle for very little return. Thoughts? -- John ( talk) 18:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Cambridge gives /ˈlɪθ.i.əm/ , and the pronunciation guide gives the second vowel value as being like the second vowel in 'happy'. So it may indeed be an WP:ENGVAR thing, as you suggest above. My own background is that I am Scottish, a Chemistry teacher for over 20 years, and a qualified English teacher. The -EE- pronunciation guide looks totally wrong to me. Can I ask again, where was the consensus to add all these pron guides in the first place? -- John ( talk) 16:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Right, so, can anyone suggest how the other pronunciation should be transcribed? -- Cybercobra (talk) 08:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I've edited the template so that the project now supports the book-class. (See the Signpost article for details.) I've also created WP:Books/Hydrogen as an example book (took me about 4 minutes, so it's probably not perfect, and some stuff is probably irrelevant, while other is missing) based off Category:Hydrogen and Category:Isotopes of hydrogen.
Easiest way to create books is to enable the "book-creator" (click on "Create a book" on the print/export toolbox on the left), then go to a category like Category:Helium and click on "Add this category to your book"). Give some structure (chapters), and you're pretty much done. (See Help:Books for more.)
Most elements could probably get its own book containing an overview, important reactions, discoveres, isotopes and other things of interests. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone want to start collaborating on caesium? It's an orange article on the File:Periodic table by article value.PNG, it won't be as monumentally difficult as some of our blemish articles, and it may help us later if we push for an Alkali metal FT. Any takers? -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The German article is reviewed to be a exzellenter Artikel (Featured Article) this might be a good point to look for some inspiration what to do with our article.-- Stone ( talk) 10:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Somebody added a few refs to the last paragraph which are about treatment of osteporosis. The last sentence, yet unchanged, in the strontium article is : Their long-term safety and efficacy have never been evaluated on humans using large-scale medical trials This seems strange if you read publications like the following: [ http://www.jbmronline.org/doi/pdf/10.1359/JBMR.050810?cookieSet=1 Long-Term Effect of Strontium Ranelate Treatment on BMD]. I have bad experience with the germanium food additives so I do not want to delete it. A lot of people trust wiki if it comes to food additives. May be somebody knows more than me. -- Stone ( talk) 18:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This stuff is as visually nice as any metal, but the photo we have really looks like the sample was recovered by panning in a stream for rhenium or something. Anybody have a better one? S B H arris 03:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
This problem was discussed some time ago when yttrium was featured on the main page. Then, a suggestion came about contacting people from sites like [5] and ask them if they are interested in releasing some images to wikipedia. But as far as I know, nobody got to do it. Nergaal ( talk) 21:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I have a cadmium rod on my desk. Is there a good way to tke a picture of it? -- Stone ( talk) 21:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Fluorine is currently without a picture of it as a gas for its infobox. Can anyone rectify this? -- Cybercobra (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
SingingZombie suggested to use pictures of gas discharges for uncolored gases (e.g. He). Thoughts? Materialscientist ( talk) 00:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
The technetium FAR is in FAR limbo right now. Could use some more eyeballs to see if anything else still needs to be done. If not, then please say so on the FAR page. Thanks. :) -- mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 15:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Now listed as FARC. Please vote. -- mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 02:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Here's a draft for bot generated books
{{saved book}} == Elementname == ===An overview=== ;Overview :[[Elementname]] ;Isotopes :[[Isotopes of elementname]] :[[Elementname-X]] :[[Elementname-X+1]] (all non-redirects of [[Category:Isotopes of elementname]] :[[Elementname-X+2]] :... ;Miscellany :[[Article 1]] :[[Article 2]] (All other articles of [[Category:Elementname]]) :[[Article 3]] :... [[Category:Wikipedia books|Elementname]]
for Helium and Lithium, this would give the Book:Helium and Book:Lithium.
The bot would then add {{
Wikipedia-Books|Elementname}}
in
Elementname#See also (and create the see also section if necessary) and in
Category:Elementname. Then it would tag the talkpage of the book with the WP Elements banner. Comments/Feedback/Suggestion for improving the drafts?
Headbomb {
ταλκ
κοντριβς –
WP Physics}
21:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
A large number of our element pictures are probably good to go to wp:VPC. Somebody (preferably the uploader themselves) should probably try to nominate a bunch of them. Nergaal ( talk) 17:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
see this. also, whoever has the privileges, should move back the page. Nergaal ( talk) 18:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I am done expanding the article. Asides from cleaning up the intro and the refs, does anybody have any more input before I submit it to GAN/FAC? Nergaal ( talk) 03:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I noticed the template {{ Infobox ununhexium}}, which links only to one namespace article. I don't see how it could ever link to more than one. I note also:
While I have not checked, I assume that such templates exist or are intended to exist for the main article on all notable elements.
Per the guideline Wikipedia:Template namespace, "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article."
All these infoboxes appear to be transcluded into one article each. I think that they should be merged into the articles and the individual element templates be deleted. The underlying structure of templates used across all (e.g. ({{ Elementbox}}) should of course be retained; reuse of appropriate wikitext is what templates are for.
I value your opinions. -- MegaSloth ( talk) 23:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that, and sorry I've been so long in responding. While I can see some of your reasoning, and don't intend to pursue this any further at the moment, I think you should note that on WP:TfD, the fact that a template is "single-use" (i.e. is only ever going to be transcluded in one place) is frequently used successfully as the sole or main rationale for template deletion. By the way, I believe copying the information into the articles would be a matter of placing "subst:" before the template name inside the curly braces. It might very well be possible to semi-automate it using a tool such as AWB. Certainly I would expect to participate in the effort of making any change like this that I proposed. -- MegaSloth ( talk) 04:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
at http://images-of-elements.com/. Nergaal ( talk) 18:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Nergaal ( talk) 01:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Asides from fluorine, hydrogen, noble gases, almost everything past bismuth, what other elements lack an image of an actual sample, or the image is really bad? Nergaal ( talk) 05:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The half-life information is contradictory in Hassium and in Isotopes of hassium; the former is from Lide, D. R., ed. (2005). CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (86th ed.). Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press. ISBN 0-8493-0486-5., but those data are from 2002 at best and are hardly up to date. This page is a nice summary, but I can't quickly find the original source. Anybody knows a reliable source for Hs isotope data? Materialscientist ( talk) 05:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:Elementbox #Electron shell image unreadable and inaccessible. Nergaal ( talk) 06:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
It looks multiple changes have been made to the Elementbox template, including the removal of some rows. (The is here.) I left a message here. It would help to understand why this occurred. Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 20:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
As this is from dpa and GSI, from IUPAC it would be better, but the birthday of Copernicus seems to be a good day for the announcement anyway, so I think to day is the day.
-- Stone ( talk) 16:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I had a cat tag on my user page saying I'm a member of Wikiproject elements. Somebody removed it. [8] Is there a sign-up sheet I missed? I've certainly done a hell of a lot of work on element-related articles. What, did I forget to pay my $ dues or something? S B H arris 02:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Caesium is currently at FAC here. Hamiltonstone has pointed out that, in addition to some other sourcing concerns, much of the article closely resembles this USGS document, to point that some paragraphs appear to have been plagiarized. Any help rewriting/resourcing the paragraphs in question would be greatly appreciated. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hamiltonstone's primary concern was the USGS plagiarism, but some of the other reviewers (RJHall and Carabinieri) had prose concerns. Once the plagiarism issue reaches a stable fixed state, I'd be happy to go through the article and give it a solid prose review per MatSci's suggestion. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I have just deleted Native element, because it was a cross-namespace redirect from mainspace (see WP:CSD#R2).
However, there is a category Category:Native element minerals (to which I have redirected the newly-created Category:Native element), and it seemed to me that it might be a good idea to have Native element redirect to some article. However, I didn't find a relevant section in the article chemical element and gave up.
If anyone else thinks this is worth bothering with, you may like to create an appropriate redirect or article. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi there are some rumours that Ununseptium has been discovered. But I can finde only a few blogs which are not a credible source in my eyes. Is there any better source. The pse has been changed already and the ununseptium article too. Please join the disusson at the Talk:Ununseptium page.-- Stone ( talk) 10:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Following the example of stable nuclide, I think it's time to modernize both the the isotope and nuclide articles, by putting most of the modern material (including the chart of nuclides) into the nuclide article, which will be the larger one. We can leave a little history in both places, with the full history of the "isotope" name remaining in the isotope article. But the modern term for nuclear species is "nuclide" and isotope is now a subset word which is more specific and refers properly to just the set of nuclides of a given element. So, as the more limited term, it should be the shorter article. Are there any objections if I (mostly) switch this material around? I'm going to leave a similar tag at the isotope article and perhaps at some chem-related wikiproject TALK pages, as well. S B H arris 02:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Your project's input is solicited. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I have proposed at Talk:Caesium-133 that the Caesium-133 article be merged into the Caesium article, but nobody has responded yet. I thought I would mention it here to cast a wider net. I wanted to see if there is some reason for a stub like this to exist when the main article (in my opinion) covers the importance of isotope 133 quite well. CosineKitty ( talk) 20:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
We really need input from other people on the isotope and nuclide talk pages and the possibilities of their merger, transfer of info from one to the other, or continued split with few changes. Please see talk:isotope. S B H arris 18:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
is a joke! The comprehensiveness of the article barely makes it be a B-class article! 76.119.232.42 ( talk) 16:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Project Element members! I wanted to ask if people would be kind enough to check out two new copper-related articles written by a brand-new contributor, User:Enviromet.
Please feel free to fix the articles up in any way that you may think they need, and please, if you have suggestions about how he is writing the articles, leave him a note on his talk page. Enviromet has several more related articles that he intends to write soon, and I am hoping he can get the kinks ironed out in the first couple of articles so that he will have some idea what to do with the ones that are still in the planning stages. Many thanks, Invertzoo ( talk) 21:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I improved the iron article. Please give guidelines on how to improve it further (I tried to follow the recommended element page). -- Chemicalinterest ( talk) 20:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Please share your views at the standard table talk page. Flying Jazz ( talk) 17:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
User:Gurps npc (and his IP, Special:Contributions/144.211.101.117) recently added a series of changes to the elements articles involving how they are created. The edits appear to be in good faith, but it would help if someone could please review them for accuracy as they are (as yet) unreferenced. Thanks. -- Ckatz chat spy 17:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Apparently all of the Period articles ( Period 2 element, Period 3 element) other than Period 1 element have been merged into Period (periodic table). I don't remember there ever being consensus for this and I strongly disagree with it. Anyone have any clue what's going on? -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with C62. Articles restored. -- mav ( reviews needed) 00:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The discovery of a lithium deposit worth trillions or zillions was added to the article. The pegmatite Lithium deposits are known since long time and the USGS Non-Fuel Mineral Resource Assessment of Afghanistan 2007] states that pegmatite deposits are more expensive to mine and therefore the extraction from brine is economically favoured. So where is the relevance of this addition for the article? I will cut back the ting after the media hype is over.-- Stone ( talk) 14:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Just a quick heads up: There are currently 15 featured pictures of elements. In no particular order:
All are by Alchemist-hp.
In addition, we also have a diagram:
All the above are categorized under Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science, except for Platinum - which is from a natural source, and thus goes under Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Geology.
The following are currently up for FP status, and all seem highly likely to pass.
The gases are by commons:User:Jurii, the metals are again by Alchemist-hp.
If all pass - as seems likely - we will have 24 elements covered by a featured picture, out of about 81 which are practical to photograph (due to radioactivity). Adam Cuerden ( talk) 06:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
is here. Please participate. Materialscientist ( talk) 05:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the word is spelled properly both ways. It refers to the summary lead-in of WP articles, of course.
The MoS suggests that ledes for longer articles (max length, say 50 to 70 kB) might be as long as 4 paragraphs. Since the paragraphs in ledes tend to be longer, that suggests perhaps 100 word paragraphs (5 sentences of perhaps 20 words each). That gives a lede length of 4 x 100 = 400 words. Or you can think of it as 20 sentences of 20 words, each a bullet point or "gem" telling the twenty things you wish all educated people knew about this element, if they didn't know anything else.
And indeed, for most of the elements of great importance (hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, iron) that's more or less about how long the lede is, now. Good!
The longest lede I've seen so far is helium's, which is nearly 700 words. Given the fact that helium is the second most common element in the universe and has all kinds of uses, it doesn't seem to be overlong.
For some of the other elements, a shorter lede is commensurate with a shorter article. The ledes for rare earth elements tend to be 150-200 words long, which is fine with me.
For other elements, there is some disparity, usually arising from differing editorial philosophies on what a lede should be, and do. I personally think that a lede for a maximally long element article (nitrogen or iodine for example) should be long, and should summarize the article as well as possible and in as much detail, as allowed in the space of 400 words. Presently silicon is 260 words, iodine is 300 words, and nitrogen--- an element of massive importance and considerable complexity and utility-- gets only 200 words of lede. It was once longer, but some editor, for some unknown reason just didn't like it at the size for other comparable element articles. To me, this is annoying. I'm not pointing any fingers (I can't remember who cut it, actually) but this should be discussed. I'd like to expand it to 400 words again, but not if it's going to start fights.
Could we get some consensus here? I'd like to propose ledes of 400 words at least for major elements with maximally long articles. Gold (for example) at 335 words is a bit funny, considering how much has been written and thought about the stuff through the ages.
What say you all? S B H arris 22:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The infobox for each element, already has a section for the pronunciation. In my opinion, the articles will be improved, by removing the redundant pronunciation, from the opening paragraph, which reduce the readability, more than they add to the clarity. RevDan ( talk) 21:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I've cleaned up most of the article for future GAN/GTC. Anybody else interested in giving me a help to finish it up (cleanup the last section, and reference it a bit better)? Nergaal ( talk) 17:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems likely that this project aims for uniform sectioning for the articles, but I am unsure if this is a matter of consensus. I am in the process of reviewing the chemical content and applications sections of these articles, and in the process have started to re-arrange the sectioning to roughly parallel that in ELEMENTS style guide. At least for most elements, here are the recommended sections:
I have already "resectioned" bromine, chlorine, fluorine, and chromium. But before doing more, I wanted to check that for any objections or suggestions.
History as #3 seems a little odd. I'd think it should go right on top or right before precautions. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 03:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The RecentChanges button on the WikiProject Elements page only takes into account the changes with in the "Category:Chemical elements". My suggestion would be to use to create a watch list on a subpage and use the RecentChangesLinked to that page to get a Recent Changes page which is adjustable and suites our needs better. I did this for all articles and talk pages on our Elements report: Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Stone/PSE -- Stone ( talk) 13:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Since these were created by IPs (probably the same person since they all followed the same pattern), I can't notify this guy. However, I don't feel comfortable in having such a large number of edits unreviewed, so I'm coming here.
Most of the isotope stubs I killed were things like this (Lanthanum-139). They consisted basically a bunch of unreferenced numbers, most of which can be found in the isotopes of lanthanum table anyway. So I switched them to the standard redirects (i.e. this). I think we can all agree that these stubs are not very helpful for the reader, so I think it would be nice if we put a notice (as a comment) on the redirects. Something like
<!-- Before converting the Elementname-XXX redirect into an article, please consider creating a section entitled Elementname-XXX in the [[Isotopes of elementname]] article instead. See [[Isotopes of hydrogen]] for an example. -->
Comments? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to figure out why this book is so widely cited in Wikipedia. I admit to being sensitized by continuing issues with self-promotion (see messages to User talk:Rbaselt). I have never heard of Patnaik as a scientist nor his book outside of Wikipedia, and it is not cited within the scholarly community of inorganic chemists. Views of its contents are not available on Amazon. So I am extremely suspicious of its authority. I heavily cite Ullmann's Encyclopedia, which is written by experts in areas of their demonstrated expertise and others cite the Rubber Handbook and conventional monographs such as Greenwood & Earnshaw, Holleman & Wiberg, Cotton & Wilkinson. Comments welcome, otherwise I recommend that we investigate the authority of this book and if not satisfied, replace these citations.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 15:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I will go through the ratings of the articles (elements only) today to make them more consistent. Also some notes about GANning some current Bs:
Nergaal ( talk) 20:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Leaving these aside: the stub class is back! I have gone through the articles and I've tried to be pretty consistent. For the really important articles I've been more stringent about B-class, while for the others, if there is only one or two issues I tended to leave them at B. Many articles were doing really bad on references so I've tended to be relatively strict: 25-30 at least for B class (and if most of them were in one section I tended to adding a C-class); and 15-20 at least for C. Some had even less than 5 so I assigned them as stub. Nergaal ( talk) 21:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Nergaal ( talk) 00:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
In a "historic" perspective looking back in the development since August 2008 it is clear that the transition elements which were start at that time now are GAs. So the poorly developed became well developed. There are are the obscure ones like rhenium, niobium and yttrium, but in the case to roll over the transition metals even nickel, platinum and chromium reached the GA status. I always back up when I read in the article something like the metastable isotope is used as a new weapon or the oxide is used widely to cure all forms of cancer, or that the addition to the tap water produces severe problems or when the most stable isotope is so unstable that the element can only be handled by a physicist and not a chemist. So my choice went always to the poor and underdeveleoped with some exceptions due to the problem I have to deal with people like the one I encountered in the Uranium trioxide wars. To be very honest even a discussion here will not change my view, unless somebody makes up a cooperation to improve one of the less favoured articles I will stick to the ones I like most. -- Stone ( talk) 21:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I will work on cobalt, palladium and arsenic. I hope this will help.- Stone ( talk) 10:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Fermium is up for GAN. Any other easy pickings that anybody wants to collaborate on? <wink> berkelium<wink> Nergaal ( talk) 22:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I finisher going once through the lithium article and cleaned up all the major issues. It needs quite a few more references before it is ready, but if anybody wants to take a look feel free to drop in. Nergaal ( talk) 03:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I've mentioned this a long time ago and I don't remember what was the outcome: I proposed to add another column to the isotope entries for the nuclear spin. For example for 31P it is more useful to say that it has spin of -1/2 than that it "is stable with 16 neutrons". I would like to go ahead and start adding them, but I have no idea about the technicalities since the elementboxes use a tempate-within-a-template for isotopes. Nergaal ( talk) 06:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I think this is valuable material to present in our element boxes. Can we have them collapsed, to save space, only to expand when clicked? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 05:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed that on the German wikipedia there are quite a few articles that are in very good shape that they have featured, but on ours are GA at best and some are even start. Other that being a little low on references, these articles are very well expanded: Cf, Cs, Am, Ar, As, Ba, Pb, Cm, Ga, In, Kr, Li, Os, Ru, Tc, Te, V, Zr. Nergaal ( talk) 02:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I found User:Raeky/ElementalFPs and I realized that we might be able to create a "list" article with the best representations of elements that we have. Do you guys think something like that would be useful? Nergaal ( talk) 04:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Although the templates for the infoboxes are criticized at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Large category of single use templates, what makes this interesting is that with a small modification (see the top line of User:Patrick/Template:Infobox helium) the data become independently retrievable:
{{User:Patrick/Template:Infobox helium|User:Patrick/pstp|p=symbol}}
→ He{{User:Patrick/Template:Infobox helium|User:Patrick/pstp|p=thermal conductivity}}
→ 0.1513Patrick ( talk) 23:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Our infoboxes are technically templates and thus per WP:NFCC #9 don't allow fair use images. A possible solution for this is have an image parameter in the infobox template, of the sort {{infobox promethium|img=61 Pm 02 large.jpg}}. If agreed, could someone change the template for that please? Materialscientist ( talk) 01:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
There's another link to it above, but there's a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Large_category_of_single_use_templates. Single use templates are rarely (ever?) a good thing. At this point, other than editorial convenience, I'm failing to see a reason to keep all the templates at Category:Periodic table infobox templates. Input please. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 14:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The review is really slow; anybody care to give some input? Nergaal ( talk) 02:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I was looking, but I could not find a Biological role section in the silicon article. Is this done by purpose or has there been never a try to expand the one sentence in occurence of Biogenic silica to something useful? I will try to expand this a little bit based on [9]. -- Stone ( talk) 11:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
This article was moved from Ununseptium today to Ununseptine. I'm a little busy, and a brief search did not reveal the IUPAC recommendations with regard to its provisional name. Perhaps someone else here can help? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 23:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I was looking for images that we are missing and I found a few. What do you guys think?
I would think RSC is a reputable source, but I cannot find any description for the images. Nergaal ( talk) 21:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
dia
I realized we keep the pages listed here under the rug. Should we continue to do that? If yes, they might be placed in a better space than the mainspace. Nevertheless, I guess some of them would deserve to be converted to actual articles. Nergaal ( talk) 20:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Unless anybody does not think it is a good idea, I am going to remove the decay energy ("DE (MeV)") entry from the isotopes section and add one with nuclear spin sometimes in the next few days. Nergaal ( talk) 06:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Someone suggested to me that I should mention on this page that I am discussing apparent variations, in some cases amounting to hundreds of degrees of difference, between values quoted in the literature and elsewhere on the internet for the boiling points of some elements, on this page - Talk:Boiling_points_of_the_elements_(data_page). So I invite anyone interested to respond by joining the discussion on that other page. Thanks. Peter Dow ( talk) 22:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I brought this up in the Helium discussion. For gases, heat capacity measured under constant volume or under constant pressure need to be distinguished. The unsuspecting reader of the Helium page, for instance, will read the number and use it in his constant volume calculations and get wrong results, as the number specified is for constant pressure. But nowhere this is indicated! Therefore for gases (gaseous at measurement temperature) there should be an indication like "(const. pressure)".
Now it would be simple to change the title "Specific heat capacity" in Template:Infobox_element, but that is not what we want: 1) it would be changed in ALL element's infoboxes, even where in fact constant volume is assumed, 2) it would be shown even for non-gaseous elements where it's not wrong but irrelevant. I think the proper way would be to allow two different type of entries in the Template:Infobox_helium (for instance). It almost looks to me as somebody already tried to do something like it (there is an alternative "heat capacity 2="), but it does not do what I'm talking about.
I do not understand too much of the syntax and formalism of the template pages, so - if this can be agreed upon - can somebody more knowledgeable do the appropriate changes? WikiPidi ( talk) 15:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
So we have a systemic problem not only of no conditions being marked, but a calculated value being used without warning. S B H arris 17:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but I couldn't think of a better area. I'm working on an article about a series of Swiss coins ( shooting thalers), and one of my reference books states that certain shooting medals were minted from a metal known as goldene. I can't find any reference to such a metal on the internet. I'm familiar with goloid, which is what I think the author might have been referring to. The book is from 1965, so it's possible that the word is no longer in use. Does anyone know what metal he could have been talking about?- RHM22 ( talk) 03:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The termination -e is due to the noun being feminine/neutral? Nergaal ( talk) 07:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Here we go again. There is a user throwing all sorts of comments at caesium. To me, at least half of his edits there are POV pushing; furthermore, in his opinion USGS is not an authoritative source. I cannot take very seriously the opinion of somebody who says in his edits: it is not very similar to other alkali metals - it is the most different of all non radioactive ones or the initial chem section is somewhat misleading "Isolated caesium is extremely reactive" It is in fact robust, even distillable; as having either a sufficient chemical background, or sufficient good intentions to deal with an FA. Since I have a COI in that article, I would prefer if somebody else gets involved and deals with those edits. Nergaal ( talk) 19:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
-- Stone ( talk) 20:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
For the more patient; rubidium and cesium are added to water at the end. S B H arris 21:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
S
B
H
arris
21:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
First to respond to Harris: One needs to be careful here: the question is not about cesium and water, but cesium. We dont want to give the impression to readers that an element is unstable. But I concede the point is semantic.
As I read the text it seemed to be saying that in reactivity (toward other elements, of course) there's a big change from lithium to sodium to potassium; then cesium isn't much different from potassium. If that was the intention, I say nonsense! At each step in this progression, if you're used to working with, or handling the element before, the next alkali element will surprise you with extra reactivity, to the point of being dangerous. As the video shows for water, but it's true for any reaction, from that with oxygen, to those with primary, secondary, and teriary alcohols with various alkane groups. S B H arris 00:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a completely rational explanation for all this: the concept of critical mass. For any strongly exothermic reaction at the critical mass the reaction is self-sustaining. Above the critical mass a runaway reaction occurs, commonly described as an explosion. In chemical terms criticality occurs when the heat generated is equal to the heat dissipated. When more heat is generated than is dissipated the temperature will continue to rise until explosion occurs because reaction rates increase with increasing temperature. With the alkali metals the heat of reaction with water increases with atomic number, so the critical mass decreases. To say that caesium always explodes on contact with water is wrong. I don't know what the critical mass is, but I guess it will be of the order of milligrams. Put any quantity less than the critical mass into water and it will "burn" just as with a small quantity of sodium. Petergans ( talk) 22:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
What Ullman source are you talking about?
Nergaal (
talk)
22:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to ask, I checked element's isotope pages and I see this symbol m. I cannot find what this means, and looked through the Isotope page.
Thanks, Marasama ( talk) 18:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads up since the wikileak's leak this morning. In it's instructions on handling defectors, red mercury is used as an example of a 'suspicious or dangerous' material that would be presented as evidence of a country enriching plutonium. It can be read both ways, depending on whether we stress the 'suspicious' part or the 'dangerous' part, and the call out to enriching plutonium is odd, but also not inconsistent with red mercury being a hoax. Might want to keep an eye on the article. -- ۩ M ask 19:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Hi there
For those who have not been following, the Chemistry MOS has been ratified in its current form ( WP:CHEMMOS) by WP:CHEM and WP:CHEMISTRY. I think it would be quite appropriate for the structure of elements articles to be formalized in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(chemistry)/Elements. Especially so in light of recent discussions.
Would WP:ELEMENTS be interested? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 01:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
(reset) The main synching you need will be the "summary" paragraph on the main page ( WP:CHEMMOS). Take a look at the *source* of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (chemistry)/Nomenclature to see how it works. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 07:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC) That said, it would be best that your document is stable, before we do anything like that. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 07:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
(Reposted from the Magnesium TALK page, as a topic that needs general RfC):
Vandalism by IP users is getting out of hand on this article and so I've requested semi-protection. -- Marc Kupper| talk 07:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Protecting these articles is only a quick fix and does not solve the problem. If the IPs are making unconstructive edits, they should be blocked. The amount of vandalism coming out of educational institues is absurd. And if there are students who are actually trying to contribute, then they can create an account at home and use it at their educational institute. Of course, these IPs are most likely already blocked but what i'm saying is that proctecting these articles does not solve the problem.
I don't mean that we shouldn't protect the articles, while I agree that high profile articles should be protected if there is a large amount vandalism, but protecting these articles to prevent possible vandalism is not the answer. We should concentrate on blocking these troublesome IPs instead of stopping all IPs from editing the articles.
I also agree that a large amount of editors come from school IPs. I for one started editing on my schools IP for a while till it was blocked (not my fault, or was it?) then I created an account and have been here since. Jerry teps ( talk) 01:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
My rule of thumb for any decent-sized article (>30kb) is > 1 edit/day by multiple IPs --> semiprotect. Life is too short for this. Mav also has a point. Gets even worse when there are 2 or 3 IPs in quick succession. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
As someone who has every element page on his watchlist and is very active in reverting vandalism, I don't think element articles are ones that receive a particularly large amount of vandalism. Although I'm fairly quick to protect pages compared to other admins, and would probably favor protecting all the element pages if it were entirely up to me, I don't think the Wikipedia community will be all that accepting of the idea. If a request were made at WP:RFPP for a page that has the amount of vandalism that an element page gets, it would probably be turned down. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 11:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Asked for my opinion as an occasional reverter, I would think that a lot depends on the level of targeting of an article. IP-idiots are a major pain - I strongly feel all schools need a policy on policing the activities of their own students, and that Wikipedia should be more active in contacting the schools concerned to establish a dialog with the responsible teachers. And also that we should be more active in tracking down the IP addresses and identifying the schools - but that is a major hassle when there is so much else to be doing, so it does not get done much. Bottom line - semi-protection would be a good idea, but I really like the idea mentioned above - tokens and penalties. docboat ( talk) 13:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Being a vandal fighter asked for an opinion, I have to say I haven't really seen much vandalism in this topic compared to most other areas. I don't think mass protection of all element articles is required, nor would the rest of the community support this proposal of effectively shutting off a whole section of Wikipedia, especially when there are thousands of unprotected BLP articles and the like vandalised far more often. I would suggest prehaps semi-protecting just a few articles that have the biggest problem. QueenCake ( talk) 19:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Being a vandal fighter and recent page patroller as stated above by Queencake I agree with what Queencake has said that vandalism in these pages is less compared to vandalism in other pages.I too would suggest semi-protecting a few articles . I do not support mass protection of all element articles nor would the rest of the Wikipedia would support this proposal of effectively shutting off a whole section of Wikipedia, especially when there are thousands of unprotected BLP articles and the like vandalised far more often andd further Wikipedia is where anyone can edit hence do not feel the community will accept any blanket proposal. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 00:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
As for the other comments on this, the best is enemy of the good. I'd like to see flagged revisions and sprotection of BLP, too. But we have a simpler proposal before us now. S B H arris 05:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
As a dedicated anti - vandal, I would have to say that: I do not think that Element pages are vandalized more (or less) than other page categories. This is not to say that anonymous IP vandalism isn't a widespread problem on WikiPedia as a whole (Boy, is it ever!). Really, IMO those of us who Huggle manage to catch quite a bit of the random vandalism that occurs. Outside of huggle, I don't find vandalism in articles very frequently. Maybe because I mainly read history.. My two cents. 𝕭𝖗𝔦𝔞𝔫𝕶𝔫𝔢𝔷 talk 23:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
List of Radioactive Elements has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.201.179 ( talk) 04:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:56, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
I tried to upgrade the chromium article in the last few days. I will try to finish with the Biological role and the Precautions section soon ( already some hidden text there), but for the first two thirds I would be glad if some native speakers could help me to get it to be brilant pros, which is out of my reach, I think. Thanks.-- Stone ( talk) 22:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm building an easily-browsable list of all isotopes articles at
User:Headbomb/Sandbox5See below. Dunno if this is article material, but it certainly is of interest to this project. Feedback/help is appreciated.
Headbomb {
ταλκ
κοντριβς –
WP Physics}
00:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The tables are now complete (minus the metastable states). Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
This should probably not be in article space. Template or wikispace is more appropriate methinks. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest to include EC number in Element fact boxes, as CAS number is already. I've made a template for this purpose: Template:Elementbox_ec_number. -- Eivindgh ( talk) 21:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The addition of User:Dwmyers in february 2003 is still the major part of the histrory section and for me it looks like a little changed sentence by sentence copy of the book Production of Manganese Ferroalloys page 11, chapter history of mangneses. What is the right action to take if this is a real copy right violation? -- Stone ( talk) 07:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Take a look and feel free to debug it. With this all the isotope articles can be tagged, without clogging the stub/start list of articles of the main template. Nergaal ( talk) 01:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
at present, in the infobox, the stable isotopes have only natural abundances and the number of neutrons in each isotope. Imo the latter is really redundant, and I believe that for example, having the nuclear spin of the stable isotope (perhaps not only for the stable one) is incredibly more useful for an encyclopedic article. thoughts? Nergaal ( talk) 05:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi I posted something to the Project chemistry talk page and wanted to add it also to this talk page:
Hi, there is something happening at the boron aticle which needs a hand from more experienced admin or a editor, better familiar with the politics. Two groups discovered the new allotroph of boron and now one is accusing the other that he copied from his paper, because he got it previous to publication. This two groups are now plying a little bit with the boron article. Could we use some of the original research things on both groups to calm down the situatiuon? Thanks
--- Stone ( talk) 10:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't know if you guys have ever heard of Sporcle, but it's a game in which you're given a category and have to name all members of that category as fast as possible. I found one for the periodic table:
http://sporcle.com/games/elements.php
After about 10 tries, I was able to name all 118. Booyah! -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Many different issues have been mentioned with the current set of nav images (wrong/misleading neutron numbers, elements in wrong category/series, misleading crystal structure, almost useless empty shells, etc). The German version of WikiProject Elements, however, long ago abandoned nav images in favor of a small HTML table that highlighted the relevant box representing the element being viewed. I translated that and created a mock-up for discussion here. See below link.
The big benefit I see is that (in addition to having a clickable mini periodic table), we can change the format of the table much more easily; one table to edit vs 118 nav images.
Current format/layout is just for demonstration purposes; we can change it however we like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Zinc&oldid=281977709
Here is the source table:
Here is a compact version that would allow us to finally put images of elements at the top of the infobox; just to the right or left of the nav table:
So - what does everybody think? -- mav ( talk) 22:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
{{ElementImageMap
| symbol=O | name=oxygen | crystal structure=cubic | period=2 | number=8
}}
The google sholar search on the sentence A copper pendant was found in what is now northern Iraq that dates to 8700 BC. [1] yields two hits, but I think as the sentence is there since 18:22, 22 October 2002 I think this a copy from wiki. Any suggestions?-- Stone ( talk) 22:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Read and comment here if you like. -- mav ( talk) 14:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Plan now enacted and discussion is archived here. -- mav ( talk) 01:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Oxygen-24 , Oxygen-15 , Oxygen-13 - have been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.129 ( talk) 07:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I've been tagging some isotopes and there seems to be some confusion with which templates articles should be tagged. Here are certain suggestions (the general idea, the details could differ) which could give the project a lot more structure, with very little effort from your part (<3 bots!):
This would make it very easy to monitor the AfDs/PRODs of specific isotopes, ensure that all isotopes and elements are tagged and properly categorized, as well as reduce the confusion about which template to use. Bots could also create redirects based on the isotope tables (not necessarily all of them). Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed the old element banner pretty much placed everything in WP0.5. Was this correct/desired behaviour? Should it also do the same for isotope articles? It would probably be much better to have a |WP0.5=yes parameter so WP0.5 doesn't get cluttered with lists, redirects, categories, bad taggings, etc... Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
See WP:BOTREQ#Tagging and categorizing for WikiProject Elements (somewhat complex)
Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Does someone know when/if the IUPAC publishes a decision on the discovery rights for ununbium? After the independent confirmation of Uub by the Swiss in 2008, I don't see why they shouldn't accept the GSI's discovery now. The article ununbium claims the Joint Working Group's report would be published in "early 2009", but gives neither sources nor an exact date.-- Roentgenium111 ( talk) 13:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
You will get an answer from the press release on the webpage of the GSI.- Stone ( talk) 18:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Discovery of the element with atomic number 112 (IUPAC Technical Report) Nergaal ( talk) 20:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
A related question: When will the GSI suggest a name for this element? (I just pray they don't want to name it "wixhausium"...) -- Roentgenium111 ( talk) 19:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Most of the unnamed chemical elements (112-118) have the boilerplate claim
According to IUPAC rules, names used for previous elements that have ultimately not been adopted are not allowed to be proposed for future use.
but none gives a reference. Is this actually true? If so, IUPAC broke its own rule in the element naming controversy by proposing hahnium for element 108 (already proposed and used for 105), among others. -- Roentgenium111 ( talk) 22:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
There are currently no category for them. What should it be named? Metastable isotopes? Metastable isomers? Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Feedback/comments are welcome. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
A comment on the talk page of magnesium (which I couldn't answer to my shame) brought me to this conclusion: the atomic radii in all elementboxes are copied from Atomic radii of the elements (data page), which in turn are copied from webelements.com, which in turn are copied from the articles J.C. Slater, J. Chem. Phys. 1964, 41, 3199 ("empirical") and E. Clementi, D.L.Raimondi, and W.P. Reinhardt, J. Chem. Phys. 1967, 47, 1300 ("calculated)". The data are simply wrong and must be replaced. An easy check would be comparing the "metallic radii" and "empirical" radii at Atomic radii of the elements (data page). Checking the Slater's paper reveals that both are defined in the same way, i.e. half interatomic distance in the elemental solid, but the Slater's values are way off the current XRD data. An easy answer to that is that in 196os both the experiment and calculation did not have enough accuracy (not only measurements but also sample preparation). People who know me know that I have little tolerance to such blunders :), especially if they turn out at numerous FA and GA element pages. My intention is to (i) delete calculated radii, as they only mislead the reader and are subject to numerous theoretical assumption; (ii) replace the atomic radii in the elementboxes with proper values, which are just half of nearest-neighbor distances in elemental solids at room temperature. Whenever there are several crystalline forms at room temperature, I suggest taking an averaged value. Materialscientist ( talk) 01:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Sure. Good source for experimental values is "metallic radius" or simply X-ray diffraction data. I do not want to look for better calculated radii (sure they improved since 1967) because I do not see a reason to use them. Materialscientist ( talk) 03:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I went through the elementboxes and (i) deleted theoretical radii; (ii) replaced "atomic" with "metallic" from Atomic_radii_of_the_elements_(data_page) (reasonably recent ref), a few missing values took from X-ray data; (iii) updated "covalent" radii by values from Covalent_radius (again recent source, from a respectable database); (iv) updated oxidation states; (v) marked three test elementbox pages for quick deletion ( Template:Infobox_Fluorine, Template:Infobox_lanthanum and Template:Infobox_rhenium). Yes, whatever can be done there with bots, should be done with bots. Materialscientist ( talk) 09:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
As I understand, chemists like using those radii, because they got used to them, since 30s when Pauling had introduced them. However, they got used to those "imaginary" radii, which are just half of the interatomic bond (i.e. naively assuming spherical electron density and not using any modern quantum calculation methods). Speaking practically, if you look at carbon, you notice that I added 3 radii for sp³, sp² and sp cases; if you look at inert gases, you notice that I deleted most radii, because such solids as Ne, Ar, etc. have no "bonding" (perhaps vdW only), and molecular solids (O2, N2) etc. are again just molecules piled together, i.e. solid interactions are negligible compared to molecular ones. Materialscientist ( talk) 04:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
(i) As I explained above (you don't have to look, I can repeat), the previous values of "atomic radius" were too old and too wrong; I know they were wrong for metals and thus can't trust them for other elements; (ii) We should be careful about the name of a radius. Could you please explain the bonding in solid Ar ? I thought it is van der Waals type and thus keeping "atomic" and "vdW" radii is misleading. I thought that Ar has no other bonding than vdW, but I'm keen to learn. Regards Materialscientist ( talk) 10:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Lets go step by steps without calling each other idiots. (i) vdW of Ar is 188pm, not 234pm, is it or is it not ? (ii) the "atomic radii" of the elements listed at elementboxes before I changed them were taken from Atomic radii of the elements (data page) from the column "empiricial" with a reference to J.C. Slater, J. Chem. Phys. 1964, 41, 3199. (iii) That paper by Slater defined atomic radii as half nearest neighbor distance in elemental solid, which is exactly the definition of "metallic" radius. Materialscientist ( talk) 10:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Here is what I thought while updating: I have all XRD data for noble gases, which immediately gives the "atomic radius". For argon it is 186 pm, which is same as vdW radius. I backed off and just left one vdW radius. I guess I should copy it into "atomic radius" instead of deleting. If agreed, I'm glad to do that. Regarding ideal gas calculations, I am also amazed they are so close (well, Ar atom is indeed close to a ball), but I would not use those data simply because they are limited to few elements only. As mentioned, a major point of "radii" is to see the atomic trends (BTW, they were grossly distorted due to some accidental blunders around lanthanides in previous elementbox version). Materialscientist ( talk) 04:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Ironically, I just published a paper on solid xenon in Al matrix. What I can tell is that (i) knowledge on noble gas solids is very limited; (ii) if you put an atom in solid xenon (e.g. through implantation) it diffuses out. Those crystals are very "fluid", we saw dislocations healing themselves during TEM observations. Materialscientist ( talk) 04:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I came because I thought you may be having an arugment over definition :) I guess you really have to look at overall objective. If you are trying to convey to a reader who believes in a hard sphere model some idea of parameter values, then you can just go with that. If you want a table of lattice constants( scaled to get interatomic distance ) or bond lengths, you may just as well have different labels for the "radii" or differnt elements- one for noble gasses could even be called a radius, the others may be bond lengths. Trying to make up a definition for an imprecise term will only lead to calling each other idiots as there is no basis for a decision... Alternatively, you could have a huge table of bond lenghts between element X and Y with multiple entries in many cases, blanks in others. Nerdseeksblonde ( talk) 13:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, you could also get a consistent breakdown of each "element" into its components of earth,wind,fire, and water but I'm not sure what good it would be. I'm not dissing any particular method, but pointing out issues with model fits where the underlying assumptions aren't right. IF they aren't hard sphere, or composed of earth,wind,fire, and water, then a fit parameter needs to be considered more carefully. What is it you are trying to tell the reader by defining a radius for each element? Thinking about that may help. Further, there is little reason today to just pick one. Size is not an issue and in fact there may be existing tables which are curated more frequently, maybe NIST or CRC has something to which you could just link. NIST maybe a good resource to which to appeal more generally in these issues. Nerdseeksblonde ( talk) 20:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I refurbished my svg periodic table and wanted to start a discussion. The used image has been taged with the should be a svg and now I ask vor your oppinion. The nice thing is that everybody is able to modify it with a text editor and upload it. Wide colour changes can be done by simply search and replace options and singel places by searching in the svg for the element name and replace the colour at that place.-- Stone ( talk) 21:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Visually, I prefer the PNG version, though I realize that can be changed by editing the SVG version. When you first told me about the SVG version, I tried to figure out how to edit/preview it, but failed. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Links in the svg: This is absolutly no problem in a svg everything can be clickable. BUT wikipedia does not show the svg as svg, but as a converted graphic and the link information does not survive this process. Have a look at the new uploaded version, in the svg (click several times on the image [2]) the hydrogen and the helium are clickable (sorry but I put in relative path not absolute path and therefore it does not work properly.-- Stone ( talk) 06:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Changed the colours and made the links work. [3] (sorry still only in the svg)-- Stone ( talk) 07:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Forgive this unnecessary call, but thulium is a rarely visited page. Please vote at Talk:Thulium section "fiction". IMHO, Tanada's reverts are getting impolite; that is why asking third opinion. Materialscientist ( talk) 23:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
This paper would probably make a very good reference for the infoboxes. Nergaal ( talk) 04:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This userpage has been blanked. If this is your userpage, you can retrieve the contents of this page in the page history. Alternatively, if you would like it deleted, simply replace the content of this page with {{db-u1}}. |
I have just reverted the editor ( Wizard191) who moved the etched copper image into the alloys subsection. This is a nice picture for the lede inserted by another editor, Alchemist-hp, but unfortunately messed the layout a little. To fix the layout, I put the image in as a left-aligned image, since the infobox is already occupying the right-aligned position. Wizard191 moved it citing MOS:IMAGE. I presume he is referring to Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or infobox. It does not exactly forbid left-aligned images and this seems like a reasonable exception even if it were so. In any case, an image of pure copper is quite inappropriate for the alloys sub-section. SpinningSpark 12:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
<-- outdent. Okay, I'll copy this section over there, as all the general issues need addressing. Infoboxitis is something that (IMHO) can be dealt with inclusively, by adding infoboxes but making sure they don't replace other good stuff, and they don't end up dictating everything else. They're meant to help, not be fashion-nazis. In this case, where they tend to inhibit addition of a nice photo in the LEAD, they hinder the project. And for the record, I think it's a crying shame that Pussy Galore has been forced into a "James Bond franchise character" infobox. What's this encyclopedia coming to? It's some kind of obscessional madness. S B H arris 23:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
just realised you are having to write this out twice. SpinningSpark 09:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
How about the example I placed at the top of this section? Of course, a better image is needed, but this is the only one that is horizontally-oriented (which I think we should try to continue to use in the infoboxes). -- mav ( talk) 19:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Note to all: I plan to start seeding infoboxes with a few extra values that will be needed for the updated infobox to work. Protest now if you don't like the updated layout. -- mav ( talk) 02:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
We already got rid of the redundant boxes. As to image extension, can't you just take any possible image ? The situation is that elementbox takes an image file without extension and assumes it is .jpg. Can this be fixed to recognize that the file is actually .jpeg or .JPG or etc. ? Materialscientist ( talk) 04:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I just went through all elements and would not do that again just to add .jpg :) As I understand your solution, entering either x or x.jpg will put file x.jpg into the box, but inputing x.jpeg would place x.jpeg. This is fine. One note is that two types of infoboxes are being used for elements. Can you do that for both ? Materialscientist ( talk) 12:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
|image ext=.jpg
to each infobox. That should prepare things for your mods to the master template..jpg
to the end of each image name. So I updated the bot request with that. The downside will be broken image links for a few minutes before the bot swaps the master template code. --
mav (
talk)
03:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)What you described sound great. I am only slightly confused by that it seems same to what I said :) Regading "two boxes": look, e.g., at Template:Infobox_boron and Template:Infobox_tungsten. They both formally use same template, but quite different inputs. Also, I had to use a bypass to get to edit tungsten (I start editing boron and than retype tungsten in the url; I thought it is done on purpose that outsiders don't mess with it). Which 2nd box did you mean ? If you meant second image in elementboxes, it has not been used yet, but it is very much used in files using sister template Template:Chembox, thus it might be useful. Materialscientist ( talk) 22:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Updated master template now live. However, most elements were never converted over to it. So we now need to focus on that. Additional tweaks to the master template are most welcome. -- mav ( talk) 03:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
My intuition was right telling me not to edit that template :-) I address my questions below to Spinningspark (S) and Mav (M), but welcome cross checking and reaction by everybody:
M1) What do we do with tungsten and alike (I'm pushing up my old question on those two "types" of inputs) ?
S1) Could you please move "Crystal structure" from top of "Atomic properties" to the top of "Miscellaneous"
Then let us consider Phosphorus - one of those elements which have several forms (allotropes). Because this substance is not healthy, someone asked at the Phosphorus talk page to be clear on sublimation temperature of red and white phases. The template did not accept two values. I used some text-based bypass, but user:Tetracube instead hacked the template to show two melting temperatures and explained me how he's done that. Then the template was updated and all that was gone as it seems here (look at Melting and Boiling temperatures, which are now singled). Now questions:
M2) Why changes by Tetracube to the template are gone? What do we do with this problem of elements having several forms? I do believe we should list some basic properties for several allotropes in the elementbox (graphite/diamond, etc).
S2) If we accept those template changes by Tetracube, could you please check his coding, as he himself wasn't sure about that. Materialscientist ( talk) 05:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
M1) Those need to be converted. I tried to hack a conversion by editing the heading template, but it broke due to free form values in the crystal structure field. Meaning, each infobox will need to be edited to fix the crystal structure part before we go live with the new version of the heading template. But if we are going to have to edit each infobox already, we might as well do a full conversion.
M2) Allotropes: This is a sticky issue due to the fact that values in the crystal structure field are used to link to the crystal structure image. In retrospect, I think it will be much better if we had a separate 'crystal structure image name' field so that 'crystal structure' can do its old (and more important) job of describing nuances when they exit. Once I get back from vacation, I'll see about readding some of the info that I removed or hid to get the images to work.
-- mav ( talk) 15:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Allotrope A | |
Parameter 1 | Value 1 |
Parameter 2 | Value 2 |
Parameter 3 | Value 3 |
Allotrope B | |
Parameter 1 | Value 1 |
Parameter 2 | Value 2 |
Parameter 3 | Value 3 |
Allotrope C | |
Parameter 1 | Value 1 |
Parameter 2 | Value 2 |
Parameter 3 | Value 3 |
A fresh morning gives better ideas :-) It is hard to say which value should and shouldn't be split up for allotropes (e.g. melting is same for graphite/diamond, but different for phosphorus). Besides, I agree that the template design gets complicated by that. A proposed solution is to kill autoconversion of temperatures. Kelvins are already redundant there. Why ? No need for complex template solutions for individual cases (allotropes are few) - we can fix them by clever text input in one entry, but. Those extra brackets and 2 extra conversion values in "melting point" and "boiling point" hinder all reasonable attempts. After all, we can always input °F and K values manually. The proposal hinges on setting °C as default - no slight to US system; we need to select one, and °C seem the best choice. Materialscientist ( talk) 22:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
boiling point=nnnis placed under the general heading and
boiling point 1=nnnnis placed under the allotrope 1 heading. Same for other parameters and allotropes. That's a big increase in the total number of parameters, but no one template is going to use them all and it avoids having to think about which ones to include/not include - it is completely general. I am not able to work on this for a few days, please let me know what you want to do and I will deal with it when I get back. SpinningSpark 06:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I am often inaccurate on details, sorry. Here is what I meant: I would prefer to enter all three temperatures in one input line, e.g., as "(white) XX1 °C <br>(red) XX2 °C <br>(black) XX2 °C ". As far as I remember, the template will not allow such thing and will "demand" Farenheit and Kelvin values to be entered along, which clutter the whole thing. Same for density. Technicality is (i) This will happen for a few elements only, and thus I'm fine to do that manually (ii) You can easily design (I guess :-) a setting so that all previous values for single-allotrope elements will stay as they are. My line above is compatible with current settings (just cut off last °C and assume °C is added as default); and my proposal allows removing all that unnecessary fuss with second and third values in the template. Materialscientist ( talk) 07:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Second thought: At this stage, I suggest leaving auto addition of °C, K and °F - thus "usual" elements don't have to be changed. The alteration will be for few allotrope elements only; those I'll add myself manually into the "°C line", writing the line so that the auto-end-addition °C will fit. What I'm asking is to tweak the template so that it does not require inputing K and °F to have the °C entry (current setting). Another required tweak is to change the display of multiple temperatures. Currently it is XX K <br> (YY °C, ZZ °F) for 3 entries XX, YY, ZZ of one temperature parameter. Such entry does not seem nice anymore on wider new boxes and it is not compatible with my proposed text tweak (too much clutter). I suggest changing to XX °C; YY K; ZZ °F. You might have a better idea on the separation sign. Density can be left for now (I'm not much worried by its current multi-line look).
The second and separate issue is on having all three values of °C, K and F. Here I am asking the opinion of the project. IMHO, °C is enough for most elements, and kelvins need to be added only for a few gases which boil at low temperatures. Materialscientist ( talk) 00:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Great. I've checked and slightly updated phosphorus (reshuffled densities; can't find boiling point of black phosphorus though). All this hassle is not in vain, there are other elements with allotropes (tin, sulfur, carbon, etc.). I think the next priority now is to auto-convert "some" elements (actually several dozens, mostly heavy ones) to the new elementbox format. Materialscientist ( talk) 07:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I would like to propose that a row be added to the element infoboxes, underneath the name, where the pronunciation information can be placed. This would help avoid the irregular wrapping issues that can occur with the pronunciation entry in the lead (when the browser is a certain width), and improve the flow of the text. The same technique has been employed with various astronomy infoboxes and it has (IMO at least) worked out well. See, for example: Jupiter, Andromeda (constellation) and Canopus. Thank you for your consideration.— RJH ( talk) 16:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Periodic table is currently being nominated for the next ChemAID, but I'd like to go ahead and get started soon regardless of whether it gets chosen or not. At the very least, perhaps we should start brainstorming a list of ways to improve the article:
-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The addition to iodine and the addition to selenium from User:Sebastiano venturi are for me a little critical. The person additing the articles is strongly involved in the issue und added several of his own publications. The user researches the Evolution of dietary antioxidants especially the effect of Iodine deficiency on Stomach cancer. All the articles mentioned in the previous sentence have been edited by the user and the publications have been added too.-- Stone ( talk) 19:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I was hoping of working on Rutherfordium a couple of months ago but every time I tried I got stuck on the layout. Since transplutonium elements have clearly different information available to them, in particular little if any applications and biological roles, I think it would be appropriate to create a new set of guidelines for those articles. Any suggestions? Nergaal ( talk) 19:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's see:
what else? Nergaal ( talk) 23:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a few questions:
The cleanup listing bot is no longer getting all our articles due to the fact that we now have two Templates the old Chemical Element, for all the article except the elements and isotopes for which the new Template WikiProject Elements. The bot is only dumping results for the old template, reducing the number of articles in the project from 242 in June to 113 in July. I posted a request to the User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings and hope he can help.
I wanted to see the improvment in July for theclean up, because it came quite away since march
-- Stone ( talk) 21:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I would add another issue: the old half of the templates has "references" at the bottom linking to Chemical_elements_data_references. Most infobox values are taken from there and thus removing that line causes confusion. Editors start adding "citation needed" tags. Would it be possible to restore that line? Materialscientist ( talk) 01:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
All of the articles on elements that I have encountered have a section entitled "History", which seems to be misnamed. One would expect a history section to contain information on the history of the element itself (for synthetic elements such a history might be meaningful), but elements don't really have histories per se. Instead, what you find in the history section is primarily information on the discovery of the element and perhaps it use. Might it not be more appropriate to title these sections something along the lines of "Discovery"? Cool3 ( talk) 05:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll abide by WikiProject consensus, but I don't really think neutronium is an "element" for the purpose of the project, and so shouldn't have the full infobox links, the article (not yet written) isotopes of neutronium and the category category:isotopes of neutronium, etc. If consensus is that it is an element, I'll withdraw the CfD, but not the merge tags for dineutron and tetraneutron. Hypothetical isotopes shouldn't have articles unless they also have hypothetical properties, IMHO. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
To prevent a potential edit war on the article Solid, I am asking the project members to vote here. Thank you. Materialscientist ( talk) 01:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I am going to create this article about the truss, but it really needs a picture. http://www.apsidium.com/element/theory/truss.htm Maybe we should have a Category:Truss elements. Truss elements:
etc.
Attinio ( talk) 04:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Technetium for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt ( talk) 23:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I started to get all the elements which were discovered, but never made it into the PSE. I already created some articles and will try to start more. I have a good list of possible names, but I wanted to have references for the discovery first, so it will take some time. Bohemium, Helvetium, Panchromium , Ilmenium, Pelopium are the first dianium might be the next. A category for those near miss elements would be nice! -- Stone ( talk) 09:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Other article already exist Ausonium, Didymium, Hesperium, Coronium.-- Stone ( talk) 09:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Sequanium is now available.-- Stone ( talk) 20:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Wasium is now available.-- Stone ( talk) 18:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Gnomium is now available!! I like it it is one of the cool ones. Secretly hiding in cobalt only influencing the atomic mass, only to save the periodic table of Mendeleev form inconsistencies. Cool theory, but..... -- Stone ( talk) 21:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Austrium and Decipium are now available!! -- Stone ( talk) 20:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Carolinium, Berzelium and Davyum are now available.-- Stone ( talk) 17:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Lucium is now available.-- Stone ( talk) 18:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Would anyone object if I globally replaced commons:File:Isotopes and half-life 1.PNG with commons:File:Isotopes and half-life.svg? -- BenRG ( talk) 15:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Elements to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 02:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Alrighty, the new edition is done. I'm having problems uploading new versions of the periodic tables. I've posted a notice at the Village Pump. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Here we have another place for some work. The article was promoted January 2008 and no alternative texts for the images are present, and one dab link to unknown exists. The good thing is all the external links work. We have till the 9. October. -- Stone ( talk) 19:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Just wanting some input/clarification for this request for new electron configuration images for three elements. / Lokal _ Profil 23:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
People here might be interested in my proposal here to standardize our diagrams for emission spectra. — J kasd 00:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
At the request of User:Beetstra, I'm proposing to (re-)include the links the the Royal Society of Chemistry's Chemistry World "Chemistry in its Element" series of podcasts among the external links. Before they were contributions were reverted, they were either at the end of the list of links or among them in alphabetical order. Does anyone have any views on this addition? The original discussion began on User_talk:Grunkhead.
In my opinion, the podcasts often give an additional viewpoint from a professional chemist or science writer on a particular part of the element's history, use, etc. that would not deserve their own section on the Wiki page, but would qualify well as "additional interesting information". The source, the Royal Society of Chemistry, is strong. My links to the RSC are minor: I'm a professional research chemist and member of the RSC. Thus, I wouldn't consider them spam or even a solicitation/advert. Grunkhead ( talk) 18:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The untarnished elemental calcium cannot be told from any other silvery metal. Doesn't anybody have a better shot? Incidentally, the most dramatically different thing about elemental calcium is how it burns: it gives off a magnesium-bright light, but rose-red. It's very pretty, but rarely seen (flares and red fireworks are magnesium metal plus strontium salts).
Incidentally, the strontium metal photo is not all that great, either. S B H arris 07:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it is good for deletion, but I have no time for a proper look! Thanks.-- Stone ( talk) 00:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I was shocked to notice today that Lawrencium has a grand total of 2 inline citations, plus a couple of non-inline references. For a non-trivial article of its length, this seems really unacceptable. Help is greatly needed to improve this situation!— Tetracube ( talk) 01:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The element category for zinc was recently changed on the wiki from transition metals to post-transition metals. Previous discussion about what element category group 12 should be in resulted in maintaining the status quo of including it in the transition metals b/c it often, but not always, is considered to be part of that category. IUAPC's 2005 Red Book recommendations (on page 51) states pretty much the same thing but the American Chemical Society's Periodic Table does not include group 12 in the transition metals. I think part of the reason that the status quo was kept last time was due to the difficulty of changing all the nav table images. The updated elementbox template (when fully implementated in all element articles) makes it much easier to change things. I'm willing to table this until all element boxes are converted but still wanted to see what everybody thinks we should do. Note that, post-transition metal, by itself, could not be a perfect replacement for our "Other metal" category b/c it does not include aluminium and the post-transition status of mercury is not as clear. But I see no problem with stating that in element boxes (such as in zinc) when appropriate. What say you? -- mav ( talk) 19:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I went through pretty much all the non GA/FA articles we have and I have tried to re-rate them more consistently among them, based on a general view of how well organized, how broad, and how well referenced are they. I have rated a few as A which means that to me it appeared that they are ok organized and pretty much have everything the guidelines require; with a bit of work, they can/may be submitted for GAN. B's are ok articles, but which may for example require a non-stubby chemistry section. C's are missing more than one noticeable section and have only slightly more than 10 refs. Start's are just above stubby and usually have under 10 refs. If anybody cares and wants to change some of the ratings feel free to do so. Nergaal ( talk) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Cybercobra has added simple English pronunciation guides to the element articles, alongside the existing IPA ones. He is now insisting that elements ending in -ium are pronounced "ee-um" rather than "i-um". Nobody I know says them that way. It makes me wonder whether these pronunciation guides actually add any value. I don't see any consensus to use them and they seem redundant to the IPA ones. If they are to remain they should be accurate and I suppose that means making them verifiable. Seems a lot of hassle for very little return. Thoughts? -- John ( talk) 18:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Cambridge gives /ˈlɪθ.i.əm/ , and the pronunciation guide gives the second vowel value as being like the second vowel in 'happy'. So it may indeed be an WP:ENGVAR thing, as you suggest above. My own background is that I am Scottish, a Chemistry teacher for over 20 years, and a qualified English teacher. The -EE- pronunciation guide looks totally wrong to me. Can I ask again, where was the consensus to add all these pron guides in the first place? -- John ( talk) 16:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Right, so, can anyone suggest how the other pronunciation should be transcribed? -- Cybercobra (talk) 08:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I've edited the template so that the project now supports the book-class. (See the Signpost article for details.) I've also created WP:Books/Hydrogen as an example book (took me about 4 minutes, so it's probably not perfect, and some stuff is probably irrelevant, while other is missing) based off Category:Hydrogen and Category:Isotopes of hydrogen.
Easiest way to create books is to enable the "book-creator" (click on "Create a book" on the print/export toolbox on the left), then go to a category like Category:Helium and click on "Add this category to your book"). Give some structure (chapters), and you're pretty much done. (See Help:Books for more.)
Most elements could probably get its own book containing an overview, important reactions, discoveres, isotopes and other things of interests. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone want to start collaborating on caesium? It's an orange article on the File:Periodic table by article value.PNG, it won't be as monumentally difficult as some of our blemish articles, and it may help us later if we push for an Alkali metal FT. Any takers? -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The German article is reviewed to be a exzellenter Artikel (Featured Article) this might be a good point to look for some inspiration what to do with our article.-- Stone ( talk) 10:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Somebody added a few refs to the last paragraph which are about treatment of osteporosis. The last sentence, yet unchanged, in the strontium article is : Their long-term safety and efficacy have never been evaluated on humans using large-scale medical trials This seems strange if you read publications like the following: [ http://www.jbmronline.org/doi/pdf/10.1359/JBMR.050810?cookieSet=1 Long-Term Effect of Strontium Ranelate Treatment on BMD]. I have bad experience with the germanium food additives so I do not want to delete it. A lot of people trust wiki if it comes to food additives. May be somebody knows more than me. -- Stone ( talk) 18:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This stuff is as visually nice as any metal, but the photo we have really looks like the sample was recovered by panning in a stream for rhenium or something. Anybody have a better one? S B H arris 03:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
This problem was discussed some time ago when yttrium was featured on the main page. Then, a suggestion came about contacting people from sites like [5] and ask them if they are interested in releasing some images to wikipedia. But as far as I know, nobody got to do it. Nergaal ( talk) 21:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I have a cadmium rod on my desk. Is there a good way to tke a picture of it? -- Stone ( talk) 21:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Fluorine is currently without a picture of it as a gas for its infobox. Can anyone rectify this? -- Cybercobra (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
SingingZombie suggested to use pictures of gas discharges for uncolored gases (e.g. He). Thoughts? Materialscientist ( talk) 00:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
The technetium FAR is in FAR limbo right now. Could use some more eyeballs to see if anything else still needs to be done. If not, then please say so on the FAR page. Thanks. :) -- mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 15:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Now listed as FARC. Please vote. -- mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 02:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Here's a draft for bot generated books
{{saved book}} == Elementname == ===An overview=== ;Overview :[[Elementname]] ;Isotopes :[[Isotopes of elementname]] :[[Elementname-X]] :[[Elementname-X+1]] (all non-redirects of [[Category:Isotopes of elementname]] :[[Elementname-X+2]] :... ;Miscellany :[[Article 1]] :[[Article 2]] (All other articles of [[Category:Elementname]]) :[[Article 3]] :... [[Category:Wikipedia books|Elementname]]
for Helium and Lithium, this would give the Book:Helium and Book:Lithium.
The bot would then add {{
Wikipedia-Books|Elementname}}
in
Elementname#See also (and create the see also section if necessary) and in
Category:Elementname. Then it would tag the talkpage of the book with the WP Elements banner. Comments/Feedback/Suggestion for improving the drafts?
Headbomb {
ταλκ
κοντριβς –
WP Physics}
21:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
A large number of our element pictures are probably good to go to wp:VPC. Somebody (preferably the uploader themselves) should probably try to nominate a bunch of them. Nergaal ( talk) 17:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
see this. also, whoever has the privileges, should move back the page. Nergaal ( talk) 18:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I am done expanding the article. Asides from cleaning up the intro and the refs, does anybody have any more input before I submit it to GAN/FAC? Nergaal ( talk) 03:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I noticed the template {{ Infobox ununhexium}}, which links only to one namespace article. I don't see how it could ever link to more than one. I note also:
While I have not checked, I assume that such templates exist or are intended to exist for the main article on all notable elements.
Per the guideline Wikipedia:Template namespace, "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article."
All these infoboxes appear to be transcluded into one article each. I think that they should be merged into the articles and the individual element templates be deleted. The underlying structure of templates used across all (e.g. ({{ Elementbox}}) should of course be retained; reuse of appropriate wikitext is what templates are for.
I value your opinions. -- MegaSloth ( talk) 23:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that, and sorry I've been so long in responding. While I can see some of your reasoning, and don't intend to pursue this any further at the moment, I think you should note that on WP:TfD, the fact that a template is "single-use" (i.e. is only ever going to be transcluded in one place) is frequently used successfully as the sole or main rationale for template deletion. By the way, I believe copying the information into the articles would be a matter of placing "subst:" before the template name inside the curly braces. It might very well be possible to semi-automate it using a tool such as AWB. Certainly I would expect to participate in the effort of making any change like this that I proposed. -- MegaSloth ( talk) 04:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
at http://images-of-elements.com/. Nergaal ( talk) 18:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Nergaal ( talk) 01:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Asides from fluorine, hydrogen, noble gases, almost everything past bismuth, what other elements lack an image of an actual sample, or the image is really bad? Nergaal ( talk) 05:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The half-life information is contradictory in Hassium and in Isotopes of hassium; the former is from Lide, D. R., ed. (2005). CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (86th ed.). Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press. ISBN 0-8493-0486-5., but those data are from 2002 at best and are hardly up to date. This page is a nice summary, but I can't quickly find the original source. Anybody knows a reliable source for Hs isotope data? Materialscientist ( talk) 05:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:Elementbox #Electron shell image unreadable and inaccessible. Nergaal ( talk) 06:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
It looks multiple changes have been made to the Elementbox template, including the removal of some rows. (The is here.) I left a message here. It would help to understand why this occurred. Thanks.— RJH ( talk) 20:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
As this is from dpa and GSI, from IUPAC it would be better, but the birthday of Copernicus seems to be a good day for the announcement anyway, so I think to day is the day.
-- Stone ( talk) 16:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I had a cat tag on my user page saying I'm a member of Wikiproject elements. Somebody removed it. [8] Is there a sign-up sheet I missed? I've certainly done a hell of a lot of work on element-related articles. What, did I forget to pay my $ dues or something? S B H arris 02:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Caesium is currently at FAC here. Hamiltonstone has pointed out that, in addition to some other sourcing concerns, much of the article closely resembles this USGS document, to point that some paragraphs appear to have been plagiarized. Any help rewriting/resourcing the paragraphs in question would be greatly appreciated. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hamiltonstone's primary concern was the USGS plagiarism, but some of the other reviewers (RJHall and Carabinieri) had prose concerns. Once the plagiarism issue reaches a stable fixed state, I'd be happy to go through the article and give it a solid prose review per MatSci's suggestion. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I have just deleted Native element, because it was a cross-namespace redirect from mainspace (see WP:CSD#R2).
However, there is a category Category:Native element minerals (to which I have redirected the newly-created Category:Native element), and it seemed to me that it might be a good idea to have Native element redirect to some article. However, I didn't find a relevant section in the article chemical element and gave up.
If anyone else thinks this is worth bothering with, you may like to create an appropriate redirect or article. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi there are some rumours that Ununseptium has been discovered. But I can finde only a few blogs which are not a credible source in my eyes. Is there any better source. The pse has been changed already and the ununseptium article too. Please join the disusson at the Talk:Ununseptium page.-- Stone ( talk) 10:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Following the example of stable nuclide, I think it's time to modernize both the the isotope and nuclide articles, by putting most of the modern material (including the chart of nuclides) into the nuclide article, which will be the larger one. We can leave a little history in both places, with the full history of the "isotope" name remaining in the isotope article. But the modern term for nuclear species is "nuclide" and isotope is now a subset word which is more specific and refers properly to just the set of nuclides of a given element. So, as the more limited term, it should be the shorter article. Are there any objections if I (mostly) switch this material around? I'm going to leave a similar tag at the isotope article and perhaps at some chem-related wikiproject TALK pages, as well. S B H arris 02:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Your project's input is solicited. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I have proposed at Talk:Caesium-133 that the Caesium-133 article be merged into the Caesium article, but nobody has responded yet. I thought I would mention it here to cast a wider net. I wanted to see if there is some reason for a stub like this to exist when the main article (in my opinion) covers the importance of isotope 133 quite well. CosineKitty ( talk) 20:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
We really need input from other people on the isotope and nuclide talk pages and the possibilities of their merger, transfer of info from one to the other, or continued split with few changes. Please see talk:isotope. S B H arris 18:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
is a joke! The comprehensiveness of the article barely makes it be a B-class article! 76.119.232.42 ( talk) 16:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Project Element members! I wanted to ask if people would be kind enough to check out two new copper-related articles written by a brand-new contributor, User:Enviromet.
Please feel free to fix the articles up in any way that you may think they need, and please, if you have suggestions about how he is writing the articles, leave him a note on his talk page. Enviromet has several more related articles that he intends to write soon, and I am hoping he can get the kinks ironed out in the first couple of articles so that he will have some idea what to do with the ones that are still in the planning stages. Many thanks, Invertzoo ( talk) 21:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I improved the iron article. Please give guidelines on how to improve it further (I tried to follow the recommended element page). -- Chemicalinterest ( talk) 20:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Please share your views at the standard table talk page. Flying Jazz ( talk) 17:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
User:Gurps npc (and his IP, Special:Contributions/144.211.101.117) recently added a series of changes to the elements articles involving how they are created. The edits appear to be in good faith, but it would help if someone could please review them for accuracy as they are (as yet) unreferenced. Thanks. -- Ckatz chat spy 17:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Apparently all of the Period articles ( Period 2 element, Period 3 element) other than Period 1 element have been merged into Period (periodic table). I don't remember there ever being consensus for this and I strongly disagree with it. Anyone have any clue what's going on? -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with C62. Articles restored. -- mav ( reviews needed) 00:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The discovery of a lithium deposit worth trillions or zillions was added to the article. The pegmatite Lithium deposits are known since long time and the USGS Non-Fuel Mineral Resource Assessment of Afghanistan 2007] states that pegmatite deposits are more expensive to mine and therefore the extraction from brine is economically favoured. So where is the relevance of this addition for the article? I will cut back the ting after the media hype is over.-- Stone ( talk) 14:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Just a quick heads up: There are currently 15 featured pictures of elements. In no particular order:
All are by Alchemist-hp.
In addition, we also have a diagram:
All the above are categorized under Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science, except for Platinum - which is from a natural source, and thus goes under Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Geology.
The following are currently up for FP status, and all seem highly likely to pass.
The gases are by commons:User:Jurii, the metals are again by Alchemist-hp.
If all pass - as seems likely - we will have 24 elements covered by a featured picture, out of about 81 which are practical to photograph (due to radioactivity). Adam Cuerden ( talk) 06:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
is here. Please participate. Materialscientist ( talk) 05:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the word is spelled properly both ways. It refers to the summary lead-in of WP articles, of course.
The MoS suggests that ledes for longer articles (max length, say 50 to 70 kB) might be as long as 4 paragraphs. Since the paragraphs in ledes tend to be longer, that suggests perhaps 100 word paragraphs (5 sentences of perhaps 20 words each). That gives a lede length of 4 x 100 = 400 words. Or you can think of it as 20 sentences of 20 words, each a bullet point or "gem" telling the twenty things you wish all educated people knew about this element, if they didn't know anything else.
And indeed, for most of the elements of great importance (hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, iron) that's more or less about how long the lede is, now. Good!
The longest lede I've seen so far is helium's, which is nearly 700 words. Given the fact that helium is the second most common element in the universe and has all kinds of uses, it doesn't seem to be overlong.
For some of the other elements, a shorter lede is commensurate with a shorter article. The ledes for rare earth elements tend to be 150-200 words long, which is fine with me.
For other elements, there is some disparity, usually arising from differing editorial philosophies on what a lede should be, and do. I personally think that a lede for a maximally long element article (nitrogen or iodine for example) should be long, and should summarize the article as well as possible and in as much detail, as allowed in the space of 400 words. Presently silicon is 260 words, iodine is 300 words, and nitrogen--- an element of massive importance and considerable complexity and utility-- gets only 200 words of lede. It was once longer, but some editor, for some unknown reason just didn't like it at the size for other comparable element articles. To me, this is annoying. I'm not pointing any fingers (I can't remember who cut it, actually) but this should be discussed. I'd like to expand it to 400 words again, but not if it's going to start fights.
Could we get some consensus here? I'd like to propose ledes of 400 words at least for major elements with maximally long articles. Gold (for example) at 335 words is a bit funny, considering how much has been written and thought about the stuff through the ages.
What say you all? S B H arris 22:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The infobox for each element, already has a section for the pronunciation. In my opinion, the articles will be improved, by removing the redundant pronunciation, from the opening paragraph, which reduce the readability, more than they add to the clarity. RevDan ( talk) 21:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I've cleaned up most of the article for future GAN/GTC. Anybody else interested in giving me a help to finish it up (cleanup the last section, and reference it a bit better)? Nergaal ( talk) 17:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems likely that this project aims for uniform sectioning for the articles, but I am unsure if this is a matter of consensus. I am in the process of reviewing the chemical content and applications sections of these articles, and in the process have started to re-arrange the sectioning to roughly parallel that in ELEMENTS style guide. At least for most elements, here are the recommended sections:
I have already "resectioned" bromine, chlorine, fluorine, and chromium. But before doing more, I wanted to check that for any objections or suggestions.
History as #3 seems a little odd. I'd think it should go right on top or right before precautions. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 03:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The RecentChanges button on the WikiProject Elements page only takes into account the changes with in the "Category:Chemical elements". My suggestion would be to use to create a watch list on a subpage and use the RecentChangesLinked to that page to get a Recent Changes page which is adjustable and suites our needs better. I did this for all articles and talk pages on our Elements report: Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Stone/PSE -- Stone ( talk) 13:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Since these were created by IPs (probably the same person since they all followed the same pattern), I can't notify this guy. However, I don't feel comfortable in having such a large number of edits unreviewed, so I'm coming here.
Most of the isotope stubs I killed were things like this (Lanthanum-139). They consisted basically a bunch of unreferenced numbers, most of which can be found in the isotopes of lanthanum table anyway. So I switched them to the standard redirects (i.e. this). I think we can all agree that these stubs are not very helpful for the reader, so I think it would be nice if we put a notice (as a comment) on the redirects. Something like
<!-- Before converting the Elementname-XXX redirect into an article, please consider creating a section entitled Elementname-XXX in the [[Isotopes of elementname]] article instead. See [[Isotopes of hydrogen]] for an example. -->
Comments? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to figure out why this book is so widely cited in Wikipedia. I admit to being sensitized by continuing issues with self-promotion (see messages to User talk:Rbaselt). I have never heard of Patnaik as a scientist nor his book outside of Wikipedia, and it is not cited within the scholarly community of inorganic chemists. Views of its contents are not available on Amazon. So I am extremely suspicious of its authority. I heavily cite Ullmann's Encyclopedia, which is written by experts in areas of their demonstrated expertise and others cite the Rubber Handbook and conventional monographs such as Greenwood & Earnshaw, Holleman & Wiberg, Cotton & Wilkinson. Comments welcome, otherwise I recommend that we investigate the authority of this book and if not satisfied, replace these citations.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 15:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I will go through the ratings of the articles (elements only) today to make them more consistent. Also some notes about GANning some current Bs:
Nergaal ( talk) 20:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Leaving these aside: the stub class is back! I have gone through the articles and I've tried to be pretty consistent. For the really important articles I've been more stringent about B-class, while for the others, if there is only one or two issues I tended to leave them at B. Many articles were doing really bad on references so I've tended to be relatively strict: 25-30 at least for B class (and if most of them were in one section I tended to adding a C-class); and 15-20 at least for C. Some had even less than 5 so I assigned them as stub. Nergaal ( talk) 21:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Nergaal ( talk) 00:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
In a "historic" perspective looking back in the development since August 2008 it is clear that the transition elements which were start at that time now are GAs. So the poorly developed became well developed. There are are the obscure ones like rhenium, niobium and yttrium, but in the case to roll over the transition metals even nickel, platinum and chromium reached the GA status. I always back up when I read in the article something like the metastable isotope is used as a new weapon or the oxide is used widely to cure all forms of cancer, or that the addition to the tap water produces severe problems or when the most stable isotope is so unstable that the element can only be handled by a physicist and not a chemist. So my choice went always to the poor and underdeveleoped with some exceptions due to the problem I have to deal with people like the one I encountered in the Uranium trioxide wars. To be very honest even a discussion here will not change my view, unless somebody makes up a cooperation to improve one of the less favoured articles I will stick to the ones I like most. -- Stone ( talk) 21:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I will work on cobalt, palladium and arsenic. I hope this will help.- Stone ( talk) 10:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Fermium is up for GAN. Any other easy pickings that anybody wants to collaborate on? <wink> berkelium<wink> Nergaal ( talk) 22:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I finisher going once through the lithium article and cleaned up all the major issues. It needs quite a few more references before it is ready, but if anybody wants to take a look feel free to drop in. Nergaal ( talk) 03:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I've mentioned this a long time ago and I don't remember what was the outcome: I proposed to add another column to the isotope entries for the nuclear spin. For example for 31P it is more useful to say that it has spin of -1/2 than that it "is stable with 16 neutrons". I would like to go ahead and start adding them, but I have no idea about the technicalities since the elementboxes use a tempate-within-a-template for isotopes. Nergaal ( talk) 06:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I think this is valuable material to present in our element boxes. Can we have them collapsed, to save space, only to expand when clicked? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 05:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I just noticed that on the German wikipedia there are quite a few articles that are in very good shape that they have featured, but on ours are GA at best and some are even start. Other that being a little low on references, these articles are very well expanded: Cf, Cs, Am, Ar, As, Ba, Pb, Cm, Ga, In, Kr, Li, Os, Ru, Tc, Te, V, Zr. Nergaal ( talk) 02:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I found User:Raeky/ElementalFPs and I realized that we might be able to create a "list" article with the best representations of elements that we have. Do you guys think something like that would be useful? Nergaal ( talk) 04:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Although the templates for the infoboxes are criticized at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Large category of single use templates, what makes this interesting is that with a small modification (see the top line of User:Patrick/Template:Infobox helium) the data become independently retrievable:
{{User:Patrick/Template:Infobox helium|User:Patrick/pstp|p=symbol}}
→ He{{User:Patrick/Template:Infobox helium|User:Patrick/pstp|p=thermal conductivity}}
→ 0.1513Patrick ( talk) 23:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Our infoboxes are technically templates and thus per WP:NFCC #9 don't allow fair use images. A possible solution for this is have an image parameter in the infobox template, of the sort {{infobox promethium|img=61 Pm 02 large.jpg}}. If agreed, could someone change the template for that please? Materialscientist ( talk) 01:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
There's another link to it above, but there's a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Large_category_of_single_use_templates. Single use templates are rarely (ever?) a good thing. At this point, other than editorial convenience, I'm failing to see a reason to keep all the templates at Category:Periodic table infobox templates. Input please. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 14:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The review is really slow; anybody care to give some input? Nergaal ( talk) 02:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I was looking, but I could not find a Biological role section in the silicon article. Is this done by purpose or has there been never a try to expand the one sentence in occurence of Biogenic silica to something useful? I will try to expand this a little bit based on [9]. -- Stone ( talk) 11:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
This article was moved from Ununseptium today to Ununseptine. I'm a little busy, and a brief search did not reveal the IUPAC recommendations with regard to its provisional name. Perhaps someone else here can help? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 23:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I was looking for images that we are missing and I found a few. What do you guys think?
I would think RSC is a reputable source, but I cannot find any description for the images. Nergaal ( talk) 21:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
dia
I realized we keep the pages listed here under the rug. Should we continue to do that? If yes, they might be placed in a better space than the mainspace. Nevertheless, I guess some of them would deserve to be converted to actual articles. Nergaal ( talk) 20:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Unless anybody does not think it is a good idea, I am going to remove the decay energy ("DE (MeV)") entry from the isotopes section and add one with nuclear spin sometimes in the next few days. Nergaal ( talk) 06:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Someone suggested to me that I should mention on this page that I am discussing apparent variations, in some cases amounting to hundreds of degrees of difference, between values quoted in the literature and elsewhere on the internet for the boiling points of some elements, on this page - Talk:Boiling_points_of_the_elements_(data_page). So I invite anyone interested to respond by joining the discussion on that other page. Thanks. Peter Dow ( talk) 22:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I brought this up in the Helium discussion. For gases, heat capacity measured under constant volume or under constant pressure need to be distinguished. The unsuspecting reader of the Helium page, for instance, will read the number and use it in his constant volume calculations and get wrong results, as the number specified is for constant pressure. But nowhere this is indicated! Therefore for gases (gaseous at measurement temperature) there should be an indication like "(const. pressure)".
Now it would be simple to change the title "Specific heat capacity" in Template:Infobox_element, but that is not what we want: 1) it would be changed in ALL element's infoboxes, even where in fact constant volume is assumed, 2) it would be shown even for non-gaseous elements where it's not wrong but irrelevant. I think the proper way would be to allow two different type of entries in the Template:Infobox_helium (for instance). It almost looks to me as somebody already tried to do something like it (there is an alternative "heat capacity 2="), but it does not do what I'm talking about.
I do not understand too much of the syntax and formalism of the template pages, so - if this can be agreed upon - can somebody more knowledgeable do the appropriate changes? WikiPidi ( talk) 15:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
So we have a systemic problem not only of no conditions being marked, but a calculated value being used without warning. S B H arris 17:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but I couldn't think of a better area. I'm working on an article about a series of Swiss coins ( shooting thalers), and one of my reference books states that certain shooting medals were minted from a metal known as goldene. I can't find any reference to such a metal on the internet. I'm familiar with goloid, which is what I think the author might have been referring to. The book is from 1965, so it's possible that the word is no longer in use. Does anyone know what metal he could have been talking about?- RHM22 ( talk) 03:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The termination -e is due to the noun being feminine/neutral? Nergaal ( talk) 07:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Here we go again. There is a user throwing all sorts of comments at caesium. To me, at least half of his edits there are POV pushing; furthermore, in his opinion USGS is not an authoritative source. I cannot take very seriously the opinion of somebody who says in his edits: it is not very similar to other alkali metals - it is the most different of all non radioactive ones or the initial chem section is somewhat misleading "Isolated caesium is extremely reactive" It is in fact robust, even distillable; as having either a sufficient chemical background, or sufficient good intentions to deal with an FA. Since I have a COI in that article, I would prefer if somebody else gets involved and deals with those edits. Nergaal ( talk) 19:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
-- Stone ( talk) 20:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
For the more patient; rubidium and cesium are added to water at the end. S B H arris 21:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
S
B
H
arris
21:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
First to respond to Harris: One needs to be careful here: the question is not about cesium and water, but cesium. We dont want to give the impression to readers that an element is unstable. But I concede the point is semantic.
As I read the text it seemed to be saying that in reactivity (toward other elements, of course) there's a big change from lithium to sodium to potassium; then cesium isn't much different from potassium. If that was the intention, I say nonsense! At each step in this progression, if you're used to working with, or handling the element before, the next alkali element will surprise you with extra reactivity, to the point of being dangerous. As the video shows for water, but it's true for any reaction, from that with oxygen, to those with primary, secondary, and teriary alcohols with various alkane groups. S B H arris 00:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a completely rational explanation for all this: the concept of critical mass. For any strongly exothermic reaction at the critical mass the reaction is self-sustaining. Above the critical mass a runaway reaction occurs, commonly described as an explosion. In chemical terms criticality occurs when the heat generated is equal to the heat dissipated. When more heat is generated than is dissipated the temperature will continue to rise until explosion occurs because reaction rates increase with increasing temperature. With the alkali metals the heat of reaction with water increases with atomic number, so the critical mass decreases. To say that caesium always explodes on contact with water is wrong. I don't know what the critical mass is, but I guess it will be of the order of milligrams. Put any quantity less than the critical mass into water and it will "burn" just as with a small quantity of sodium. Petergans ( talk) 22:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
What Ullman source are you talking about?
Nergaal (
talk)
22:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to ask, I checked element's isotope pages and I see this symbol m. I cannot find what this means, and looked through the Isotope page.
Thanks, Marasama ( talk) 18:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads up since the wikileak's leak this morning. In it's instructions on handling defectors, red mercury is used as an example of a 'suspicious or dangerous' material that would be presented as evidence of a country enriching plutonium. It can be read both ways, depending on whether we stress the 'suspicious' part or the 'dangerous' part, and the call out to enriching plutonium is odd, but also not inconsistent with red mercury being a hoax. Might want to keep an eye on the article. -- ۩ M ask 19:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)