![]() | 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 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
I recently stumbled onto one of the articles and found to my suprise wikipedia has 17 articles with different versions of the periodic table and 17 lists which ranks the elements based on different criteria. Needless to say this seems excessive. A proposal to merge the lists of elements was made in 2008, supposedly when the table sorting tool became available, but this was never completed. I want to propose the following:
here, as as author does not understand basic WP policies of notability and WP:RS, and I am not in the mood for 3RR. In short, Amnov has already been criticized in 2008 for his "discoveries" of new elements, and here comes another one. Materialscientist ( talk) 04:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The Neptunium page states that predicted by Walter Russell's spiral organization of the periodic table this should date into the 1920s or so. There is a biography of Mendeleev from Paul Walden doi: 10.1002/cber.190804103191 from 1908 with a reprint of a periodic table. There is a dash between thorium and uranium and one dash after uranium. For me this means that Mendeleev was aware that there might be more to come. For me the spiral is not really a prediction, because it is not predicting the actinides, but the fact that this will be a short period. Any good suggestions? -- Stone ( talk) 22:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
A user has been recently editing the table under valency article. His edits might be right, but if C has 5, shouldn't Li have at least 4 then (i.e. [Li(thf)4]+)? Nergaal ( talk) 01:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, to be sure, I give here the definition. It is directly copied (without any modifying) from the article; the proving link can be found there.
(P.S. I haven't ever heard of [AlH4-. If it really exists, improve valence of aluminium to four)-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 16:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay user:R8R Gtrs has rewritten this whole article. It is probably not a good idea to rewrite a large, mature article in a single revision. Are we agreed on that policy? A number of editors are going through this thing. Notes and suggestions welcome at Talk:Fluorine. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 01:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Your Majesties, thank you for all your hard work. This award is for the project itself. Copies of the award will be presented to:
Well done! What a grand effort. When more people qualify to join please let me know. Warm regards – SMasters ( talk) 09:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I feel that many of those stubby articles on individual isotopes, such as thallium-205, should be merged into the main article on isotopes of element. I've done this for isotopes of thorium, what do you think? Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 06:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
One thing necessary is to substitute the
by
on the talk page of the article to make it possible to sort into the redirect category.-- Stone ( talk) 13:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Here is a list of the non stub articles on Isotopes
B-Class |
C-Class |
C-Class |
Start |
Start
|
Stubs can be found here Stub-Class_chemical_element_isotope_articles
-- Stone ( talk) 14:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The isotope parameter that we have now to mark all the articles pertaining to isotopes seems to have worked out quite well. There are some more subarticles that I think may benefit from tagging, and the first ones that come into mind are "Compounds of {element}" as well as series of those on allotropes. What do you guys think? Also, how should the new parameter(s) be named? Nergaal ( talk) 06:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
It's a bit weird to see the periodic tables mostly going with Sc Y * ** when the chemical element infoboxes all imply Sc Y Lu Lr.
04:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
There might be more different ones but they show the full spectra of the lanthanide insertion problematic.-- Stone ( talk) 10:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Although I can understand the rationale, this just doesn't seem to be the norm. I mean, since ununquadium may be the 7th period's noble gas instead of ununoctium, then ununpentium would be de facto an alkali metal. So we look at Nitrogen group, and see that ununpentium is mentioned in the pnictogens' electron configuration table, unlike in Noble gas, where ununoctium is briefly mentioned in the lead, and left out elsewhere. Shouldn't we have consistency?? Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 08:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
This was created to replace the old out-of-date image at element discovery, but the colours may need to be edited, as I think they may cause problems (especially between 1850-1899 and 1900-1949, which can be hard to distinguish at times, at least for me). Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 10:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Group → | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
↓ Period | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 1 H |
2 He | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 3 Li |
4 Be |
5 B |
6 C |
7 N |
8 O |
9 F |
10 Ne | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 11 Na |
12 Mg |
13 Al |
14 Si |
15 P |
16 S |
17 Cl |
18 Ar | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 19 K |
20 Ca |
21 Sc |
22 Ti |
23 V |
24 Cr |
25 Mn |
26 Fe |
27 Co |
28 Ni |
29 Cu |
30 Zn |
31 Ga |
32 Ge |
33 As |
34 Se |
35 Br |
36 Kr | ||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | 37 Rb |
38 Sr |
39 Y |
40 Zr |
41 Nb |
42 Mo |
43 Tc |
44 Ru |
45 Rh |
46 Pd |
47 Ag |
48 Cd |
49 In |
50 Sn |
51 Sb |
52 Te |
53 I |
54 Xe | ||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | 55 Cs |
56 Ba |
![]() |
71 Lu |
72 Hf |
73 Ta |
74 W |
75 Re |
76 Os |
77 Ir |
78 Pt |
79 Au |
80 Hg |
81 Tl |
82 Pb |
83 Bi |
84 Po |
85 At |
86 Rn | |||||||||||||||||||||
7 | 87 Fr |
88 Ra |
![]() |
103 Lr |
104 Rf |
105 Db |
106 Sg |
107 Bh |
108 Hs |
109 Mt |
110 Ds |
111 Rg |
112 Cn |
113 Nh |
114 Fl |
115 Mc |
116 Lv |
117 Ts |
118 Og | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
57 La |
58 Ce |
59 Pr |
60 Nd |
61 Pm |
62 Sm |
63 Eu |
64 Gd |
65 Tb |
66 Dy |
67 Ho |
68 Er |
69 Tm |
70 Yb |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
89 Ac |
90 Th |
91 Pa |
92 U |
93 Np |
94 Pu |
95 Am |
96 Cm |
97 Bk |
98 Cf |
99 Es |
100 Fm |
101 Md |
102 No |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 11:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Has anyone thought of a template to automatically create systematic element names based on atomic number? My testing here: Template:Systematicelementname, Template:Systematicelementname product. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 13:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I will be submitting Californium to FAC after work Eastern U.S. time on Monday 14 February. Just a heads up. -- mav ( reviews needed) 02:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated several fake elements images for deletion per WP:OR. Please vote here and there. Materialscientist ( talk) 06:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
For those interested, there are deletion discussions concerning Unbitrium, Unbiunium, and Unbipentium at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unbitrium, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unbiunium, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unbipentium. ChemNerd ( talk) 15:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
This Sunday (or, if I won't be able, the closest possible day after it) I'll submit fluorine to FAC, if there won't be major opposes. Please anyone, feel free to add any comments at fluorine talk page-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 14:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I found this as a nice, reliable source for all those uber-sketchy lifetimes we have listed in the heavier elements. Nergaal ( talk) 09:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{
citation}}, {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=
(or worse {{
arxiv|0123.4567}}
|url=
http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567
), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567
, likewise for |id=
and {{
JSTOR|0123456789}}
|url=
http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789
→ |jstor=0123456789
.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I like this image, but it can be quite out of date at times...(e.g. Alkali metal is now B-class, not reflected yet). So I propose to have a sort of "testing ground" to put in changes for the periodic table before the next update occurs for the image, currently situated at User:Lanthanum-138/PTQ (short for Periodic Table by Quality). What do you think? Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 13:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
So, with the quality table, should we now remove the chemical series table? I don't think we need two full-sized tables (but I find inclusion as a picture acceptable).-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 21:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, now that we have a table which shows at a glance, what do we do about it? I'm having a hard time finding when the articles were graded by the chem team for "quality," and WHERE is the assessment result in each case. Wouldn't this be a natural thing to link to, in the relevant quality score in the databox for this, that appears at the top of the element TALK page? Yet I don't see it. For example, bromine is C class for the chemistry people. When was that assessment done? It looks better than that to me! S B H arris 21:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Not trying to prove anything so much as find out what the system is, or even if there IS a system. You can make a pretty table with pretty colors, but what's behind it? It's a fair question. Since it appears that nobody died and left you Sole Olympic Judge of Wikipedia Chemical Element Article Quality, I think I will indeed go to bromine and change its quality back to a grade that pleases My Royal Person.
As for your other question, if the point of these grades isn't to point out which parts of articles need improving, and by how much, what's the point of it? The pretty colors on the chart end up being instead more like Nergaal Prizes (for Chemistry Writing). Then, just as with the Swedish prizes, we'd all just be supposed to work hard and hope they're bestowed upon us, like divine grace. You can't even lobby.
By the way, the comment about "knowing more about bromine than the average chemist if you read the wiki" was a little joke. The average chemist knows about two paragraphs of information about bromine, just as I did, before I started. If you asked the average chemist what the most important industrial use of bromine was, you wouldn't get an answer. Unless he or she had read the wiki article, of course. For those reading here who haven't the article, can YOU answer that question off the "top of your head"? Well, I couldn't either! And I've made elemental bromine in the lab from MnO2, bromide, and sulfuric acid, just like many others of you that are of my boomer generation (perish the thought they'd let students do this, these days). I'm not unfamilar with the stuff. I've used it inorganic reactions, O-chem, and even in veterinary medicine. Raise your hands if you knew bromide was used in vet-med, and that you can draw levels for it, and have them done by any veterinary blood lab. Cheers! S B H arris 01:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, if you can avoid breathing the stuff, liquid bromine is great for getting rid of anthills. I thought of putting that under "applications." Original research, though, I'm afraid. S B H arris 07:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Bromine#quality_scale_assessment. Would this be sufficient? -- Stone ( talk) 11:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The trouble with having a table like this is that we can't resize it for other uses, such as in the WP:ELEMENTS talk page template. This is fixed by holding ratings for each article in its own template, such at Wikipedia:Oxygen assessment/Elements rating, which holds the text Wikipedia:Oxygen assessment/Elements rating via the wikitext {{Wikipedia:Oxygen assessment/Elements rating}}, which in turn can be put in any number of tables. Wikipedia:Oxygen assessment will hold info on the assessment of the element, maybe including a brief history of the article's progress from stub to where it is today (interesting meta data, IMO). The downside is that edit links to each rating template would need to be provided next to each rating on talk pages and on the main rating table in the WP namespace. Adding the below code to Template:WikiProject Elements would do the trick: [{{fullurl:Wikipedia:{{PAGENAME}} assessment/Elements rating|action=edit}} edit rating]. What does everybody think? -- mav ( reviews needed) 14:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
And the biggest advantage of this plan is that editing just one page will update the article's rating everywhere it is tracked (create as many tracking tables and lists you want with minimal maintenance concerns). Anybody who is interested in tracking article ratings will simply need to watch each article rating page they are interested in. -- mav ( reviews needed) 14:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Or we can expand on the current assessment page convention of using, for example, Talk:Beryllium/Comments as the base page and Talk:Beryllium/Comments/Elements rating as the place to hold ratings. Either way works for me. -- mav ( reviews needed) 14:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
In response to the lengthly discussion between Nergaal and SBHarris, I suggest that:
What does everyone think? Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 10:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I am thinking to move this page completely as a subpage of the project (similar to the pictorial table one). Nergaal ( talk) 07:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The following elements have disputed colours:
Any comments regarding their proper colours (especially Mt, Ds, Rg) is appreciated. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 08:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
For me, we shouldn't color Mt, Ds, Rg, Uut, Uuq, Uup, Uuh, Uus, Uuo, since none of this have been experimentally chemically tested. About Po, I'd prefer coloring as metal, since I have never seen a truly scientific article that would mark it as a metalloid, but I saw ones that mark it as a metal. For example, check article's lead: ref of metal being a metal seems to be a scientific ref, unlike the ref of metalloid being. Looking on more refs, some of them call Po a metal, some don't state, but none else calls a metalloid-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 09:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
This one is a very old issue (as I can see from the archives and history), but currently whenever we use the long-form periodic table, we have Sc/Y/Lu/Lr in the same column, but whenever we use the short-form periodic table, we have Sc/Y/*/** in the same column. Since this is an inconsistency, I'd like to know what started this inconsistency, and why it's still like that. is there a good reason for this? Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 08:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
To all WPE (WIkiProject Elements) members (particularly La-138, Nergaal and Stone):
I have devised a new way of improving articles.
The title stems from the method described here. I got the idea when looking at the periodic table by quality and seeing a B/C class cross centered on silver. I then realised: "Hey, if we can do an article improvement drive centered on silver but also on the surrounding articles, then we could apply this to all articles!" So... I have decided that we improve radium while at the same time improving barium and actinium ( francium is already featured, so no worry on that, and unbinilium is sufficiently non-notable to be not considered now), and we do this for whatever large patch of unimproved articles there are. By the way, for this and subsequent improvement drives, the center article has to be stated on the project's main page. FRE YWA 04:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the wikiproject is a bunch of individualist. I think all tries to established a scheme all individualists have to fit in is impossible here. Preaching to the crowed is not like in this video. The collaboration of the month or any other suggestion just starved. What really works here is start working on an article in earnest and attract others by asking questions or asking for help, like what happened with niobium in 2008 or fluorine in 2011. -- Stone ( talk) 10:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The whole article reads like a advertising for thorium use as nuclear fuel. Although there are article strongly indicating that also thorium use is problematic. -- Stone ( talk) 10:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I just made a major edit to the copper page (check history) and I am hoping that it will get to featured article class as soon as possible. Seriously, this is one of the most crucial articles in the periodic table of Wikipedia, and yet it's B-class? How can this be? I'm asking for help on the article, not for a collaboration as I did in proposing the cross method above. One thing I would like to point out is that the article is too long (57 KB and 7800 words whereas yttrium, a FA, has 47 KB and 6000 words). FRE YWA 08:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
But still, it's nice you've pointed that out! Work on copper must be important. If you start working on the article and a PR, you'll surely get help, advice or edits!-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 19:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I created the page, look here, but it does not show on the talk page, what do I do now? FRE YWA 09:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted you all to know I'm beginning a new peer review, which will in a moment appear on Project's main page. I'm seeking for FAC condition for the article, so please, anyone, admit anything to make it worth FAC. Thanks-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 19:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this is a bit picky, but I've noticed over time that quite a few element articles start off with a sentence like:
I think this phrasing is slightly odd. I think the articles should be standardised to read like:
86.179.5.31 ( talk) 02:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure if anybody is aware of this already, but I found some really neat reviews for actinides:
Nergaal ( talk) 06:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Chemical symbols added by Lanthanum-138 Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 13:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Those are chapters from the fairly expensive book, The Chemistry of the Actinide and Transactinide Elements (cite below for the Californium chapter, which cost me $25). I'm pretty sure Springer would not be happy that this entire expensive book is online for free download. --
mav (
reviews needed) 12:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Haire, Richard G. (2006). "Californium". In Morss; Edelstein, Norman M.; Fuger, Jean (eds.). The Chemistry of the Actinide and Transactinide Elements (3rd ed.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Springer Science+Business Media.
ISBN
1-4020-3555-1.{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (
link)
Should the importance of articles really be indicated on Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Articles? For FA, GA and A, we don't have that, except for WP:VITAL. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 13:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I now present to all interested WP:ELEMENTS members this userbox for any element that they consider their favourite: {{ User:UBX/Element}}. There's an example of usage and output on the documentation page. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 13:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Is it really a non-free image? The paragraph in the book says: "The preparation of pure 249Cf metal to date has been in the 2–10 mg range,with the largest known amount prepared at one time being about 10 mg (Haire,1978, 1980, 1982). A picture of a 10 mg 249Cf product is shown in Fig. 11.2,where it is compared to the head of a common safety pin. A more detailed account of the preparation of californium metal is available (Haire, 1982)." The author himself is from Oak Ridge, so it must mean that the picture was taken by a government worker. Am I right? Nergaal ( talk) 22:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Since I'm on the verge of violating 3RR with Eeekster, I'd like feedback on whether the listed image is worthy of inclusion of Radium#Chemical characteristics and compounds. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 09:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I wish to draw to everyone's attention three things:
Please, if you can help with the pictures, please do so. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 12:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Thorium: how about this: Th? A sample of ~0,1g (grey) Th sheet under argon. -- Alchemist-hp ( talk) 21:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, it is very simple. I can upload all my own images ;-) Please look to the exif/meta data to one of my uploaded images, perhaps this one
. Best, --
Alchemist-hp (
talk) 23:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I just want to let you know that... We're going to be featured in the Signpost! I was the one who actually stepped forward and did the proposal, and thus our WikiProject has been accepted. The issue that we are going to be featured in is June 13 (see here.) Flex your fingers for the interview! FRE YWA 07:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
[3] Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 08:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I've been thinking that if several people work on an article, it'd do faster. So here's what I'm thinking about — collaboration on anything. If, say, three-four users began working on the same article, we could possibly bring it to GAN (from C) in a month or at most one and a half. For instance, we wouldn't we try it? I know there used to be something similar, and that's where my idea originates from. If anyone has what to say on recreating the idea, please, comment it. I'd like to find out if I could find some people to do so.
But what about beginning a monthly collaboration on one article? I'd like to propose potassium for May and aim up for GA. Pretty simple chemistry, C-class, Top-importance, and 14th most viewed article within the project (say, calcium is number 20, and sulfur is 28th). If the idea is worth anything, please comment-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 18:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I found the website http://www.apsidium.com/ (see web archive and a mirror site, if the website doesn't work), which gives many predictions on elements' atomic masses by the theory called significant atom-mass(e.g. Unquadquadium). How this was supported by other academic sources?-- Inspector ( talk) 08:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Can somebody please remove the late Feb and early Mar alerts from the article alerts? This is getting ridiculous (although I suppose it's a consequence of the large number of recent GA nominations). Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 09:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
And so chlorine got packed off to WP:GAR by me, given its severe lack of citations. Everyone: please go there and tell me what you think. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 13:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
This cite shows an article with two interesting statements by JINR staff: the director Sergey Dmitriev stated these elements are expected by JINR to have been recognized by IUPAC by the end of 2011, and vice-director Mikhail Itkis stated they want to name them флеровий, flerovium, after Georgy Flerov, and moscovium (or whatever spelling would stand for московий in English), respectively, (the article itself is named "Russian Physicians Will Suggest to Name Element 116 as Moscovium") after not Moscow, but Moscow Oblast, and after the recognition the JINR will suggest these as full-righted names. The text in the link, if you haven't clicked there yet, is in Russian, so think twice. Also, the two names were earlier proposed for ununoctium, but it seems not anymore thought to be the future names for 118. But I was about...is this all notable for ununquadium and ununhexium (possibly also ununoctium)?-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 19:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
File:NatCopper.jpg is now at FPC. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 08:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
This was old news.
But now, we've got Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Periodic table (pictures) - a potential article version.
Thoughts? Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 15:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I was going to re-submit Californium to FAC today, but I see that Fluorine is currently at FAC. I don't want to overburden chemistry reviewers right now so I'm asking here: Is now a good time to re-submit Californium to FAC or should I wait another week to give more time for consensus to be reached on the Fluorine FAC? Either way, please take a look to see if Cf is ready. -- mav ( reviews needed) 16:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
For me the claim that Ununpentium is a Alkali metal looks strange to me. To put this into the article of the alkali metals is for me not acceptable. The element has not jet characterized in a way that this claim could be argued in a to come to that conclusion. The paper used for that claim [5] in the 115 article ends with the chemistry of element 114 and neither mentiones 115, ununpentium nore Alkali metal. I will put all the claims in hiding until somebody shows up with a credible source. -- Stone ( talk) 06:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
With a [Rn]6d107s27p2 configuration the question was how the filled 7p1/2 subshell influences the chemical properties of element 114. Due to a pronounced spin-orbit splitting between the spherical 7p1/2 and distorted 7p3/2 orbitals estimates ranged from a noble gas-like behaviour [106] to a lead-like behaviour [107]. Since currently no gas chemistry device would be able to cover such a broad range of volatilities, it was decided to first search for a very volatile element 114 using the same set-up as applied in the chemistry experiments with element 112.
This experiment was conducted in 2007 at FLNR. In the course of two experiments using the reactions 48Ca + 242Pu and 48Ca + 244Pu three decay chains assigned to element 114 were observed, with low probability to be of random origin, one of 0.5s 287114, and two of 0.8 s 288114. This result was somewhat surprising given the transport time of 2 s.
Two of the three atoms were observed on the Au surface at very low temperatures, between -80 and -90 °C, where adsorption of heavy noble gases via van der Waals interaction is expected. This finding is in line with expectation from Pitzer [106] but disagrees with more recent predictions. Semi-empirical extrapolations [121] and relativistic theoretical calculations [122] predict element 114 to behave like a volatile metal, slightly more volatile than Pb but certainly not like a noble gas. Therefore, these experiments will be continued in 2008 to search for additional atoms of element 114.
Chemical properties section from ununpentium is 100% OR, and the only ref is about bismuth, from webelements.com and doesn't even mention 115. If the theme got started, maybe we should do something with sections like this?-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 18:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure if this would by your type of thing or not but I was trying to de-orphan this article Gold phosphine complex as part of that I googled for refs and it has heaps. Unfortunately I don't have a clue about this subject. If anyone is interested in expanding this stub here is the link to google scholar search [6] Blackash have a chat 14:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Is Po a metal or a metalloid? Is it both? And what of At and some others? Sources disagree. The German compact PSE has a Template:Backimage for this sort of thing, which I could probably program if needed (I'm OK at template coding), but is that really the best solution? That would cause endess problems with having to adapt the colours for the infoboxes and other places. It seems to me that we've got to decide if Po is metal or metalloid - we've already decided about them transactinides earlier (put them as unknown chemical properties). So, well? In Po article, it mentions dispute over whether Po is metalloid or poor metal, both sources are ref'd, but poor metal source is more reliable than metalloid source. I seem to remember this article called "Polonium and Astatine are not Metalloids"...not entirely certain about the content though. Thoughts? Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 07:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I still can't find any detailed sources explaining the half-lifes and nuclear spins of 272Mt and 273Mt in the list Isotopes of meitnerium. The predictions were mentioned in several sources [7] [8], but I am still not clear about how they get the number, since they did not explain or cite the predictions.-- Inspector ( talk) 11:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
It may become four, because I think I've found At: Astatine - National Research Council Canada. What do you think? Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 08:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
“ | There are fingers in that picture, thus it is almost 1 cm in diameter. Very suspicious. In absence of clear and consistent description, we can hardly feature pictures of rare elements. - Materialscientist | ” |
Should we include all the minor things of the periodic table (like s-block, actinide) in the PTQ? I think it would be better for our project. FRE YWA 05:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Promethium 01.jpg? I'd advise readers to be cautious, because I think this is actually Nd. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 04:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
After the refreshing (?) success of copper through PR and GAN, I now turn my attention to the periodic table. My goal is to get this to at least GA, and I want a peer review. The problem: there is this tag on there.
This article needs additional citations for
verification. |
According to PR rules, a PR on an article cannot proceed if tags like this are on that. What can I do? FRE YWA 08:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
So R8R Gtrs shelved his earlier plans to improve Group 12 element to work on Group 3 element. Unfortunately, now we have a problem on whether to use Sc/Y/La/Ac, Sc/Y/Lu/Lr, Sc/Y/Ln/An (articles only, so La, Ce... Ac, Th... not included), or even just Sc/Y. (Myself, I prefer Sc/Y/Ln/An, not least because it's mentioned here, and that it's at least keeping neutral...) Regardless, R8R Gtrs himself sees Sc/Y/Lu/Lr to be the best solution (which I don't, thus causing the problem...) So, what should be done?? (This problem seems to have occurred a quadrillion times already...) Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 12:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, in the last few days the potassium article expanded [9] a little by 20kbyte. Now a few helping hands are needed to identify the most problematic points in the article. Comments can be added to Talk:Potassium#B-Class_review. Thanks -- Stone ( talk) 21:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
(Note: It is a bit difficult to extend the periodic trends section format past period 3 because it just scrolls of the page. Bother.) Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 06:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd |
Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe |
Cs | Ba | * | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt |
Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn |
* | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu |
* | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu |
Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu |
The recent upload of the PTQ and the wikitext version of it show that some articles have degraded (quality or otherwise) recently. What happened? FRE YWA 01:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
There are some concerns from User:Smokefoot about the 2nd paragraph in the Physical section. Can anyone help address them?? Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 03:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I have another comment on the copper article: A copper saturated stream running from the disused Parys Mountain mines is the subscript under a image. My concern is now the word saturated. Is there a ref for that? -- Stone ( talk) 06:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Why do only some elements have their spectra? (I can generate the images, but for some reason I can't seem to upload them. Probably because I used "Print Screen" to get the data from Atomic Spectra program. :-(.) All of them should have the spectra in the infobox! Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 14:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I finally managed to borrow the MATTER book, where I found a description of the Rn picture (finally!). Uploaded (again) at File:Radon.jpg.
I also tried getting a description for the former Theodore Gray picture File:Promethium.jpg. Unfortunately, RGB states that it is again promethium lumious paint, so no. (How are we going to get Pm pictures??) Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 04:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
See User talk:Lanthanum-138. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 01:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
There are discussions regarding americium and curium's natural occurence at Talk:Americium and Talk:Curium. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 05:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, I just went to the article on the periodic table and found it really lacking. The different pieces of data just don't match up! How am I going to add refs like I said earlier? To help untangle this mess, I've tagged the article with this:
This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's
quality standards. |
“ | I want you to DO IT! | ” |
— NOW! |
FRE YWA 08:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if this is real: [11]. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 04:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
We now have only 5 elements (of those up till 100, where either they are naturally occuring or they have been synthetically prepared in visible amounts) not covered by a picture ( Pm, At, Rn, Ac and Fm. (We used to have Pm and Rn, but they were not reliable enough. Ac was talked about but was also not reliable enough.) At and Fm are likely to be the hardest of the lot to get hold of. :-(
Also, our current image for Fr doesn't really show how the element looks like in person. (Oh, of course this is going to be the best we can get, but if this isn't encyclopaedic enough...) Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 06:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Ignore fermium altogether then. So it is now 95/99. BTW in Guinness World Records 2008 astatine is shown as a black solid and the rarest element in nature. The article on astatine tells you how to make this really radioactive element. How about that? FRE YWA 09:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Judging by the amount, it is indeed pitchblende. I'd wait some time and delete it if no objection. Materialscientist ( talk) 11:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys who review GAs for our project! I was thinking that maybe we shouldn't review our GANs. Not like I am bullying, not at all, of course. Just I find it might be useful for the articles to be reviewed by non-chemist, who don't find it all common, and independent, they usually ask more, but improve the quality. Anyway, thanks for the reviews already done!-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 11:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I found that ununquadium and ununhexium have been officially accepted by the Joint Working Group of the IUPAC. The evidence is here: doi: 10.1351/PAC-REP-10-05-01. There is a video about this event: It's Here! FRE YWA 17:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Of our B-class articles, what do you think is needed to bring them to GAs? ( Carbon looks pretty promising.) Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 15:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Just a hit-list for everything that seems good.
Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 05:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
"Experiment zur Erzeugung von Element 116 (Uuh): Montage eines Targets aus 248Cm" one)
Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 06:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 06:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 13:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Can we get rid of the descriptions of the appearance of the elements? I feel that the picture does better in settling arguments (e.g. fluorine: tan -> yellow -> tan OR yellow -> yellow...) Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 14:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello everybody! It's been some time since I've came here, but I have some things prepared for you.
First of these is this crossword whose letters can be rearranged to Words With Friends:
W D H F IR O N EWS S DIRT
I've just reviewed cadmium, it's a pass, but can anybody tell me how to install the DejaVu fonts onto Inkscape? I tried it, but it doesn't work.
Returning to elements: I, for a long time, was thinking of this transperiodic highway, a link from alkali metals to noble gases using only up/down (change period by 1) or left/right (change group by exactly 1; H-He, Be-B and Mg-Al are not allowed) movements. The lanthanides/actinides are considered group 3, meaning left/right/up/down movements are totally OK here. The transperiodic highway would then be a sequence of such moves that took you from group 1 to group 18 while staying on good/featured articles. So the gaps currently are strontium, gallium, aluminium, carbon, nitrogen (or Sr, Ga, I, XX, where XX is one of " arsenic, selenium", "As, antimony" or " tin, Sb"). It would look good if we could fill in those gaps - the PTQ then would look aesthetically pleasing because of a band of green and blue. FRE YWA 04:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I had recently just read some isotope articles like Isotopes of meitnerium, and I found most of them just referenced from several databases. Some isotopes were shown citation to other articles, while some others were marked as predictions and was not well-explained. I think we should cite each existent isotopes, and keep an eye on those had not been synthesized.
Plus: These databases were published between 2003 and 2005, so there might be new reports that was not included. -- Inspector ( talk) 13:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
With the recent revamping of the periodic table by "some guy" named LarryMorseDCOhio, I feel that the periodic table is ready to be promoted to B-class. Any comments or concerns? FRE YWA 18:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
has just about exhausted our patience with him/her over the Mt/Ds/Rg/Cn issue. (You know the drill: he/she sees a periodic table with Mt/Ds/Rg uncoloured, proceeds to colour them as transition metals, gets reverted, reverts back, and then uncolours Mt/Ds/Rg/Cn. Not sure what they are trying to do.) Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 12:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
CRC Handbook from 1968 states that 25% of REE consumption goes into carbon lightning applications. We copy this statement and others like an article doi: 10.1143/JPSJ.70.1825 from 2001 copies this without questioning it. Does any body know if Hollywood is still using carbon arc lamps or if they switched to xenon arc lamps a long time ago?-- Stone ( talk) 08:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I was perusing the rare earth element articles and found that the lanl address used as a source has changed from http://periodic.lanl.gov/elements/(element#).html to http://periodic.lanl.gov/(element#).shtml. I've updated the promethium and samarium discussion pages. Is there a way to automate the updating? If not I volunteer to do the rest of the rare earths. Wikimedes ( talk) 09:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm now trying to add references to the periodic table to prep it for PR. There is a problem however: the most obvious things (like "the f-block houses the lanthanides and actinides") are actually under-referenced in papers and journals, because they are widespread facts. I'm here because the inclusion criteria is not widespread facts but sources. Anyone willing to help? FRE YWA 18:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Scientific_citation_guidelines? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Why do some elements have their spectral lines in the infoboxes and others not?? (You may want to check out http://gotexassoccer.com/elements/Spectra/index.htm, based on data from the CRC Handbook of Physics and Chemistry.) Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 12:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey there! I notice that you haven't commented at all on my review on potassium. Would you kindly comment? Please leave them in the Comments section I have prepared for you. By the way, please help find references for the remaining citation needed tags as I want all the statements to be verified before I send this for peer review. FRE YWA 05:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd love to re-rate all our A-class back to Bs (maybe except from actinide). WP:A? says there should be some kinda multi-reviewer assessment, and even more — an A should be close to FA, not a GA, and re-ratings of carbon and potassium on the ground they're close to GAs seems kinda stupid. Some other WikiProjects use Bplus-class ratings (which you're free to create) for such things, but not A. I'm reverting them back to B.
By the way, what about A-class (re-)creation? I've wanted to suggest it about a couple of months. Originally thought to be slightly higher than GA-class (and yes, I know the difference, if you don't, check this), we could make a new A-class, which could be above GAs, unlike now. Maybe if anyone's interested in that, we could try to re-rate some of our GAs/Bs, to create a new class of high quality. Possibly if not ourselves, we could stick to some larger project?-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 15:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The "A"-class is mostly due to WP:CHEMISTRY's hatred of FA and GAs. As far as I'm concerned, let's re-rate all A-class to B-class, and let's let WP:CHEMISTRY worry about their ratings. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
<-Outdent: Cool - I like it. We can now reserve A class for articles that have had some type of multi-user review. -- mav ( reviews needed) 11:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I recently added the {{ Subject bar}} template to Hydrogen and Astatine, and I was just wondering if use of this template across all element articles would be beneficial. I think it's a great way to make the chemistry portal and periodic table books readily accessible. -- Gyrobo ( talk) 19:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
As of June 22, 2011, half of our element articles are good or featured. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 16:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
To create books, simply click on the "Create a book" link, which can be found in the "print/export" toolbox on the left of your screen. See Help:Books if you need help, or just drop be a line if you are still confused/unsure of yourself. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
Wikipedia-Books|Element}}
should at the least be present in element's article, isotopes of element's article, and in the element's category.
See also
Note:Need to change element 112 name to copernicium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemicalinterest ( talk • contribs) 16:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't archive yet. -- mav ( reviews needed) 19:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Bump. -- mav ( reviews needed) 02:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Preemptive bump. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 06:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
All the books have been created. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 07:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I just created for convenience. I also create a few remaining books on periods, groups, actinides, lanthanides, etc... Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Having an r link at the bottom of the infobox to a Wikipedia namespace page that itself lists other links to wiki-editable values does not a reference make. Adding cites right after each value in the table, as was done with fluorine, makes the table harder to read, and, IMO, ugly. I therefore created a mock-up at User:Mav/Sandbox, which replaces the easy to miss r link with a [Table references] link, that goes to a ===Table references=== subjection under ==References==. Any suggestions for improvement? Note that, by default, nothing will change for any article. Only when a new template is edited for a particular inobox will the new format become live for that infobox. -- mav ( reviews needed) 23:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Atomic properties | ref | |
---|---|---|
Oxidation states | 2, 3, 4 | [1] |
Electronegativity | 1.3 (Pauling scale) | [2] |
I corresponded with the DOT and verified that all of their hazard symbols are public domain. There are about 40 of them. Wonder if there is someone interested in uploading them? See [12]. TCO ( talk) 00:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
P.s. I used the 4 signs for F transport in the F article and it came out very nice as a graphic to illustrate precautions. There is some other document that says what is required when. (Note, not advocating "how to" on transport. Just describing some aspects of usage, one of which is here.) TCO ( talk) 01:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello there! I just would like you to know that I've found all the issues for Group 3 element. They are at the corresponding review page. See you there! FRE YWA 09:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a question that has to do with more than just style guidelines, as it threatens to be made a decission via the "style backdoor"
Here's the RFC
Following a discussion at Talk:phosphorus: The element articles are about the main source/use/history of anything containing the element as a dominant component, not the elemental form. About the uses of phosphorus, we dont want to delude readers into thinking that white or red phosphorus is very really dominant - that angle give undue weight to a relatively modest aspect. The content should instead reflect the fact that phosphorus mainly occurs and is used as oxides. The article on lithium, similarly, should not be mainly about lithium metal but about the minerals that are sources of Li+, the compounds of Li+, and the applications, which again are mainly Li+-containing materials. The manual of style for elements articles specifies:
Sections 1.1 and 1.2 are allocated to the properties of the elemental form of the element. For some elements, say Ti, the dominant uses involve the elemental form (Ti metal), in which case #2 (production) and #5 (applications) would emphasize (but not exclusively describe) the production and use to Ti metal. Please let me know if these views do not reflect consensus. Thanks, -- Smokefoot ( talk) 11:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
That's only an opinion. It means that personally, I'm happy to see (say) most of the metallic lithium info and the pure elemental bromine info, in the main lithium and bromine articles, distributed in many sections, but compound uses spun off into other articles-- even though these are by far the most common uses for the element over all (> 75% for lithium and even more lop-sided for bromine). S B H arris 00:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I have found a decent Israili website that gives a table of abundance in the crust. But would like one for cosmological. Want the actual numbers, not the semilog chart. GnE says the chart comes from Cameron 1973 paper. Can probably use that for what I want (abundance of elements around F), but would hope maybe there is something new out there. Did not find a good table in Google scholar or in my oldish CRC.
TCO ( reviews needed) 20:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
With the upcoming interview with The Signpost, I'm thinking: where's our logo? Some people say that it's our PTQ, but I want something unambigious. I'm thinking of something that looks like several letters coming together to form our project name. So we have W, P for WikiProject and for ELEMENTS we use PT for periodic table. Do you agree with this? FRE YWA 03:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
For a very long time we had our logo being the one we use in all the templates. I still like it.-- Stone ( talk) 11:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Amusingly, about 88.72% of our "articles" are not even articles. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 08:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Another stub falls. :-) How is it now? Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 09:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I thought that was the tradition when we turned an element blue? ;) TCO ( talk) 05:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, you mean we really need a drink? Think sensibly! Mav is in the US and I'm in Singapore! FRE YWA 10:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
__ Stone ( talk) 21:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I created this early, but I'm certainly no expert on nucleosynthesis. It would be nice if people could take a glance at it (are there missing articles? does the structure of the book make sense? etc...) and leave feedback at Book talk:Nucleosynthesis . Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Helium#Glow color discrepancy -- Cybercobra (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
This paper discusses highest oxidation states of Os through Hg (and briefly all other transition metals). The point is Os(VIII), even through known in OsO4, might be also possible in OsF8 (and OsF7 may exist, too — but currently the highest confirmed fluoride of osmium is only OsF6). Highest fluoride of iridium is IrF6, but IrF7 (and IrOF5) is likely, while IrF8 and IrF9 are not. Platinum highest known +6 is OK, but the claim on that Au(VII) exists is wrong and unlikely (as well as Au(VI)) — Au(V) is the highest. It also discusses that Hg(IV) is possible, even through we know it now — the paper comes from 2006. Which is even more, it mentions some Russian papers (which I tried to find but failed) that claim the following are possible: [IrIXO4+, [IrVIIO4-, [PtXO42+, PtVIIIO4, [AuIXO4+, AuVIIF7, and HgVIIIO4 (claims on Ir(IX), Pt(X), Au(IX) and Hg(VIII) are intriguing, aren't they?). The German paper (the main subject, which is linked in the beginning) claims they're wrong, but who knows? Anyway, the German and Russian papers maybe worth including in the corresponding articles and/or transition metal and period 6 element. If anyone is interested, here's the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R8R Gtrs ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 5 June 2011
After the success of raising potassium from C to GA, I suggest we do that again with another element. How about sodium? Similar chemistry, and it brings us one step closer to a GT of Alkali metals. Or maybe nitrogen for Period 2 elements. What do you think? Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 03:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello there! This post is just for laughs. First, I would like to point to this statement at the References section of the article about the Voyager Golden Record:
Now THAT is a laugh. The next thing is that when I copyedited the page on induction motors. I left an Easter egg in the wikitext.
The full stop links to an unexpected page. The same happened in Rydberg matter; those Easter eggs are in the references. Happy hunting! FRE YWA 06:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Please don't do that. That is not appropriate. --
Rifleman 82 (
talk) 13:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I have actually added references to sulfur. Can somebody assess the article and check that it is ready for peer review? If not, point out any major issues. FRE YWA 02:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I just greatly expanded and improved Period 7 element, and am wondering if it can achieve start-class status now. Yankeesrule3 ( talk) 03:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
We might want to have a database for the ratings of the elements ( WP:ELEM/PTQ) or the pictures used for the elements ( WP:ELEM/PIC), so that we no longer need to manually update them. Then again, it could be argued that this wouldn't show the history of our article development very well, but we do have the image version for that. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 05:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Are we sure that these are from the Justin Urgitis element collection? Apparently for the weird elements, the Justin Urgitis element collection takes other's pictures. See [14] and check the way-out radioactives like Rn or Fr. If not, then we might want to scan for alternate images.
By the way, the Fm entry in the periodic table of pictures has been changed to "Redirect" status. Fm metal has not yet been prepared (although it could be). Hence we only really need to worry about Pm and the status of the At and Ac images. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 10:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
So, it seems to be finally agreed there should A-class that is multi-user assessed. So I propose the following: we'll create a separate subpage, like this (separately from Articles):
On this page, I wanted to take care of A-articles, each having a subpage for a review. It's easy to organize and I wanted just to do it, but then I thought to enlarge the idea. I also thought to make all B-assessments clean and kept like GA ones, but for project members only, also there. As well as B → C moves... (I remember that WP:Military history has something similar...I saw it half a year ago there and remembered. But it could be cool to have all Stone's B-class reviews (and similar) of the future in one place, near A-ones, making the assessment more clear BTW (I don't expect it to last weeks like GANs... An hour is enough)) If none disagrees, I'll do it on Friday or Saturday (because then I leave for about a month, well, slightly less).-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 18:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Group 12 ElementI've recently decided to further expand and copyedit the article Group 12 element to GA-class and make a good topic out of it. Can anyone else suggest what else is needed and how this article may be further improved? Tarret talk 00:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, now for my next target. It is the article that is mentioned at the top of this section. Earlier, Lanthanum-138 mentioned that one day we may get around to clearing the Start-class articles in the f-block. There are six such articles there. Of these, the one that looks most promising to me is terbium because it has the largest prose size (1519 words). Who supports me? FRE YWA 03:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Besides, why is it Start at all? It has some text, structure, and only lacks (greatly) refs-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 18:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC) A-class reviewFor your wikiproject's A-class review, do you have to be a member of the wikiproject to participate? Yankeesrule3 ( talk) 01:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
B+ classFor some reason the usage of B+ class breaks the automatic reports, see here: http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&projecta=Chemical_elements Notice that Sn, Eu and Ac, which are B+ class, are listed as "NotA Class" or "--- Class". Also notice that articles at B+ are ordered as the lowest rating, rather than between B and GA. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 07:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Group 3 elementYet another possible GT we're 1 article away from. Just the problem is bordering: Sc-Y-La-Ac, Sc-Y-Lu-Lr, and Sc-Y-lanthanide-actinide. I myself want to promote the second variant, which was actually why I moved lutetium to GA. However, I realize that we'd better discuss it here, than on the FTC page. So I wish to use my alternative as it follows Aufbau principle and no details. All the long discussions, all the complicated arguments I wish to cut with this, as they would be the "details". I myself can give a ton of arguments why Lu/Lr as a reply on your pro-La/Ac insinuations. What I want is the policy on this (or just consensus), and maybe help with the topic. Also, shouldn't we add it to short-term goals? Thanks-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 06:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
GAN of TinIs it still ongoing or is it over? The reviewer was awfully quiet in the last weeks.-- Stone ( talk) 15:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Project steeringEven with my (quite long) leave from Wikipedia to pursue other stuff, some things have not changed. What is there to improve on now? FRE YWA 09:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I have since seen "semiconductor" better defined as a material that depends for conduction not on conduction band electrons, but rather upon free electrons matched by holes in crystal, all as supplied by thermal energy. So they all have positive thermal conduction coefficients (their resistance drops the hotter they get, whereas the opposite is true of metals). Thus, semiconductors are all insulators at absolute zero, which Si and Ge are, but true metals obviously are not (some metals are superconductors at very low temps, though interestingly some of the best metallic conductors are not). Anyway, yes, by this definition, pure Si is certainly a semiconductor, whether doped or not, so I retract that idea.
S
B
H
arris 01:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
SiliconI am thinking about joining the project soon, but before I do, I want to get at least one article upgrade significantly. I think silicon is ready to be a B-class article, but I want someone from the project who has more experience than me to upgrade it, simply because I do not have much experience at the moment and do not exactly know what qualifies in this project as B-class. I was wondering if silicon should be B-class now that I cleaned up its many awkward sentences and other grammar, or if it still needs more work in order to be a B-class. Yankeesrule3 ( talk) 21:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC) Possible vandalism? Legit edits?Some IP changed some entries in the island of stability article (see [16]). I reverted, out of precaution, but it's possible the edits make sense. I personally have no idea, so if someone could check this and see if it should have been reverted, that would be great. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC) Slight inconsistencyWhile looking over Alkali metal, I noticed a slight inconsistence with Noble gas. In alkali metal, it does not include Hydrogen as an alkali metal, but in noble gas, it does include Ununoctium, even though it is likely that ununoctium does not exhibit properties of noble gases. Should this be fixed, or am I missing something? Yankeesrule3 ( talk) 18:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
redirect pages for isomersUsing the new redlink recovery tool, I stumbled upon a red link to the isomer of niobium, Nb-93m. (The link was in activation product.) I had the tool server create a re-direct page ( Niobium-93m which redirects to isotopes of niobium. I am not certain if that was the best thing to do, though. For one I am uncertain about the notation of the m. (I am more familiar with using an asterisk or star.) For another, I am uncertain of its notability, even for a redirect. Whoever composed the table in activation product thought it fit to include it in its limited list, though, which is why I created the redirect page. Your thoughts would be welcome, since I am certain that I will run across other isomers and I would like to know what the best practice is. Thanks. TStein ( talk) 03:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC) List of important publications in chemistry has been nominated for deletion. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in chemistry. -- Lambiam 22:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Sodium and potassiumI edited substantial aspects of sodium and potassium. Sometimes I can appear to be a pushy editor, but if others have concerns, please say something and I will go back and re-edit. Comments on the themes/opinions that I am trying to re-emphasize:
But again, if editors are slightly alarmed or worried, then say so, and I will try to address problems I might have introduced tomorrow.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 19:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC) The primary topic page for FE, Fe and feDoes really Fe have to redirect to Iron? Ca, Hg, or Pb do not redirect to Calcium, Mercury (element) or Lead, for example. — Ark25 ( talk) 01:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Vote (everybody, please go to TALK:Fe for this. My redirect of the redirect has been revertd by JHunter. Okay, everybody: iron (element) is now the primary topic for iron. But (question) should iron (element) be the primary topic for Fe? Personally, I say:
Analysis on qualityOne slide on WP:elements in the section called "some high importance efforts". PowerPoint: Wikipedia's poor treatment of its most important articles 69.255.27.249 ( talk) 17:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
You are a rock! RetiredUser12459780 ( talk) 23:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC) RecentChangesLinkedI noticed a problem with the recent changes tab on the top of the page. The category that it links to changes for does not include the supporting articles such as the groups and periods. I propose we instead link the recentchangeslinked to WP:ELEM/PTQ. This would ensure that all articles covered by our project are in the recentchanges. If no one objects to this, I will change it in a couple days. Yankeesrule3 ( talk) 21:38, 24 November 2011 (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 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
I recently stumbled onto one of the articles and found to my suprise wikipedia has 17 articles with different versions of the periodic table and 17 lists which ranks the elements based on different criteria. Needless to say this seems excessive. A proposal to merge the lists of elements was made in 2008, supposedly when the table sorting tool became available, but this was never completed. I want to propose the following:
here, as as author does not understand basic WP policies of notability and WP:RS, and I am not in the mood for 3RR. In short, Amnov has already been criticized in 2008 for his "discoveries" of new elements, and here comes another one. Materialscientist ( talk) 04:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The Neptunium page states that predicted by Walter Russell's spiral organization of the periodic table this should date into the 1920s or so. There is a biography of Mendeleev from Paul Walden doi: 10.1002/cber.190804103191 from 1908 with a reprint of a periodic table. There is a dash between thorium and uranium and one dash after uranium. For me this means that Mendeleev was aware that there might be more to come. For me the spiral is not really a prediction, because it is not predicting the actinides, but the fact that this will be a short period. Any good suggestions? -- Stone ( talk) 22:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
A user has been recently editing the table under valency article. His edits might be right, but if C has 5, shouldn't Li have at least 4 then (i.e. [Li(thf)4]+)? Nergaal ( talk) 01:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, to be sure, I give here the definition. It is directly copied (without any modifying) from the article; the proving link can be found there.
(P.S. I haven't ever heard of [AlH4-. If it really exists, improve valence of aluminium to four)-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 16:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay user:R8R Gtrs has rewritten this whole article. It is probably not a good idea to rewrite a large, mature article in a single revision. Are we agreed on that policy? A number of editors are going through this thing. Notes and suggestions welcome at Talk:Fluorine. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 01:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Your Majesties, thank you for all your hard work. This award is for the project itself. Copies of the award will be presented to:
Well done! What a grand effort. When more people qualify to join please let me know. Warm regards – SMasters ( talk) 09:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I feel that many of those stubby articles on individual isotopes, such as thallium-205, should be merged into the main article on isotopes of element. I've done this for isotopes of thorium, what do you think? Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 06:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
One thing necessary is to substitute the
by
on the talk page of the article to make it possible to sort into the redirect category.-- Stone ( talk) 13:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Here is a list of the non stub articles on Isotopes
B-Class |
C-Class |
C-Class |
Start |
Start
|
Stubs can be found here Stub-Class_chemical_element_isotope_articles
-- Stone ( talk) 14:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The isotope parameter that we have now to mark all the articles pertaining to isotopes seems to have worked out quite well. There are some more subarticles that I think may benefit from tagging, and the first ones that come into mind are "Compounds of {element}" as well as series of those on allotropes. What do you guys think? Also, how should the new parameter(s) be named? Nergaal ( talk) 06:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
It's a bit weird to see the periodic tables mostly going with Sc Y * ** when the chemical element infoboxes all imply Sc Y Lu Lr.
04:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
There might be more different ones but they show the full spectra of the lanthanide insertion problematic.-- Stone ( talk) 10:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Although I can understand the rationale, this just doesn't seem to be the norm. I mean, since ununquadium may be the 7th period's noble gas instead of ununoctium, then ununpentium would be de facto an alkali metal. So we look at Nitrogen group, and see that ununpentium is mentioned in the pnictogens' electron configuration table, unlike in Noble gas, where ununoctium is briefly mentioned in the lead, and left out elsewhere. Shouldn't we have consistency?? Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 08:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
This was created to replace the old out-of-date image at element discovery, but the colours may need to be edited, as I think they may cause problems (especially between 1850-1899 and 1900-1949, which can be hard to distinguish at times, at least for me). Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 10:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Group → | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
↓ Period | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | 1 H |
2 He | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | 3 Li |
4 Be |
5 B |
6 C |
7 N |
8 O |
9 F |
10 Ne | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | 11 Na |
12 Mg |
13 Al |
14 Si |
15 P |
16 S |
17 Cl |
18 Ar | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | 19 K |
20 Ca |
21 Sc |
22 Ti |
23 V |
24 Cr |
25 Mn |
26 Fe |
27 Co |
28 Ni |
29 Cu |
30 Zn |
31 Ga |
32 Ge |
33 As |
34 Se |
35 Br |
36 Kr | ||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | 37 Rb |
38 Sr |
39 Y |
40 Zr |
41 Nb |
42 Mo |
43 Tc |
44 Ru |
45 Rh |
46 Pd |
47 Ag |
48 Cd |
49 In |
50 Sn |
51 Sb |
52 Te |
53 I |
54 Xe | ||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | 55 Cs |
56 Ba |
![]() |
71 Lu |
72 Hf |
73 Ta |
74 W |
75 Re |
76 Os |
77 Ir |
78 Pt |
79 Au |
80 Hg |
81 Tl |
82 Pb |
83 Bi |
84 Po |
85 At |
86 Rn | |||||||||||||||||||||
7 | 87 Fr |
88 Ra |
![]() |
103 Lr |
104 Rf |
105 Db |
106 Sg |
107 Bh |
108 Hs |
109 Mt |
110 Ds |
111 Rg |
112 Cn |
113 Nh |
114 Fl |
115 Mc |
116 Lv |
117 Ts |
118 Og | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
57 La |
58 Ce |
59 Pr |
60 Nd |
61 Pm |
62 Sm |
63 Eu |
64 Gd |
65 Tb |
66 Dy |
67 Ho |
68 Er |
69 Tm |
70 Yb |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
89 Ac |
90 Th |
91 Pa |
92 U |
93 Np |
94 Pu |
95 Am |
96 Cm |
97 Bk |
98 Cf |
99 Es |
100 Fm |
101 Md |
102 No |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 11:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Has anyone thought of a template to automatically create systematic element names based on atomic number? My testing here: Template:Systematicelementname, Template:Systematicelementname product. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 13:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I will be submitting Californium to FAC after work Eastern U.S. time on Monday 14 February. Just a heads up. -- mav ( reviews needed) 02:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated several fake elements images for deletion per WP:OR. Please vote here and there. Materialscientist ( talk) 06:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
For those interested, there are deletion discussions concerning Unbitrium, Unbiunium, and Unbipentium at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unbitrium, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unbiunium, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unbipentium. ChemNerd ( talk) 15:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
This Sunday (or, if I won't be able, the closest possible day after it) I'll submit fluorine to FAC, if there won't be major opposes. Please anyone, feel free to add any comments at fluorine talk page-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 14:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I found this as a nice, reliable source for all those uber-sketchy lifetimes we have listed in the heavier elements. Nergaal ( talk) 09:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{
citation}}, {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=
(or worse {{
arxiv|0123.4567}}
|url=
http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567
), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567
, likewise for |id=
and {{
JSTOR|0123456789}}
|url=
http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789
→ |jstor=0123456789
.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I like this image, but it can be quite out of date at times...(e.g. Alkali metal is now B-class, not reflected yet). So I propose to have a sort of "testing ground" to put in changes for the periodic table before the next update occurs for the image, currently situated at User:Lanthanum-138/PTQ (short for Periodic Table by Quality). What do you think? Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 13:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
So, with the quality table, should we now remove the chemical series table? I don't think we need two full-sized tables (but I find inclusion as a picture acceptable).-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 21:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, now that we have a table which shows at a glance, what do we do about it? I'm having a hard time finding when the articles were graded by the chem team for "quality," and WHERE is the assessment result in each case. Wouldn't this be a natural thing to link to, in the relevant quality score in the databox for this, that appears at the top of the element TALK page? Yet I don't see it. For example, bromine is C class for the chemistry people. When was that assessment done? It looks better than that to me! S B H arris 21:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Not trying to prove anything so much as find out what the system is, or even if there IS a system. You can make a pretty table with pretty colors, but what's behind it? It's a fair question. Since it appears that nobody died and left you Sole Olympic Judge of Wikipedia Chemical Element Article Quality, I think I will indeed go to bromine and change its quality back to a grade that pleases My Royal Person.
As for your other question, if the point of these grades isn't to point out which parts of articles need improving, and by how much, what's the point of it? The pretty colors on the chart end up being instead more like Nergaal Prizes (for Chemistry Writing). Then, just as with the Swedish prizes, we'd all just be supposed to work hard and hope they're bestowed upon us, like divine grace. You can't even lobby.
By the way, the comment about "knowing more about bromine than the average chemist if you read the wiki" was a little joke. The average chemist knows about two paragraphs of information about bromine, just as I did, before I started. If you asked the average chemist what the most important industrial use of bromine was, you wouldn't get an answer. Unless he or she had read the wiki article, of course. For those reading here who haven't the article, can YOU answer that question off the "top of your head"? Well, I couldn't either! And I've made elemental bromine in the lab from MnO2, bromide, and sulfuric acid, just like many others of you that are of my boomer generation (perish the thought they'd let students do this, these days). I'm not unfamilar with the stuff. I've used it inorganic reactions, O-chem, and even in veterinary medicine. Raise your hands if you knew bromide was used in vet-med, and that you can draw levels for it, and have them done by any veterinary blood lab. Cheers! S B H arris 01:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, if you can avoid breathing the stuff, liquid bromine is great for getting rid of anthills. I thought of putting that under "applications." Original research, though, I'm afraid. S B H arris 07:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Bromine#quality_scale_assessment. Would this be sufficient? -- Stone ( talk) 11:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The trouble with having a table like this is that we can't resize it for other uses, such as in the WP:ELEMENTS talk page template. This is fixed by holding ratings for each article in its own template, such at Wikipedia:Oxygen assessment/Elements rating, which holds the text Wikipedia:Oxygen assessment/Elements rating via the wikitext {{Wikipedia:Oxygen assessment/Elements rating}}, which in turn can be put in any number of tables. Wikipedia:Oxygen assessment will hold info on the assessment of the element, maybe including a brief history of the article's progress from stub to where it is today (interesting meta data, IMO). The downside is that edit links to each rating template would need to be provided next to each rating on talk pages and on the main rating table in the WP namespace. Adding the below code to Template:WikiProject Elements would do the trick: [{{fullurl:Wikipedia:{{PAGENAME}} assessment/Elements rating|action=edit}} edit rating]. What does everybody think? -- mav ( reviews needed) 14:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
And the biggest advantage of this plan is that editing just one page will update the article's rating everywhere it is tracked (create as many tracking tables and lists you want with minimal maintenance concerns). Anybody who is interested in tracking article ratings will simply need to watch each article rating page they are interested in. -- mav ( reviews needed) 14:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Or we can expand on the current assessment page convention of using, for example, Talk:Beryllium/Comments as the base page and Talk:Beryllium/Comments/Elements rating as the place to hold ratings. Either way works for me. -- mav ( reviews needed) 14:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
In response to the lengthly discussion between Nergaal and SBHarris, I suggest that:
What does everyone think? Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 10:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I am thinking to move this page completely as a subpage of the project (similar to the pictorial table one). Nergaal ( talk) 07:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The following elements have disputed colours:
Any comments regarding their proper colours (especially Mt, Ds, Rg) is appreciated. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 08:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
For me, we shouldn't color Mt, Ds, Rg, Uut, Uuq, Uup, Uuh, Uus, Uuo, since none of this have been experimentally chemically tested. About Po, I'd prefer coloring as metal, since I have never seen a truly scientific article that would mark it as a metalloid, but I saw ones that mark it as a metal. For example, check article's lead: ref of metal being a metal seems to be a scientific ref, unlike the ref of metalloid being. Looking on more refs, some of them call Po a metal, some don't state, but none else calls a metalloid-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 09:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
This one is a very old issue (as I can see from the archives and history), but currently whenever we use the long-form periodic table, we have Sc/Y/Lu/Lr in the same column, but whenever we use the short-form periodic table, we have Sc/Y/*/** in the same column. Since this is an inconsistency, I'd like to know what started this inconsistency, and why it's still like that. is there a good reason for this? Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 08:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
To all WPE (WIkiProject Elements) members (particularly La-138, Nergaal and Stone):
I have devised a new way of improving articles.
The title stems from the method described here. I got the idea when looking at the periodic table by quality and seeing a B/C class cross centered on silver. I then realised: "Hey, if we can do an article improvement drive centered on silver but also on the surrounding articles, then we could apply this to all articles!" So... I have decided that we improve radium while at the same time improving barium and actinium ( francium is already featured, so no worry on that, and unbinilium is sufficiently non-notable to be not considered now), and we do this for whatever large patch of unimproved articles there are. By the way, for this and subsequent improvement drives, the center article has to be stated on the project's main page. FRE YWA 04:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the wikiproject is a bunch of individualist. I think all tries to established a scheme all individualists have to fit in is impossible here. Preaching to the crowed is not like in this video. The collaboration of the month or any other suggestion just starved. What really works here is start working on an article in earnest and attract others by asking questions or asking for help, like what happened with niobium in 2008 or fluorine in 2011. -- Stone ( talk) 10:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
The whole article reads like a advertising for thorium use as nuclear fuel. Although there are article strongly indicating that also thorium use is problematic. -- Stone ( talk) 10:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I just made a major edit to the copper page (check history) and I am hoping that it will get to featured article class as soon as possible. Seriously, this is one of the most crucial articles in the periodic table of Wikipedia, and yet it's B-class? How can this be? I'm asking for help on the article, not for a collaboration as I did in proposing the cross method above. One thing I would like to point out is that the article is too long (57 KB and 7800 words whereas yttrium, a FA, has 47 KB and 6000 words). FRE YWA 08:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
But still, it's nice you've pointed that out! Work on copper must be important. If you start working on the article and a PR, you'll surely get help, advice or edits!-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 19:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I created the page, look here, but it does not show on the talk page, what do I do now? FRE YWA 09:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted you all to know I'm beginning a new peer review, which will in a moment appear on Project's main page. I'm seeking for FAC condition for the article, so please, anyone, admit anything to make it worth FAC. Thanks-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 19:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this is a bit picky, but I've noticed over time that quite a few element articles start off with a sentence like:
I think this phrasing is slightly odd. I think the articles should be standardised to read like:
86.179.5.31 ( talk) 02:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure if anybody is aware of this already, but I found some really neat reviews for actinides:
Nergaal ( talk) 06:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Chemical symbols added by Lanthanum-138 Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 13:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Those are chapters from the fairly expensive book, The Chemistry of the Actinide and Transactinide Elements (cite below for the Californium chapter, which cost me $25). I'm pretty sure Springer would not be happy that this entire expensive book is online for free download. --
mav (
reviews needed) 12:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Haire, Richard G. (2006). "Californium". In Morss; Edelstein, Norman M.; Fuger, Jean (eds.). The Chemistry of the Actinide and Transactinide Elements (3rd ed.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Springer Science+Business Media.
ISBN
1-4020-3555-1.{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (
link)
Should the importance of articles really be indicated on Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Articles? For FA, GA and A, we don't have that, except for WP:VITAL. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 13:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I now present to all interested WP:ELEMENTS members this userbox for any element that they consider their favourite: {{ User:UBX/Element}}. There's an example of usage and output on the documentation page. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 13:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Is it really a non-free image? The paragraph in the book says: "The preparation of pure 249Cf metal to date has been in the 2–10 mg range,with the largest known amount prepared at one time being about 10 mg (Haire,1978, 1980, 1982). A picture of a 10 mg 249Cf product is shown in Fig. 11.2,where it is compared to the head of a common safety pin. A more detailed account of the preparation of californium metal is available (Haire, 1982)." The author himself is from Oak Ridge, so it must mean that the picture was taken by a government worker. Am I right? Nergaal ( talk) 22:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Since I'm on the verge of violating 3RR with Eeekster, I'd like feedback on whether the listed image is worthy of inclusion of Radium#Chemical characteristics and compounds. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 09:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I wish to draw to everyone's attention three things:
Please, if you can help with the pictures, please do so. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 12:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Thorium: how about this: Th? A sample of ~0,1g (grey) Th sheet under argon. -- Alchemist-hp ( talk) 21:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, it is very simple. I can upload all my own images ;-) Please look to the exif/meta data to one of my uploaded images, perhaps this one
. Best, --
Alchemist-hp (
talk) 23:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I just want to let you know that... We're going to be featured in the Signpost! I was the one who actually stepped forward and did the proposal, and thus our WikiProject has been accepted. The issue that we are going to be featured in is June 13 (see here.) Flex your fingers for the interview! FRE YWA 07:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
[3] Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 08:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I've been thinking that if several people work on an article, it'd do faster. So here's what I'm thinking about — collaboration on anything. If, say, three-four users began working on the same article, we could possibly bring it to GAN (from C) in a month or at most one and a half. For instance, we wouldn't we try it? I know there used to be something similar, and that's where my idea originates from. If anyone has what to say on recreating the idea, please, comment it. I'd like to find out if I could find some people to do so.
But what about beginning a monthly collaboration on one article? I'd like to propose potassium for May and aim up for GA. Pretty simple chemistry, C-class, Top-importance, and 14th most viewed article within the project (say, calcium is number 20, and sulfur is 28th). If the idea is worth anything, please comment-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 18:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I found the website http://www.apsidium.com/ (see web archive and a mirror site, if the website doesn't work), which gives many predictions on elements' atomic masses by the theory called significant atom-mass(e.g. Unquadquadium). How this was supported by other academic sources?-- Inspector ( talk) 08:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Can somebody please remove the late Feb and early Mar alerts from the article alerts? This is getting ridiculous (although I suppose it's a consequence of the large number of recent GA nominations). Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 09:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
And so chlorine got packed off to WP:GAR by me, given its severe lack of citations. Everyone: please go there and tell me what you think. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 13:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
This cite shows an article with two interesting statements by JINR staff: the director Sergey Dmitriev stated these elements are expected by JINR to have been recognized by IUPAC by the end of 2011, and vice-director Mikhail Itkis stated they want to name them флеровий, flerovium, after Georgy Flerov, and moscovium (or whatever spelling would stand for московий in English), respectively, (the article itself is named "Russian Physicians Will Suggest to Name Element 116 as Moscovium") after not Moscow, but Moscow Oblast, and after the recognition the JINR will suggest these as full-righted names. The text in the link, if you haven't clicked there yet, is in Russian, so think twice. Also, the two names were earlier proposed for ununoctium, but it seems not anymore thought to be the future names for 118. But I was about...is this all notable for ununquadium and ununhexium (possibly also ununoctium)?-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 19:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
File:NatCopper.jpg is now at FPC. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 08:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
This was old news.
But now, we've got Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Periodic table (pictures) - a potential article version.
Thoughts? Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 15:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I was going to re-submit Californium to FAC today, but I see that Fluorine is currently at FAC. I don't want to overburden chemistry reviewers right now so I'm asking here: Is now a good time to re-submit Californium to FAC or should I wait another week to give more time for consensus to be reached on the Fluorine FAC? Either way, please take a look to see if Cf is ready. -- mav ( reviews needed) 16:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
For me the claim that Ununpentium is a Alkali metal looks strange to me. To put this into the article of the alkali metals is for me not acceptable. The element has not jet characterized in a way that this claim could be argued in a to come to that conclusion. The paper used for that claim [5] in the 115 article ends with the chemistry of element 114 and neither mentiones 115, ununpentium nore Alkali metal. I will put all the claims in hiding until somebody shows up with a credible source. -- Stone ( talk) 06:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
With a [Rn]6d107s27p2 configuration the question was how the filled 7p1/2 subshell influences the chemical properties of element 114. Due to a pronounced spin-orbit splitting between the spherical 7p1/2 and distorted 7p3/2 orbitals estimates ranged from a noble gas-like behaviour [106] to a lead-like behaviour [107]. Since currently no gas chemistry device would be able to cover such a broad range of volatilities, it was decided to first search for a very volatile element 114 using the same set-up as applied in the chemistry experiments with element 112.
This experiment was conducted in 2007 at FLNR. In the course of two experiments using the reactions 48Ca + 242Pu and 48Ca + 244Pu three decay chains assigned to element 114 were observed, with low probability to be of random origin, one of 0.5s 287114, and two of 0.8 s 288114. This result was somewhat surprising given the transport time of 2 s.
Two of the three atoms were observed on the Au surface at very low temperatures, between -80 and -90 °C, where adsorption of heavy noble gases via van der Waals interaction is expected. This finding is in line with expectation from Pitzer [106] but disagrees with more recent predictions. Semi-empirical extrapolations [121] and relativistic theoretical calculations [122] predict element 114 to behave like a volatile metal, slightly more volatile than Pb but certainly not like a noble gas. Therefore, these experiments will be continued in 2008 to search for additional atoms of element 114.
Chemical properties section from ununpentium is 100% OR, and the only ref is about bismuth, from webelements.com and doesn't even mention 115. If the theme got started, maybe we should do something with sections like this?-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 18:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure if this would by your type of thing or not but I was trying to de-orphan this article Gold phosphine complex as part of that I googled for refs and it has heaps. Unfortunately I don't have a clue about this subject. If anyone is interested in expanding this stub here is the link to google scholar search [6] Blackash have a chat 14:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Is Po a metal or a metalloid? Is it both? And what of At and some others? Sources disagree. The German compact PSE has a Template:Backimage for this sort of thing, which I could probably program if needed (I'm OK at template coding), but is that really the best solution? That would cause endess problems with having to adapt the colours for the infoboxes and other places. It seems to me that we've got to decide if Po is metal or metalloid - we've already decided about them transactinides earlier (put them as unknown chemical properties). So, well? In Po article, it mentions dispute over whether Po is metalloid or poor metal, both sources are ref'd, but poor metal source is more reliable than metalloid source. I seem to remember this article called "Polonium and Astatine are not Metalloids"...not entirely certain about the content though. Thoughts? Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 07:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I still can't find any detailed sources explaining the half-lifes and nuclear spins of 272Mt and 273Mt in the list Isotopes of meitnerium. The predictions were mentioned in several sources [7] [8], but I am still not clear about how they get the number, since they did not explain or cite the predictions.-- Inspector ( talk) 11:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
It may become four, because I think I've found At: Astatine - National Research Council Canada. What do you think? Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 08:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
“ | There are fingers in that picture, thus it is almost 1 cm in diameter. Very suspicious. In absence of clear and consistent description, we can hardly feature pictures of rare elements. - Materialscientist | ” |
Should we include all the minor things of the periodic table (like s-block, actinide) in the PTQ? I think it would be better for our project. FRE YWA 05:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Promethium 01.jpg? I'd advise readers to be cautious, because I think this is actually Nd. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 04:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
After the refreshing (?) success of copper through PR and GAN, I now turn my attention to the periodic table. My goal is to get this to at least GA, and I want a peer review. The problem: there is this tag on there.
This article needs additional citations for
verification. |
According to PR rules, a PR on an article cannot proceed if tags like this are on that. What can I do? FRE YWA 08:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
So R8R Gtrs shelved his earlier plans to improve Group 12 element to work on Group 3 element. Unfortunately, now we have a problem on whether to use Sc/Y/La/Ac, Sc/Y/Lu/Lr, Sc/Y/Ln/An (articles only, so La, Ce... Ac, Th... not included), or even just Sc/Y. (Myself, I prefer Sc/Y/Ln/An, not least because it's mentioned here, and that it's at least keeping neutral...) Regardless, R8R Gtrs himself sees Sc/Y/Lu/Lr to be the best solution (which I don't, thus causing the problem...) So, what should be done?? (This problem seems to have occurred a quadrillion times already...) Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 12:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, in the last few days the potassium article expanded [9] a little by 20kbyte. Now a few helping hands are needed to identify the most problematic points in the article. Comments can be added to Talk:Potassium#B-Class_review. Thanks -- Stone ( talk) 21:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
(Note: It is a bit difficult to extend the periodic trends section format past period 3 because it just scrolls of the page. Bother.) Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 06:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd |
Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe |
Cs | Ba | * | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt |
Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn |
* | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu |
* | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu |
Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu |
The recent upload of the PTQ and the wikitext version of it show that some articles have degraded (quality or otherwise) recently. What happened? FRE YWA 01:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
There are some concerns from User:Smokefoot about the 2nd paragraph in the Physical section. Can anyone help address them?? Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 03:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I have another comment on the copper article: A copper saturated stream running from the disused Parys Mountain mines is the subscript under a image. My concern is now the word saturated. Is there a ref for that? -- Stone ( talk) 06:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Why do only some elements have their spectra? (I can generate the images, but for some reason I can't seem to upload them. Probably because I used "Print Screen" to get the data from Atomic Spectra program. :-(.) All of them should have the spectra in the infobox! Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 14:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I finally managed to borrow the MATTER book, where I found a description of the Rn picture (finally!). Uploaded (again) at File:Radon.jpg.
I also tried getting a description for the former Theodore Gray picture File:Promethium.jpg. Unfortunately, RGB states that it is again promethium lumious paint, so no. (How are we going to get Pm pictures??) Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 04:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
See User talk:Lanthanum-138. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 01:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
There are discussions regarding americium and curium's natural occurence at Talk:Americium and Talk:Curium. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 05:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, I just went to the article on the periodic table and found it really lacking. The different pieces of data just don't match up! How am I going to add refs like I said earlier? To help untangle this mess, I've tagged the article with this:
This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's
quality standards. |
“ | I want you to DO IT! | ” |
— NOW! |
FRE YWA 08:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if this is real: [11]. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 04:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
We now have only 5 elements (of those up till 100, where either they are naturally occuring or they have been synthetically prepared in visible amounts) not covered by a picture ( Pm, At, Rn, Ac and Fm. (We used to have Pm and Rn, but they were not reliable enough. Ac was talked about but was also not reliable enough.) At and Fm are likely to be the hardest of the lot to get hold of. :-(
Also, our current image for Fr doesn't really show how the element looks like in person. (Oh, of course this is going to be the best we can get, but if this isn't encyclopaedic enough...) Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 06:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Ignore fermium altogether then. So it is now 95/99. BTW in Guinness World Records 2008 astatine is shown as a black solid and the rarest element in nature. The article on astatine tells you how to make this really radioactive element. How about that? FRE YWA 09:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Judging by the amount, it is indeed pitchblende. I'd wait some time and delete it if no objection. Materialscientist ( talk) 11:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys who review GAs for our project! I was thinking that maybe we shouldn't review our GANs. Not like I am bullying, not at all, of course. Just I find it might be useful for the articles to be reviewed by non-chemist, who don't find it all common, and independent, they usually ask more, but improve the quality. Anyway, thanks for the reviews already done!-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 11:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I found that ununquadium and ununhexium have been officially accepted by the Joint Working Group of the IUPAC. The evidence is here: doi: 10.1351/PAC-REP-10-05-01. There is a video about this event: It's Here! FRE YWA 17:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Of our B-class articles, what do you think is needed to bring them to GAs? ( Carbon looks pretty promising.) Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 15:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Just a hit-list for everything that seems good.
Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 05:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
"Experiment zur Erzeugung von Element 116 (Uuh): Montage eines Targets aus 248Cm" one)
Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 06:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 06:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 13:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Can we get rid of the descriptions of the appearance of the elements? I feel that the picture does better in settling arguments (e.g. fluorine: tan -> yellow -> tan OR yellow -> yellow...) Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 14:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello everybody! It's been some time since I've came here, but I have some things prepared for you.
First of these is this crossword whose letters can be rearranged to Words With Friends:
W D H F IR O N EWS S DIRT
I've just reviewed cadmium, it's a pass, but can anybody tell me how to install the DejaVu fonts onto Inkscape? I tried it, but it doesn't work.
Returning to elements: I, for a long time, was thinking of this transperiodic highway, a link from alkali metals to noble gases using only up/down (change period by 1) or left/right (change group by exactly 1; H-He, Be-B and Mg-Al are not allowed) movements. The lanthanides/actinides are considered group 3, meaning left/right/up/down movements are totally OK here. The transperiodic highway would then be a sequence of such moves that took you from group 1 to group 18 while staying on good/featured articles. So the gaps currently are strontium, gallium, aluminium, carbon, nitrogen (or Sr, Ga, I, XX, where XX is one of " arsenic, selenium", "As, antimony" or " tin, Sb"). It would look good if we could fill in those gaps - the PTQ then would look aesthetically pleasing because of a band of green and blue. FRE YWA 04:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I had recently just read some isotope articles like Isotopes of meitnerium, and I found most of them just referenced from several databases. Some isotopes were shown citation to other articles, while some others were marked as predictions and was not well-explained. I think we should cite each existent isotopes, and keep an eye on those had not been synthesized.
Plus: These databases were published between 2003 and 2005, so there might be new reports that was not included. -- Inspector ( talk) 13:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
With the recent revamping of the periodic table by "some guy" named LarryMorseDCOhio, I feel that the periodic table is ready to be promoted to B-class. Any comments or concerns? FRE YWA 18:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
has just about exhausted our patience with him/her over the Mt/Ds/Rg/Cn issue. (You know the drill: he/she sees a periodic table with Mt/Ds/Rg uncoloured, proceeds to colour them as transition metals, gets reverted, reverts back, and then uncolours Mt/Ds/Rg/Cn. Not sure what they are trying to do.) Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 12:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
CRC Handbook from 1968 states that 25% of REE consumption goes into carbon lightning applications. We copy this statement and others like an article doi: 10.1143/JPSJ.70.1825 from 2001 copies this without questioning it. Does any body know if Hollywood is still using carbon arc lamps or if they switched to xenon arc lamps a long time ago?-- Stone ( talk) 08:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I was perusing the rare earth element articles and found that the lanl address used as a source has changed from http://periodic.lanl.gov/elements/(element#).html to http://periodic.lanl.gov/(element#).shtml. I've updated the promethium and samarium discussion pages. Is there a way to automate the updating? If not I volunteer to do the rest of the rare earths. Wikimedes ( talk) 09:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm now trying to add references to the periodic table to prep it for PR. There is a problem however: the most obvious things (like "the f-block houses the lanthanides and actinides") are actually under-referenced in papers and journals, because they are widespread facts. I'm here because the inclusion criteria is not widespread facts but sources. Anyone willing to help? FRE YWA 18:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Scientific_citation_guidelines? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Why do some elements have their spectral lines in the infoboxes and others not?? (You may want to check out http://gotexassoccer.com/elements/Spectra/index.htm, based on data from the CRC Handbook of Physics and Chemistry.) Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 12:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey there! I notice that you haven't commented at all on my review on potassium. Would you kindly comment? Please leave them in the Comments section I have prepared for you. By the way, please help find references for the remaining citation needed tags as I want all the statements to be verified before I send this for peer review. FRE YWA 05:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd love to re-rate all our A-class back to Bs (maybe except from actinide). WP:A? says there should be some kinda multi-reviewer assessment, and even more — an A should be close to FA, not a GA, and re-ratings of carbon and potassium on the ground they're close to GAs seems kinda stupid. Some other WikiProjects use Bplus-class ratings (which you're free to create) for such things, but not A. I'm reverting them back to B.
By the way, what about A-class (re-)creation? I've wanted to suggest it about a couple of months. Originally thought to be slightly higher than GA-class (and yes, I know the difference, if you don't, check this), we could make a new A-class, which could be above GAs, unlike now. Maybe if anyone's interested in that, we could try to re-rate some of our GAs/Bs, to create a new class of high quality. Possibly if not ourselves, we could stick to some larger project?-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 15:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The "A"-class is mostly due to WP:CHEMISTRY's hatred of FA and GAs. As far as I'm concerned, let's re-rate all A-class to B-class, and let's let WP:CHEMISTRY worry about their ratings. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
<-Outdent: Cool - I like it. We can now reserve A class for articles that have had some type of multi-user review. -- mav ( reviews needed) 11:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I recently added the {{ Subject bar}} template to Hydrogen and Astatine, and I was just wondering if use of this template across all element articles would be beneficial. I think it's a great way to make the chemistry portal and periodic table books readily accessible. -- Gyrobo ( talk) 19:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
As of June 22, 2011, half of our element articles are good or featured. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 16:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
To create books, simply click on the "Create a book" link, which can be found in the "print/export" toolbox on the left of your screen. See Help:Books if you need help, or just drop be a line if you are still confused/unsure of yourself. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
Wikipedia-Books|Element}}
should at the least be present in element's article, isotopes of element's article, and in the element's category.
See also
Note:Need to change element 112 name to copernicium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemicalinterest ( talk • contribs) 16:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't archive yet. -- mav ( reviews needed) 19:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Bump. -- mav ( reviews needed) 02:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Preemptive bump. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 06:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
All the books have been created. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 07:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I just created for convenience. I also create a few remaining books on periods, groups, actinides, lanthanides, etc... Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Having an r link at the bottom of the infobox to a Wikipedia namespace page that itself lists other links to wiki-editable values does not a reference make. Adding cites right after each value in the table, as was done with fluorine, makes the table harder to read, and, IMO, ugly. I therefore created a mock-up at User:Mav/Sandbox, which replaces the easy to miss r link with a [Table references] link, that goes to a ===Table references=== subjection under ==References==. Any suggestions for improvement? Note that, by default, nothing will change for any article. Only when a new template is edited for a particular inobox will the new format become live for that infobox. -- mav ( reviews needed) 23:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Atomic properties | ref | |
---|---|---|
Oxidation states | 2, 3, 4 | [1] |
Electronegativity | 1.3 (Pauling scale) | [2] |
I corresponded with the DOT and verified that all of their hazard symbols are public domain. There are about 40 of them. Wonder if there is someone interested in uploading them? See [12]. TCO ( talk) 00:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
P.s. I used the 4 signs for F transport in the F article and it came out very nice as a graphic to illustrate precautions. There is some other document that says what is required when. (Note, not advocating "how to" on transport. Just describing some aspects of usage, one of which is here.) TCO ( talk) 01:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello there! I just would like you to know that I've found all the issues for Group 3 element. They are at the corresponding review page. See you there! FRE YWA 09:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a question that has to do with more than just style guidelines, as it threatens to be made a decission via the "style backdoor"
Here's the RFC
Following a discussion at Talk:phosphorus: The element articles are about the main source/use/history of anything containing the element as a dominant component, not the elemental form. About the uses of phosphorus, we dont want to delude readers into thinking that white or red phosphorus is very really dominant - that angle give undue weight to a relatively modest aspect. The content should instead reflect the fact that phosphorus mainly occurs and is used as oxides. The article on lithium, similarly, should not be mainly about lithium metal but about the minerals that are sources of Li+, the compounds of Li+, and the applications, which again are mainly Li+-containing materials. The manual of style for elements articles specifies:
Sections 1.1 and 1.2 are allocated to the properties of the elemental form of the element. For some elements, say Ti, the dominant uses involve the elemental form (Ti metal), in which case #2 (production) and #5 (applications) would emphasize (but not exclusively describe) the production and use to Ti metal. Please let me know if these views do not reflect consensus. Thanks, -- Smokefoot ( talk) 11:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
That's only an opinion. It means that personally, I'm happy to see (say) most of the metallic lithium info and the pure elemental bromine info, in the main lithium and bromine articles, distributed in many sections, but compound uses spun off into other articles-- even though these are by far the most common uses for the element over all (> 75% for lithium and even more lop-sided for bromine). S B H arris 00:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I have found a decent Israili website that gives a table of abundance in the crust. But would like one for cosmological. Want the actual numbers, not the semilog chart. GnE says the chart comes from Cameron 1973 paper. Can probably use that for what I want (abundance of elements around F), but would hope maybe there is something new out there. Did not find a good table in Google scholar or in my oldish CRC.
TCO ( reviews needed) 20:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
With the upcoming interview with The Signpost, I'm thinking: where's our logo? Some people say that it's our PTQ, but I want something unambigious. I'm thinking of something that looks like several letters coming together to form our project name. So we have W, P for WikiProject and for ELEMENTS we use PT for periodic table. Do you agree with this? FRE YWA 03:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
For a very long time we had our logo being the one we use in all the templates. I still like it.-- Stone ( talk) 11:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Amusingly, about 88.72% of our "articles" are not even articles. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 08:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Another stub falls. :-) How is it now? Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 09:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I thought that was the tradition when we turned an element blue? ;) TCO ( talk) 05:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, you mean we really need a drink? Think sensibly! Mav is in the US and I'm in Singapore! FRE YWA 10:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
__ Stone ( talk) 21:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I created this early, but I'm certainly no expert on nucleosynthesis. It would be nice if people could take a glance at it (are there missing articles? does the structure of the book make sense? etc...) and leave feedback at Book talk:Nucleosynthesis . Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Helium#Glow color discrepancy -- Cybercobra (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
This paper discusses highest oxidation states of Os through Hg (and briefly all other transition metals). The point is Os(VIII), even through known in OsO4, might be also possible in OsF8 (and OsF7 may exist, too — but currently the highest confirmed fluoride of osmium is only OsF6). Highest fluoride of iridium is IrF6, but IrF7 (and IrOF5) is likely, while IrF8 and IrF9 are not. Platinum highest known +6 is OK, but the claim on that Au(VII) exists is wrong and unlikely (as well as Au(VI)) — Au(V) is the highest. It also discusses that Hg(IV) is possible, even through we know it now — the paper comes from 2006. Which is even more, it mentions some Russian papers (which I tried to find but failed) that claim the following are possible: [IrIXO4+, [IrVIIO4-, [PtXO42+, PtVIIIO4, [AuIXO4+, AuVIIF7, and HgVIIIO4 (claims on Ir(IX), Pt(X), Au(IX) and Hg(VIII) are intriguing, aren't they?). The German paper (the main subject, which is linked in the beginning) claims they're wrong, but who knows? Anyway, the German and Russian papers maybe worth including in the corresponding articles and/or transition metal and period 6 element. If anyone is interested, here's the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R8R Gtrs ( talk • contribs) 19:09, 5 June 2011
After the success of raising potassium from C to GA, I suggest we do that again with another element. How about sodium? Similar chemistry, and it brings us one step closer to a GT of Alkali metals. Or maybe nitrogen for Period 2 elements. What do you think? Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 03:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello there! This post is just for laughs. First, I would like to point to this statement at the References section of the article about the Voyager Golden Record:
Now THAT is a laugh. The next thing is that when I copyedited the page on induction motors. I left an Easter egg in the wikitext.
The full stop links to an unexpected page. The same happened in Rydberg matter; those Easter eggs are in the references. Happy hunting! FRE YWA 06:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Please don't do that. That is not appropriate. --
Rifleman 82 (
talk) 13:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I have actually added references to sulfur. Can somebody assess the article and check that it is ready for peer review? If not, point out any major issues. FRE YWA 02:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I just greatly expanded and improved Period 7 element, and am wondering if it can achieve start-class status now. Yankeesrule3 ( talk) 03:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
We might want to have a database for the ratings of the elements ( WP:ELEM/PTQ) or the pictures used for the elements ( WP:ELEM/PIC), so that we no longer need to manually update them. Then again, it could be argued that this wouldn't show the history of our article development very well, but we do have the image version for that. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 05:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Are we sure that these are from the Justin Urgitis element collection? Apparently for the weird elements, the Justin Urgitis element collection takes other's pictures. See [14] and check the way-out radioactives like Rn or Fr. If not, then we might want to scan for alternate images.
By the way, the Fm entry in the periodic table of pictures has been changed to "Redirect" status. Fm metal has not yet been prepared (although it could be). Hence we only really need to worry about Pm and the status of the At and Ac images. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 10:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
So, it seems to be finally agreed there should A-class that is multi-user assessed. So I propose the following: we'll create a separate subpage, like this (separately from Articles):
On this page, I wanted to take care of A-articles, each having a subpage for a review. It's easy to organize and I wanted just to do it, but then I thought to enlarge the idea. I also thought to make all B-assessments clean and kept like GA ones, but for project members only, also there. As well as B → C moves... (I remember that WP:Military history has something similar...I saw it half a year ago there and remembered. But it could be cool to have all Stone's B-class reviews (and similar) of the future in one place, near A-ones, making the assessment more clear BTW (I don't expect it to last weeks like GANs... An hour is enough)) If none disagrees, I'll do it on Friday or Saturday (because then I leave for about a month, well, slightly less).-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 18:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Group 12 ElementI've recently decided to further expand and copyedit the article Group 12 element to GA-class and make a good topic out of it. Can anyone else suggest what else is needed and how this article may be further improved? Tarret talk 00:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, now for my next target. It is the article that is mentioned at the top of this section. Earlier, Lanthanum-138 mentioned that one day we may get around to clearing the Start-class articles in the f-block. There are six such articles there. Of these, the one that looks most promising to me is terbium because it has the largest prose size (1519 words). Who supports me? FRE YWA 03:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Besides, why is it Start at all? It has some text, structure, and only lacks (greatly) refs-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 18:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC) A-class reviewFor your wikiproject's A-class review, do you have to be a member of the wikiproject to participate? Yankeesrule3 ( talk) 01:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
B+ classFor some reason the usage of B+ class breaks the automatic reports, see here: http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&projecta=Chemical_elements Notice that Sn, Eu and Ac, which are B+ class, are listed as "NotA Class" or "--- Class". Also notice that articles at B+ are ordered as the lowest rating, rather than between B and GA. Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 07:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Group 3 elementYet another possible GT we're 1 article away from. Just the problem is bordering: Sc-Y-La-Ac, Sc-Y-Lu-Lr, and Sc-Y-lanthanide-actinide. I myself want to promote the second variant, which was actually why I moved lutetium to GA. However, I realize that we'd better discuss it here, than on the FTC page. So I wish to use my alternative as it follows Aufbau principle and no details. All the long discussions, all the complicated arguments I wish to cut with this, as they would be the "details". I myself can give a ton of arguments why Lu/Lr as a reply on your pro-La/Ac insinuations. What I want is the policy on this (or just consensus), and maybe help with the topic. Also, shouldn't we add it to short-term goals? Thanks-- R8R Gtrs ( talk) 06:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
GAN of TinIs it still ongoing or is it over? The reviewer was awfully quiet in the last weeks.-- Stone ( talk) 15:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Project steeringEven with my (quite long) leave from Wikipedia to pursue other stuff, some things have not changed. What is there to improve on now? FRE YWA 09:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I have since seen "semiconductor" better defined as a material that depends for conduction not on conduction band electrons, but rather upon free electrons matched by holes in crystal, all as supplied by thermal energy. So they all have positive thermal conduction coefficients (their resistance drops the hotter they get, whereas the opposite is true of metals). Thus, semiconductors are all insulators at absolute zero, which Si and Ge are, but true metals obviously are not (some metals are superconductors at very low temps, though interestingly some of the best metallic conductors are not). Anyway, yes, by this definition, pure Si is certainly a semiconductor, whether doped or not, so I retract that idea.
S
B
H
arris 01:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
SiliconI am thinking about joining the project soon, but before I do, I want to get at least one article upgrade significantly. I think silicon is ready to be a B-class article, but I want someone from the project who has more experience than me to upgrade it, simply because I do not have much experience at the moment and do not exactly know what qualifies in this project as B-class. I was wondering if silicon should be B-class now that I cleaned up its many awkward sentences and other grammar, or if it still needs more work in order to be a B-class. Yankeesrule3 ( talk) 21:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC) Possible vandalism? Legit edits?Some IP changed some entries in the island of stability article (see [16]). I reverted, out of precaution, but it's possible the edits make sense. I personally have no idea, so if someone could check this and see if it should have been reverted, that would be great. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC) Slight inconsistencyWhile looking over Alkali metal, I noticed a slight inconsistence with Noble gas. In alkali metal, it does not include Hydrogen as an alkali metal, but in noble gas, it does include Ununoctium, even though it is likely that ununoctium does not exhibit properties of noble gases. Should this be fixed, or am I missing something? Yankeesrule3 ( talk) 18:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
redirect pages for isomersUsing the new redlink recovery tool, I stumbled upon a red link to the isomer of niobium, Nb-93m. (The link was in activation product.) I had the tool server create a re-direct page ( Niobium-93m which redirects to isotopes of niobium. I am not certain if that was the best thing to do, though. For one I am uncertain about the notation of the m. (I am more familiar with using an asterisk or star.) For another, I am uncertain of its notability, even for a redirect. Whoever composed the table in activation product thought it fit to include it in its limited list, though, which is why I created the redirect page. Your thoughts would be welcome, since I am certain that I will run across other isomers and I would like to know what the best practice is. Thanks. TStein ( talk) 03:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC) List of important publications in chemistry has been nominated for deletion. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in chemistry. -- Lambiam 22:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Sodium and potassiumI edited substantial aspects of sodium and potassium. Sometimes I can appear to be a pushy editor, but if others have concerns, please say something and I will go back and re-edit. Comments on the themes/opinions that I am trying to re-emphasize:
But again, if editors are slightly alarmed or worried, then say so, and I will try to address problems I might have introduced tomorrow.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 19:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC) The primary topic page for FE, Fe and feDoes really Fe have to redirect to Iron? Ca, Hg, or Pb do not redirect to Calcium, Mercury (element) or Lead, for example. — Ark25 ( talk) 01:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Vote (everybody, please go to TALK:Fe for this. My redirect of the redirect has been revertd by JHunter. Okay, everybody: iron (element) is now the primary topic for iron. But (question) should iron (element) be the primary topic for Fe? Personally, I say:
Analysis on qualityOne slide on WP:elements in the section called "some high importance efforts". PowerPoint: Wikipedia's poor treatment of its most important articles 69.255.27.249 ( talk) 17:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
You are a rock! RetiredUser12459780 ( talk) 23:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC) RecentChangesLinkedI noticed a problem with the recent changes tab on the top of the page. The category that it links to changes for does not include the supporting articles such as the groups and periods. I propose we instead link the recentchangeslinked to WP:ELEM/PTQ. This would ensure that all articles covered by our project are in the recentchanges. If no one objects to this, I will change it in a couple days. Yankeesrule3 ( talk) 21:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
|