![]() | 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 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
Hi! I've been working over at WikiProject Chemistry on adding occupational safety and health data to chemboxes, and in that process have come across exposure data for certain elements. Is there a place for this in elements articles? I know there is a very specific format for elements and I don't want to step on any toes, hence asking here first. Thanks! Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) ( talk) 00:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
About {{ Infobox element}}. I have made changes to have the "(at x °C)'" qualification show the same over multiple parameters (= rows). Changes were done in: Speed of sound; Thermal expansion; Electrical resistivity).
In general, the (SI) pattern is: 1140 µm·m−1·K−1 (at 25 °C)[61]_comment.
I just noticed three files in Decay chain (illustrating the thorium, neptunium, and actinium chains) which use the term " poor metals" which should be changed to " post transition metals". "Poor metal" may be used in other graphics, but I suspect it would be difficult to find them. YBG ( talk) 01:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Pb → Bi → Po
horizontally. -
DePiep (
talk)
11:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I have recently been following the Dawn and Opportunity missions and have now returned. Of course, with all the formatting changes and style tweaks going on now, one thing's been left out: the period 3 elements (excluding argon, of course). I plan to work on one of these in the near future – calcium with its recent RFC may be the first target but sodium and sulfur look more appealing to me. Parcly Taxel 19:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 February 19#File:Radon.jpg, focused especially on whether it is actually representative of the element itself for purposes of infobox and whether a free image of this chemical could be created. DMacks ( talk) 21:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
It appears that a complete set (all those known: Z ≤ 99, with a few exceptions) is available at commons:Category:Atomic spectra (the ones ending with "visible": note that they used the old spelling protoactinium for Z = 91). Can they be added into our element infoboxes? (As an example, promethium is done). Double sharp ( talk) 13:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
In the infoboxes, we quote Mohs, Brinell and Vickers hardness from webelements, which supposedly use the 1968 book by Samsonov. The book seemed obsolete, and the some data significantly contradicted to newer sources. This has long bothered me (I couldn't find a single source covering the whole Periodic Table like Samsonov did), and this post was the last straw.
I've downloaded Samsonov's book ( [4] in Russian), and found that it is actually very detailed and reasonable, and its values are listed by many recent books (often without mentioning the source). Samsonov did understand that hardness of pure metals depends on many parameters (sample preparation, structure, purity, etc.) and is always a range of values. Unfortunately, webelements and many others don't understand that, and have cherry-picked single numbers. Their source for Mohs hardness is uncertain (Samsonov does not list Mohs hardness; I guess webelements interpolated Brinell and Vickers tendencies onto the Mohs scale) and this is our unresolved problem. I went through the infoboxes and Hardnesses of the elements (data page) and changed Brinell and Vickers values to ranges. I know that Brinell and Vickers values are often given in HB and HV, but Samsonov and many others convert them to MPa, thus I'd bear with that. Materialscientist ( talk) 03:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
|atomic mass 2=
for the precision-number (as it was), because this allows us to use and format that number for its specifics. Also, bot readers do not have to break down the all-in-one number. I note that there is |atomic mass ref=
which is specially added for the reference. So for {{
infobox helium}} it would be:|atomic mass=4.002602 |atomic mass 2=2 |atomic mass ref=<ref name="IUPAC">[http://www.ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm 2013 Standard Atomic Weights]. [[Commission on Isotopic Abundances and Atomic Weights]]</ref> |atomic mass comment=
|atomic mass comment=
can have any text you like, including reference(s). This is to solve any remaining situation as is needed. If in hydrogen you want to write "(1.00784–1.00811)[1]", then you can enter |atomic mass comment=(1.00784–1.00811)<ref>... the reference text here ...</ref>
. The comment always has a space prefixed, and no further formatting. -
DePiep (
talk)
13:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
1.008[1] (1.00784–1.00811)[2]
(in |atomic mass ref=
and in |atomic mass comment=
; the comment is an anything-goes input field). Depending on which data you want to source, you can pick one. (if I understand this topic right: the IUPAC reference better follow the range because that is what it sources). I won't edit that unless you ask me to. -
DePiep (
talk)
13:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
(2)
" addition we use? I'm working with it a long time, but I still don't know what it actually means. More so for our Readers, I guess. -
DePiep (
talk)
20:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)|atomic mass 2=
in {{
infobox element}}. No doubt there are other places.
YBG (
talk)
21:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
|atomic mass 2=
using newly created redirect
uncertainty bracket notation. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
YBG (
talk)
22:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
atomic mass uncertainty | |
---|---|
Label-side | |
Standard atomic weight (±) | 4.0026(9) [1] |
Data-side | |
Standard atomic weight | 4.0026 (9) [1] |
Previous | |
Standard atomic weight | 4.0026(9) [1] |
I think we can choose between two options for the uncertainty link, see the demos. Notes: I kept the link to uncertainty bracket notation, we can fill & redirect that as we like. The brackets are underlined too. The label-side link will not appear when the (#2) number is not present. All other input is unaffected (mass, ref, comment).
I can add variants if you like. Votes & notes?
|atomic mass 2=
is defined. --
Alchemist-hp (
talk)
23:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)In {{ Infobox element}}, there are four parameters for atomic mass:
|atomic mass = 4.0026 |atomic mass 2 = 9 |atomic mass ref = <ref name="IUPAC">[http://www.ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm]</ref> |atomic mass comment = The comment can be any text, and have its own reference.<ref>[www.example.com]</ref>
Will show like:
Demo atomic mass | |
---|---|
Standard atomic weight | 4.0026(9) [1] The comment can be any text, and have its own reference. [2] |
The first three are treated systematically for what they are. For example, brackets are added always around param #2. The fourth param is for free text. This one is added with a preceding space, and no further formatting. Technically, one can use the first one |atomic mass=
with any text, and it will show OK. However, following the pattern can help future handling. Also, external bots prefer the structured input. And as said, the comment (fourth parameter) is unstructured and free. This together should allow every situation. -
DePiep (
talk)
19:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
atomic mass | |
---|---|
Existing for U, U(), Pu[] | |
Standard atomic weight (±) | 238.02891(3) [1] |
Standard atomic weight | 238.02891 [1] |
Standard atomic weight | [237] [1] |
Alternatives for [bracket] notation | |
Standard atomic weight [] | [237] [1] |
References |
We should also include something to explain the other use of parentheses. I've offered one suggestion; others are welcome. At this point, I'm thinking only about appearance, not implementation. YBG ( talk) 07:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I've turned on hovercards and I quite like the feature, but it shows a few inconsistencies in our articles.
In {{ Navbox periodic table}} > Named sets > Misc., there are links to Transuranium elements, Transactinide elements, and Transplutonium elements. In all three cases, the first pic in the article is File:Super heavy elements (polyatomic).svg, which highlights 103-118, the transactinide elements. Of course, two out of the three is caused by the fact that Trans-Pu is a redirect to Trans-U. But the end result is that the hovercard makes it look like all three terms refer to elements 103-118, whereas Trans-U should be 93-118 and Trans-Pu should be 95-118. The best way to fix this is to create new pics for (a) 93-118 and put it in the lede for Trans-U and for (b) 95-118 and put it in the lede for a new Trans-Pu article, maybe just a stub. YBG ( talk) 07:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
U | Pu | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Key: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
After uranium | U | are →→→ trans-uranium elements | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
After plutonium | Pu | are →→ trans-plutonium elements | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
After the actinides | are → trans-actinide elements |
Please take a look to this discussion about the images too. Thanks, -- Alchemist-hp ( talk) 07:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Recently, a hatnote was added to astatine, saying as of now:
Can someone possibly mistake one for another, or is it just overthinking the problem? If the problem is real, then we may have to rethink iridium/iodine (Ir/I), californium/calcium (Cf/Ca), all of elements that start with a "C", "O", "N", etc.-- R8R ( talk) 09:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
A long time ago I tried to suggest this but nobody had the energy to do much about it. Currently, the infoboxes are a bit on the too-much info for (usually useless) unstable isotopes (like DE and DP). On the other hand, there is essentially no info other than abundance on the stable isotopes. I think for elements past lead a status quo is fine, but I would prefer some improvement on elements like carbon. Nuclear spin would be a must (instead of say DE) and perhaps more? Also, isotope of X tables should really have some more fields like this. Everybody seems to care about DE of atoms they will never even touch, so how about actually useful stuff? Nergaal ( talk) 18:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
VERY few people checking the article on carbon would care about 11C, and only a few about 14C, and the 0.96 and 0.156 numbers are 100% useless here. 14N is possibly the only remotely interesting DP in all the infoboxes before Bi, while 11B is not really useful. Saying 12C and 13C have 6 and 7 neutrons is not particularly useful either. However, having their nuclear spins (useful for both EPR and NMR) and possibly their gyromagnetic ratio (which gives the Lamor precession for NMR) and the quadrupole moments would be much more useful IMO. Nergaal ( talk) 15:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Nergaal ( talk) 15:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The ongoing FAC has raised a question whether we really need the pronunciation part of the infobox (like /ˈæstətiːn/ or /ˈæstətɪn/ as-tə-teen or as-tə-tin). I don't really know, I'm fine with this either in or out. I'm also not sure if there is a place for a wider discussion... what do you think? Whatever the decision, the best would be to apply this not to the infobox astatine, but to the whole infobox element. (Which is easy to do, but some agreement first would do us good.) -- R8R ( talk) 09:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Here by invitation. I added (or at least corrected) IPA in many of these articles. We don't generally give English pronunciations on WP, per WP:DICT. There are two major exceptions: Names, which you will not find in many dictionaries, or which may differ from another name of the same spelling; and new or obscure technical terms that also may not be found in an average dictionary. Another common exception are counter-intuitive words, whether they trip up native or L2 speakers of English.
However, since many elements probably deserve a pronunciation, and we have them organized so that we can navigate from one to another, why not include pronunciations for all? Granted, "tin" and "gold" may not be needed, but it's a matter of consistency: readers can depend on having a pronunciation for any element, without argument over where the dividing line should be. We do something similar with astronomical bodies: "Pan" and "Atlas" and pretty obvious, but it's nice to have the IPA regardless, just so you don't have to worry about them being weird. — kwami ( talk) 21:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
From the above discussion, I propose: remove from the element infobox pronunciation when it is not confusing (both IPA and respell form). This would be: gold, silver, tin.
- DePiep ( talk) 13:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
These intrusive and dumbed-down pronunciations were added to (almost?) every element. Was there a proper consensus to do so? If there was, it needs to be revisited. If there was not, they can be removed on sight. -- John ( talk) 19:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I have asked graphicists to make Mendeleevs table more readable. Please take a look if the first setup is acceptable. See WP:Graphics_Lab #Mendeleev's_tables. - DePiep ( talk) 21:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
That's:
At the talk page for List of metalloid lists I've asked for proposed additions to the main list, especially older and more recent citations. I'll aim to periodically add these to the list and update associated metrics, whenever/if ever there's a critical mass of them. Sandbh ( talk) 01:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Should Radium-223-Chloride be an article about Radium-223 or Radium-223-Chloride ? Should this be an isotope article, or a pharmacological chemical article? See talk:Radium-223-Chloride for the discussion -- 65.94.43.89 ( talk) 05:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
courtesy of Eric Scerri. --- Sandbh ( talk) 02:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
Infobox lawrencium}}
.
Double sharp (
talk)
03:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Looking at:
It seems to be fairly established that navboxes belong at the very end of an article, after all of the notes and references. This works quite well for most WP articles. However, WP:ELEM articles tend to have a huge volume of references -- sometimes equaling the size of the rest of the article and requiring 6-8 clicks to scroll through, even on a wide monitor. We do make extensive use of infoboxes at the top of our chemical element articles, but this doesn't completely fulfill the same function as navboxes.
When an article has a massive list of notes and references, I think it would be helpful to put the navboxes further up. I'm thinking of suggesting a change to the MOS to allow this. The general rule stays the same as it is now, but it would allow some flexibility, specifically, when there is a massive quantity of notes and references, navboxes are allowed to appear in the See Also section, but only in a collapsed state.
I've looked around and I have yet to find any articles outside of WP:ELEM with lists of notes and references that come anywhere near their average length in our articles elements... articles in Portal:Medicine seem to come closest. (e.g., from their showcase: Acute myeloid leukemia, Bacteria, Chagas disease, Dengue fever, Endometrial cancer. YBG ( talk) 16:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC))
What do others think? Is there any support for this in WP:ELEM? Any comments or suggestions? If there is support here, I'd like to take the suggestions given here and then see what interest I can generate over at Village pump and then over at Village pump. YBG ( talk) 08:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the best solution for the issues above is to develop one of the "Part of a series on ..." navboxes that hang on the right side of articles. Before I spend too much time thinking about this, I'd like to elicit some input from others. In particular, could you answer these questions:
Thanks! YBG ( talk) 02:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
By request [7], molar volume (data row) is added to {{Infobox element}}. See astatine for example (below densities).
|molar volume= |molar volume ref= |molar volume comment=
The default unit is cm3/mol (do not enter this). For gases, dm3/mol is used II'mC. For these (a dozen), alter the default and set |molar volume unit=dm3/mol
or whatever seems fit. . -
DePiep (
talk)
08:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
|molar volume= |molar volume ref= |molar volume comment= |molar volume unit=<!-- cm3/mol is default, otherwise add your unit here -->
|molar volume unit=
. -
DePiep (
talk)
17:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Some of the rest of the data tables in the other 150-odd pages are quite good. Sandbh ( talk) 02:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Here's the whole chapter Sandbh ( talk) 11:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Here. --- Sandbh ( talk) 01:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations. I think I should compliment R8R and Sandbh here. I am looking at your patience & carefulness for inspiration. -
DePiep (
talk)
20:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I hesitate to ask because these questions can get folk aggitated: could we agree that there are six platinum group metals? For casual readers and those working in the area, that would be my advice. In my 40 years working with PGMs, I have never seen the radioactive heavy threesome included, and I worry about giiving undue weight to a pretty esoteric perspective with no ramifications for the real world, IMHO. {| style="float:right; margin:5px; border:1px solid grey; text-align:center;" |+ Platinum group metals (PGMs) in the periodic table |- | white;| H|| colspan="17" | ||He |- | Li||Be|| colspan="11" | ||B || white;|C || white;|N || white;|O ||F ||Ne |- | |Na||Mg|| colspan="11" | ||Al||Si||P ||S ||Cl||Ar |- | |K ||Ca|| ||Sc||Ti||V||Cr||Mn||Fe||Co||Ni|| style="background:#90ff00;"|Cu||Zn||Ga||Ge||As||Se||Br||Kr |- | |Rb||Sr|| ||Y||Zr||Nb||Mo||Tc|| style="background:#00ff90;"|Ru|| style="background:#00ff90;"|Rh|| style="background:#00ff90;"|Pd|| style="background:#90ff00;"|Ag||Cd||In||Sn||Sb||Te||I ||Xe |- | Cs||Ba|| * ||Lu||Hf||Ta||W|| style="background:#90ff00;"|Re|| style="background:#00ff90;"|Os|| style="background:#00ff90;"|Ir|| style="background:#00ff90;"|Pt|| style="background:#90ff00;"|Au|| style="background:#90ff00;"|Hg||Tl||Pb||Bi||Po||At||Rn |- | Fr||Ra|| ** ||Lr||Rf||Db||Sg||Bh||Hs||Mt||Ds||Rg||Cn||Nh||Fl||Mc||Lv||Ts||Og|| |- | colspan="19" style="line-height:110%;" | |- | || ||* ||La||Ce||Pr||Nd||Pm||Sm||Eu||Gd||Tb||Dy||Ho||Er||Tm||Yb|| || |- | || ||** ||Ac||Th||Pa||U ||Np||Pu||Am||Cm||Bk||Cf||Es||Fm||Md||No|| || |-
| colspan=6 |
|-
| colspan=5 |
|} -- Smokefoot ( talk) 13:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
In {{
periodic table (micro)}}, you can highlight groups of elements by seting |mark=
to any group number or major category name, e.g., |mark=6
or |mark=metalloid
. Furthermore, the micro PT senses when it appears on an element page (or its infobox page) and highlights the single cell for that element; see, for example,
hydrogen and {{
infobox hydrogen}}. I think it would be very helpful if this template could be set up to highlight a particular element's cell in a more general context. I propose that |mark=1
, |mark=H
, or |mark=hydrogen
-- or maybe any one of them -- be used to mark the hydrogen cell. Ideally, you could highlight multiple elements by using forms like |mark=11,19,37,55,56,78,79
or |mark=Fe,Co,Ni,Gd,Dy
or |mark=boron,antimony
. This would provide a very nice way to illustrate the bullets at
Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals § Anomalous properties. I think that all that would be necessary would be to change the code to conditionally draw the border in {{
Periodic table (32 columns, micro)/elementcell}}, but I'm not completely sure. Can anyone (e.g.,
DePiep) verify that at least the single-element version is a relatively easy thing to do and either do it themselves or perhaps point me in the right direction? Thanks!
YBG (
talk)
02:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
|mark=Fe,Co,Ni,Gd,Dy
. Free list. -
DePiep (
talk)
15:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)|mark=Au, Fe
. -
DePiep (
talk)
20:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
|mark=9
keeps working for the group; list order can be random and writing "AU" does not produce an error here. Yes I removed that "mark Au when page is gold or infobox gold" logic because that was too fragile and unneeded elaborate (done 118 times/page). Infobox element now uses this |mark={{{symbol|}}}
too. If one sees any issues please report. Yeah of course my newly discovered class of elements has a common property; I'll leave it for you to puzzle for a while. (Really, I had a collegue once who in such a list did find a number pattern - spoiled the joke). Once again, I fell like Mendeleev must have felt. -
DePiep (
talk)
07:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)|mark=AU
will not produce an error or maintenance categorising. Of course it won't show as intended either. Do a count in the preview, I suggest. -
DePiep (
talk)
17:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)mark2=
option that marks elements dotted or red line bordered, to be explained "Only sometimes considered part of ...".|mark=P6
(
period 6) for it.
Parcly
Taxel
09:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)|mark=
list. Adding this extra would only be a shortcut (for the editor). On the other hand: the cell formatting is processed 118 times per micro PT. Adding this redundant feature would add to the pageload time. So I advise against it. -
DePiep (
talk)
10:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
|mark=3
and |mark=metalloid
?
YBG (
talk)
17:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
|markgroup=3
, |markcategory=metalloid
, |markelement=H
, |markelementlist=H,He
, |markfrom=19
|markto=36
? While these could all be parsed as part of |mark=
, if they were separate, it seems to me that the complex processing time would be expended only when it is actually used. I may be overthinking all of this, but if the template gets executed 118 times, every little bit might help.
YBG (
talk)
17:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Here. Check the key folds tab, too. (Added by Sandbh at 23:25, 22 April 2015 UTC ( YBG ( talk) 04:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)))
Can someone explain this?
If someone can explain it, I will be most appreciative. If someone can fix {{ chem}} so it does not have this problem, I will be even more appreciative. YBG ( talk) 03:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
some demo
|
---|
|
{{chem|O|2}}
produces:<span class="chemf" style="white-space:nowrap;">O <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:85%;text-align:left"><br />2 </span> </span>
In the astatine infobox, the oxidation states are noted this way: "−1, +1, +3, +5, +7": the "+" plus-sign is added. Shall we make that standard for all infoboxes? (I like it for stressing the essence, but is it best practice?) - DePiep ( talk) 07:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
One more approach. Can we split the small list, bolds first:
- DePiep ( talk) 19:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC) - DePiep ( talk) 07:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
Infobox astatine}}
. I've seen sources doing it without the + for the zero (although in that particular case they also removed the + for all the positive oxidation states). But to me it is a bit odd, because it makes me wonder if −0 would mean something different from +0. It's not really natural and obvious to me to put a sign in front of zero, because zero is neither positive nor negative.A long time desired improvement I have added: the ubiquitous category background color we use now has its legend connection in the {{ infobox element}}.
Sodium in the periodic table | |
---|---|
Element category | {{Infobox element/category format|category=alkali metal}} |
- DePiep ( talk) 00:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh dear. The bots are taking control by doing bot added Authority control in barium [8]. What a commanding name (aggressive twice, note). It gives control to wikidata.
Dear wikicommander. Can you explain why I should care to edit? KasparBot - DePiep ( talk) 20:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Here at {{
Drugbox}}, there is a talk to get the automated calculation of molar mass by atomic mass (from input like H=2|O=1
). Together with {{
Chembox}}, there are 15,000 potential articles.
My question is: for the atomic mass of an element, which source numbers should we use? (and knowing that IUPAC uses ranges like [1.234, 1.345], which number to use at all?). Issues like rounding and uncertainty can be addressed later. Practical laboratory rounding says "2 decimals is OK". - DePiep ( talk) 23:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Nergaal ( talk) 06:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
In general, I think the article is ready for FAC, but I'd like anyone to give it a last-minute look before the procedure starts. I checked the previous FAC, and it seems prose quality was the only major obstacle; now that the article has been copyedited, I would still love you to give it some final check.-- R8R ( talk) 18:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.-- Lucas559 ( talk) 22:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Just noting, here. Since one month there is a discussion about the definition of 'element'. See WT:WP Chemistry#Chemical element: french and englishdefinition. - DePiep ( talk) 20:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Next to Article Quality and Importance, there is a grading WikiProject called WP:Vital Articles. Non-stable elements and transactinide were discussed here. - DePiep ( talk) 23:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Todo: check and align the table in Symbol (chemistry). - DePiep ( talk) 22:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The redirects Other nonmetal and Other nonmetals, which currently point to Nonmetal are being discussed at RfD. Your input to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 20#Other nonmetal is invited. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Gonna read it. Then finally I may keep my old promise to rewrite Ce. Have been gone from here for too long... Double sharp ( talk) 20:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
After looking at WP:ELEM/PP: I dunno why indium is so popular now, but maybe we ought to get it to GA due to all this attention (it's not that far off, I think.) Double sharp ( talk) 12:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
See Talk:Indium#Indium article views on August 13, 2015. Double sharp ( talk) 12:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Periodic table#Placement of hydrogen and helium. (Will update link when it gets archived.) Double sharp ( talk) 07:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/224968080_On_the_Existence_of_Hydrogen_Atoms_in_Higher_Dimensional_Euclidean_Spaces Double sharp ( talk) 14:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
CIAAW has updated, by announced biannual pattern, their "Standard Atomic Weights" from 2013 into 2015 [10]. - DePiep ( talk) 19:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The brunt of the isotope work has been done a few years ago. How would you all feel about "closing" Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Isotopes and redirect (soft or hard) the discussions of isotopes to the main element page? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
{{
WP Elements|isotope=yes}}
. This is really about closing down a discussion page and redirecting the traffic to this one.Hmm, I moved it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive Isotopes, but then it doesn't show up on the main header. But then it doesn't show up. Do I need to give it a number? If so, I'll reserve 21 for it and then skip over from 20 to 22 for the main archives. (As it stands, 15 already cuts through the story.) Double sharp ( talk) 07:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Periodic Table of the Elements Nergaal ( talk) 15:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The article Extended periodic table says:
Elements 1-118 still follow the pattern we know and love. Elements 119 and 120, following the pattern of the first 2 elements of any row, are still following the pattern. But after that, if the elements were to follow the pattern:
But the article reveals that the table no longer follows the pattern that we know and love. First, the g-block has 20 elements, not 18. Then, elements 141-164 take the expected positions of elements 139-162. Then there will be no p-block for the eighth row; it will go straight the the s-block of the following row with elements 165 and 166. Worse, the ninth row will be just as long as the second and third rows with just 2 s-block and 6 p-block elements, followed immediately by the g-block of row 10 with no s-block at all. The pattern we all know and love is broken. No more "periodic table", but more of a "groupic table", meaning that putting elements in the same column by group because of their similar properties is what's important, not putting them in periodic patterns. Any thoughts on whether the table really still is periodic?? Georgia guy ( talk) 15:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Right. Sorry about that.
Well, periodic table says that it is ordered by atomic number, electron configurations, and recurring chemical properties. No mention of the constant n + ℓ value that you find in every earlier period. So I think it is actually doing its best given the weirdo electron configurations predicted.
Take the extra two superactinides: this is happening because the 8p1/2 electrons are lowered in energy so much that they're filling up along with 5g, and the properties are hard to distinguish. A bad analogy is how not only 4f, but also 5d1 fill up in the lanthanides. It's essentially the same question: "why are there 15 lanthanides when the f-block only can hold 14 elements" and "why are there 20 superactinides when the g-block only can hold 18 elements"?
The difference, of course, is that in the lanthanides 5d is supposed to fill right after they finish, at Lu–Hg, by Aufbau, but in the superactinides 8p should wait till 163–168 by Aufbau. So something has to give, and we, following Fricke, decided to go by predicted chemical properties. 139 and 140 are not expected to act too differently from the other superactinides, so with regards to the table, they should be together. Because when you put elements on the periodic table, there are four steps, per Jensen:
141–164 being two higher than expected is basically because 8p1/2 has also been filled, so you've got an extra two electrons as part of the inert core. So things still work out: for example, Rf has 6d2, and eka-Rf (156) has 7d2, following the above criteria.
Then after that we are faced with a problem. The subshell splitting is such a large effect now that 8p3/2 rises beyond 9s, and so the latter fills first. So we have no choice but to put 165 and 166 in the s-block of the next row. This doesn't really violate the criteria above, as the trends work out. And we have an added bonus that 9p1/2 and 8p3/2 are close in energy, so they act like a single p-subshell. So, why not move 8p3/2 into the ninth row? It keeps the elements in increasing atomic number, fits the trends, and now we have a short period like the 3rd row, just as is predicted by Fricke.
Finally, as for 173–184, since the 9th period is complete at 172, we have to treat it as being the g-block of the next row.
So I think the table is still as periodic as it can get with the electron configuration weirdness. The placements are perhaps not strictly following electron configuration, but do their best to expose the trends, both across periods and down groups. Double sharp ( talk) 02:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Now the greys are called "other metals", and envelope Be, Mg, Zn, Cd, Hg, Cn, as well as our post-transition metals. (I also edited their table to show Mt, Ds, and Rg as "unknown chemical properties", and Fl as a post-transition metal.) So Be and Mg aren't alkaline earth metals there? Interesting.
(Also, beryllium is the only element FA on Japanese Wikipedia. Would be interesting to do that here as well, as it was our first. Also wouldn't mind doing Li and Be together.) Double sharp ( talk) 07:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I would love to get Fricke/Pyykkö installed there for the extended PT, but I can't write the new overview... Double sharp ( talk) 14:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@ Sandbh: ja:Template:周期表 has some really interesting border-colour/cell-colour usage for mixed categories (e.g. metalloid/halogen). Double sharp ( talk) 12:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Now that we don't use "poor metals", I submit that if we do choose to take group 12 out of the TMs, we'd actually be listened to seriously instead of getting laughed at for "poor metals". If we want to go down that path, that is. (Although it does unfortunately mean uncolouring Cn and Fl. But then the whole can-it-use-d-electrons definition is very unnatural for the superheavy elements, if we listen to the predictions of Fricke et al, as there would be many cases like E113, E165, and E166 where the d electrons are used but result in main-group behaviour.) Double sharp ( talk) 08:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
:ja:wiki:periodic table
? -
DePiep (
talk)
23:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)A discussion on whether to leave group 12 out of the TMs would be worth having, presumably at Template talk:Periodic table. Sandbh ( talk) 22:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
John William Nicholson Pekka Pyykkö Charles Janet are part of the project articles. While Carl Gustaf Mosander is not part of the project. Should we include the rest of the discoverers and creaters of the periodic table.-- Stone ( talk) 21:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
|Importance=
option in the WP project template. And always a bio-interested editor can start on the Mosander page, however. -
DePiep (
talk)
21:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)|Importance=low
for Mosander, but pls keep him in (Again, IMO our 'edit capacity' is not defining who has something to do with elements). Yesterday I added
Diagonal relationship after a Double sharp tip. Low indeed, but interesting & related. -
DePiep (
talk)
21:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Cancelled
In {{
infobox element}}, I have removed the "above, below, left, right" links for element neighbours. I think our PT and our readers are good enough to know what the 'above element' is. See:
gold. -
DePiep (
talk)
21:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I put (or checked the presence of) WP Elements tags on the exotic atoms Mu (μ+e−), Ps (e+e−), Pn (p+p−), and p−He+ (p−-e−-He2+, He with one electron replaced with an antiproton): these are the ones for which some chemistry is known, or at least have a symbol. In particular, the symbol Mu for μ+e− is OK with IUPAC! Double sharp ( talk) 07:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Now that the elements table is nearing completion, perhaps a series of common comounds could be added to give project members the drive to push articles up to quality? (I know personally it's more fun and rewarding to bring a start up to B, than a GA up to FA).
Here are some famous and abundant compounds and their current article status:-- Coin945 ( talk) 12:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Famous and abundant compounds | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I don't think we're anywhere "near completion" yet:
Compound | Article status |
---|---|
Nitrogen | C |
Sodium | C |
Magnesium | C |
Aluminium | C |
Silicon | C |
Phosphorus | C |
Sulfur | C |
Chlorine | C |
Calcium | C |
Iron | B |
Arsenic | B |
Bromine | C |
Silver | B |
Tin | C |
Iodine | C |
Gold | C |
We're not there yet. It's too early to move the very small number of editors in this project elsewhere.-- R8R ( talk) 18:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
A video was released earlier today on a YouTube channel I watch named Periodic Videos. The video was titled, "Your periodic table is probably WRONG" and it is linked here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1zNbWJC5aw
It was discussing a paper released in Nature back in April that was bringing into question the commonly structured setup of the lanthanides and actinides on the table. The paper is linked here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7546/full/nature14342.html
My question is, was anything changed in our articles here in regards to this, such as how we portray the periodic table and, if not, what information and testing from scientists in the field would be necessary for us to then change it? Or is there an organization or society that would have to put out an official dictum before we make any changes? Silver seren C 21:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Since I am named above I take the liberty of adding a few comments relating to the Poliakoff video and the question of group 3. Interesting video. However the authors of the article in Nature magazine, who measured the first ionization of Lr, did not make an argument that it should be placed in group 3 as Poliakoff claims. It was rather the science news articles published in places like Scientific American. If one looks closely at this observation one finds that it still does not settle the issue conclusively. In my own book, "A Very Short Introduction to the Periodic Table", OUP, 2011, I give what I believe to be a categorical argument in favor of group 3 as Sc, Y, Lu, Lr. It is that the periodic table should be presented in its long or 32-column and that all elements should be shown in order of increasing atomic number. This settles it conclusively apart from the remote possibility, which coincidentally was shown of the video, of a table that breaks up the d-block into two highly irregular portions consisting of one and nine groups, separated by the d-block. I cannot believe that nature is so perverse as this. The 32-column table shown in the video is fundamentally incorrect. Just look at the triads. For all other transition metal groups the atomic number triads consist of the second , third and fourth elements in the group. In the case of group 3 as shown in that table it is the first, second and third elements that form a triad. This is highly inconsistent. Why should the d-block be the only group that is split up in this anomalous fashion? It makes no sense. please see www.ericscerri.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.169.229 ( talk) 00:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Each person born in this century should learn the Periodic Table in 32-column form. - DePiep ( talk) 20:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
By decree of IUPAC, all chemistry classrooms must have walls long enough for a 32-column periodic table. NO EXCEPTIONS. shoy ( reactions) 13:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Not that everyone follows everything given in the IUPAC PT as well (aside from the equivocation on group 3, which we should really get rid of). I bet everyone's seen at some point a periodic table with H floating around somewhere in the middle instead of being over group 1. (And the periodic table diagrams in Greenwood & Earnshaw's 2nd edition float both H and He this way!) And I bet most PT manufacturers include the unconfirmed elements near the end (113, 115, 117, and 118), even though the IUPAC PT doesn't yet. Double sharp ( talk) 13:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Flying Jazz appears to have split the thread at User talk:Silver seren#Question about periodic table layout, with some stuff about IUPAC at Talk:Group 3 element#IUPAC committee decides that the organization of the periodic table isn't their business. Double sharp ( talk) 11:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to bring the edits of 50.196.213.1 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the attention of this WikiProject. This editor went through many (all?) element articles and changed section headings from "Precautions", "Health effects", and the like to "Toxicity". I think consistency is good, but I don't know if there is consensus for these mass changes or not and thought a discussion might be warranted. ChemNerd ( talk) 15:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
If he's right (despite the continuing lack of corroborating papers), the truth is spreading. If he's wrong, we have a funny example of citogenesis, although here at least the fact got printed first. Double sharp ( talk) 09:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've had enough of this impossible-to-verify-outside-Emsley-and-his-source-Walter-Saxon tidbit that's being copied everywhere. I'm going to revert everything back to Pu as the highest natural element, in the absence of corroborating sources outside Emsley. After all, you'd think there'd be papers like there have been for primordial 244Pu. Double sharp ( talk) 13:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Wow, it apparently made actual scientists go to check... nope, no news of anything beyond Pu in nature outside Emsley. Double sharp ( talk) 02:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC) This has gone places! Double sharp ( talk) 02:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The argument has been raised before, and we seem to have reached a consensus our current unun- articles should be instrad named "element X." We haven't gotten this implemented because of how this should be done; now that the issue was raised at the Uus FAC, we may reopen the issue.
So two major questions are: do we still see "element X" as the better option and agree we should change the naming style, and, if so, how (technically) do we want to do it?-- R8R ( talk) 05:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
It might be good point to compile a list links related to this this topic
Wikipedia is now showing this (not so) huge banner saying that it has 5 million articles. If you will remember, I'm the one who copy-edited most of fluorine and copper. What should I do next? I have always been eyeing aluminium or sodium but haven't really got much time for it. I'm now doing some actual research of my own on Bézier curves as part of a high school project which is necessary for my graduation from there. Parcly Taxel 23:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
There are only 32 stub-class articles within this Wikiproject. I think it is time to look at them one by one and see if they should be merged, redirected, deleted, or expanded. Similarly, 86 start-class articles is relatively manageable.-- Coin945 ( talk) 12:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
A bit of research into article histories has revealed that the creator of all of the "proposed name" articles was @ Stone:. We should probably get her/his opinion.-- Coin945 ( talk) 19:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Just now noticed this list ... and noticed that it has includes 118 items. Coincidence? YBG ( talk) 06:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I noticed our infobox photo of cesium has it being a very dull yellow, to the point where it appears more like rubidium (silver) than the golden yellow of cesium. So are there any objections to me switching out the current photo in favor of File:CsCrystals.JPG which shows the color much more clearly? D ralwi k| Have a Chat 22:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Part of a series on the |
Periodic table |
---|
![]() |
After thinking for months and sandboxing for just over a week, I have created {{ Sidebar periodic table}}. It's not quite ready for prime time -- for example, the documentation page is yet to be written -- but it's certainly reached a point where comments would be helpful. YBG ( talk) 05:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
|expanded=
and |image=
.Currently, the first sentence for an element is like:
Could we change it to?:
My pref would be --B--. But that's just me, being familiar with these symbols. Most of our Readers won't even call it a 'symbol', but an abbr. Sure there is no obligation to state that it is a 'symbol' at all. - DePiep ( talk) 00:36, 26 November 2015 (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 15 | ← | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | → | Archive 25 |
Hi! I've been working over at WikiProject Chemistry on adding occupational safety and health data to chemboxes, and in that process have come across exposure data for certain elements. Is there a place for this in elements articles? I know there is a very specific format for elements and I don't want to step on any toes, hence asking here first. Thanks! Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) ( talk) 00:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
About {{ Infobox element}}. I have made changes to have the "(at x °C)'" qualification show the same over multiple parameters (= rows). Changes were done in: Speed of sound; Thermal expansion; Electrical resistivity).
In general, the (SI) pattern is: 1140 µm·m−1·K−1 (at 25 °C)[61]_comment.
I just noticed three files in Decay chain (illustrating the thorium, neptunium, and actinium chains) which use the term " poor metals" which should be changed to " post transition metals". "Poor metal" may be used in other graphics, but I suspect it would be difficult to find them. YBG ( talk) 01:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Pb → Bi → Po
horizontally. -
DePiep (
talk)
11:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I have recently been following the Dawn and Opportunity missions and have now returned. Of course, with all the formatting changes and style tweaks going on now, one thing's been left out: the period 3 elements (excluding argon, of course). I plan to work on one of these in the near future – calcium with its recent RFC may be the first target but sodium and sulfur look more appealing to me. Parcly Taxel 19:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 February 19#File:Radon.jpg, focused especially on whether it is actually representative of the element itself for purposes of infobox and whether a free image of this chemical could be created. DMacks ( talk) 21:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
It appears that a complete set (all those known: Z ≤ 99, with a few exceptions) is available at commons:Category:Atomic spectra (the ones ending with "visible": note that they used the old spelling protoactinium for Z = 91). Can they be added into our element infoboxes? (As an example, promethium is done). Double sharp ( talk) 13:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
In the infoboxes, we quote Mohs, Brinell and Vickers hardness from webelements, which supposedly use the 1968 book by Samsonov. The book seemed obsolete, and the some data significantly contradicted to newer sources. This has long bothered me (I couldn't find a single source covering the whole Periodic Table like Samsonov did), and this post was the last straw.
I've downloaded Samsonov's book ( [4] in Russian), and found that it is actually very detailed and reasonable, and its values are listed by many recent books (often without mentioning the source). Samsonov did understand that hardness of pure metals depends on many parameters (sample preparation, structure, purity, etc.) and is always a range of values. Unfortunately, webelements and many others don't understand that, and have cherry-picked single numbers. Their source for Mohs hardness is uncertain (Samsonov does not list Mohs hardness; I guess webelements interpolated Brinell and Vickers tendencies onto the Mohs scale) and this is our unresolved problem. I went through the infoboxes and Hardnesses of the elements (data page) and changed Brinell and Vickers values to ranges. I know that Brinell and Vickers values are often given in HB and HV, but Samsonov and many others convert them to MPa, thus I'd bear with that. Materialscientist ( talk) 03:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
|atomic mass 2=
for the precision-number (as it was), because this allows us to use and format that number for its specifics. Also, bot readers do not have to break down the all-in-one number. I note that there is |atomic mass ref=
which is specially added for the reference. So for {{
infobox helium}} it would be:|atomic mass=4.002602 |atomic mass 2=2 |atomic mass ref=<ref name="IUPAC">[http://www.ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm 2013 Standard Atomic Weights]. [[Commission on Isotopic Abundances and Atomic Weights]]</ref> |atomic mass comment=
|atomic mass comment=
can have any text you like, including reference(s). This is to solve any remaining situation as is needed. If in hydrogen you want to write "(1.00784–1.00811)[1]", then you can enter |atomic mass comment=(1.00784–1.00811)<ref>... the reference text here ...</ref>
. The comment always has a space prefixed, and no further formatting. -
DePiep (
talk)
13:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
1.008[1] (1.00784–1.00811)[2]
(in |atomic mass ref=
and in |atomic mass comment=
; the comment is an anything-goes input field). Depending on which data you want to source, you can pick one. (if I understand this topic right: the IUPAC reference better follow the range because that is what it sources). I won't edit that unless you ask me to. -
DePiep (
talk)
13:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
(2)
" addition we use? I'm working with it a long time, but I still don't know what it actually means. More so for our Readers, I guess. -
DePiep (
talk)
20:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)|atomic mass 2=
in {{
infobox element}}. No doubt there are other places.
YBG (
talk)
21:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
|atomic mass 2=
using newly created redirect
uncertainty bracket notation. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
YBG (
talk)
22:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
atomic mass uncertainty | |
---|---|
Label-side | |
Standard atomic weight (±) | 4.0026(9) [1] |
Data-side | |
Standard atomic weight | 4.0026 (9) [1] |
Previous | |
Standard atomic weight | 4.0026(9) [1] |
I think we can choose between two options for the uncertainty link, see the demos. Notes: I kept the link to uncertainty bracket notation, we can fill & redirect that as we like. The brackets are underlined too. The label-side link will not appear when the (#2) number is not present. All other input is unaffected (mass, ref, comment).
I can add variants if you like. Votes & notes?
|atomic mass 2=
is defined. --
Alchemist-hp (
talk)
23:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)In {{ Infobox element}}, there are four parameters for atomic mass:
|atomic mass = 4.0026 |atomic mass 2 = 9 |atomic mass ref = <ref name="IUPAC">[http://www.ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm]</ref> |atomic mass comment = The comment can be any text, and have its own reference.<ref>[www.example.com]</ref>
Will show like:
Demo atomic mass | |
---|---|
Standard atomic weight | 4.0026(9) [1] The comment can be any text, and have its own reference. [2] |
The first three are treated systematically for what they are. For example, brackets are added always around param #2. The fourth param is for free text. This one is added with a preceding space, and no further formatting. Technically, one can use the first one |atomic mass=
with any text, and it will show OK. However, following the pattern can help future handling. Also, external bots prefer the structured input. And as said, the comment (fourth parameter) is unstructured and free. This together should allow every situation. -
DePiep (
talk)
19:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
atomic mass | |
---|---|
Existing for U, U(), Pu[] | |
Standard atomic weight (±) | 238.02891(3) [1] |
Standard atomic weight | 238.02891 [1] |
Standard atomic weight | [237] [1] |
Alternatives for [bracket] notation | |
Standard atomic weight [] | [237] [1] |
References |
We should also include something to explain the other use of parentheses. I've offered one suggestion; others are welcome. At this point, I'm thinking only about appearance, not implementation. YBG ( talk) 07:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I've turned on hovercards and I quite like the feature, but it shows a few inconsistencies in our articles.
In {{ Navbox periodic table}} > Named sets > Misc., there are links to Transuranium elements, Transactinide elements, and Transplutonium elements. In all three cases, the first pic in the article is File:Super heavy elements (polyatomic).svg, which highlights 103-118, the transactinide elements. Of course, two out of the three is caused by the fact that Trans-Pu is a redirect to Trans-U. But the end result is that the hovercard makes it look like all three terms refer to elements 103-118, whereas Trans-U should be 93-118 and Trans-Pu should be 95-118. The best way to fix this is to create new pics for (a) 93-118 and put it in the lede for Trans-U and for (b) 95-118 and put it in the lede for a new Trans-Pu article, maybe just a stub. YBG ( talk) 07:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
U | Pu | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Key: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
After uranium | U | are →→→ trans-uranium elements | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
After plutonium | Pu | are →→ trans-plutonium elements | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
After the actinides | are → trans-actinide elements |
Please take a look to this discussion about the images too. Thanks, -- Alchemist-hp ( talk) 07:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Recently, a hatnote was added to astatine, saying as of now:
Can someone possibly mistake one for another, or is it just overthinking the problem? If the problem is real, then we may have to rethink iridium/iodine (Ir/I), californium/calcium (Cf/Ca), all of elements that start with a "C", "O", "N", etc.-- R8R ( talk) 09:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
A long time ago I tried to suggest this but nobody had the energy to do much about it. Currently, the infoboxes are a bit on the too-much info for (usually useless) unstable isotopes (like DE and DP). On the other hand, there is essentially no info other than abundance on the stable isotopes. I think for elements past lead a status quo is fine, but I would prefer some improvement on elements like carbon. Nuclear spin would be a must (instead of say DE) and perhaps more? Also, isotope of X tables should really have some more fields like this. Everybody seems to care about DE of atoms they will never even touch, so how about actually useful stuff? Nergaal ( talk) 18:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
VERY few people checking the article on carbon would care about 11C, and only a few about 14C, and the 0.96 and 0.156 numbers are 100% useless here. 14N is possibly the only remotely interesting DP in all the infoboxes before Bi, while 11B is not really useful. Saying 12C and 13C have 6 and 7 neutrons is not particularly useful either. However, having their nuclear spins (useful for both EPR and NMR) and possibly their gyromagnetic ratio (which gives the Lamor precession for NMR) and the quadrupole moments would be much more useful IMO. Nergaal ( talk) 15:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Nergaal ( talk) 15:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The ongoing FAC has raised a question whether we really need the pronunciation part of the infobox (like /ˈæstətiːn/ or /ˈæstətɪn/ as-tə-teen or as-tə-tin). I don't really know, I'm fine with this either in or out. I'm also not sure if there is a place for a wider discussion... what do you think? Whatever the decision, the best would be to apply this not to the infobox astatine, but to the whole infobox element. (Which is easy to do, but some agreement first would do us good.) -- R8R ( talk) 09:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Here by invitation. I added (or at least corrected) IPA in many of these articles. We don't generally give English pronunciations on WP, per WP:DICT. There are two major exceptions: Names, which you will not find in many dictionaries, or which may differ from another name of the same spelling; and new or obscure technical terms that also may not be found in an average dictionary. Another common exception are counter-intuitive words, whether they trip up native or L2 speakers of English.
However, since many elements probably deserve a pronunciation, and we have them organized so that we can navigate from one to another, why not include pronunciations for all? Granted, "tin" and "gold" may not be needed, but it's a matter of consistency: readers can depend on having a pronunciation for any element, without argument over where the dividing line should be. We do something similar with astronomical bodies: "Pan" and "Atlas" and pretty obvious, but it's nice to have the IPA regardless, just so you don't have to worry about them being weird. — kwami ( talk) 21:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
From the above discussion, I propose: remove from the element infobox pronunciation when it is not confusing (both IPA and respell form). This would be: gold, silver, tin.
- DePiep ( talk) 13:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
These intrusive and dumbed-down pronunciations were added to (almost?) every element. Was there a proper consensus to do so? If there was, it needs to be revisited. If there was not, they can be removed on sight. -- John ( talk) 19:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I have asked graphicists to make Mendeleevs table more readable. Please take a look if the first setup is acceptable. See WP:Graphics_Lab #Mendeleev's_tables. - DePiep ( talk) 21:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
That's:
At the talk page for List of metalloid lists I've asked for proposed additions to the main list, especially older and more recent citations. I'll aim to periodically add these to the list and update associated metrics, whenever/if ever there's a critical mass of them. Sandbh ( talk) 01:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Should Radium-223-Chloride be an article about Radium-223 or Radium-223-Chloride ? Should this be an isotope article, or a pharmacological chemical article? See talk:Radium-223-Chloride for the discussion -- 65.94.43.89 ( talk) 05:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
courtesy of Eric Scerri. --- Sandbh ( talk) 02:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
Infobox lawrencium}}
.
Double sharp (
talk)
03:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Looking at:
It seems to be fairly established that navboxes belong at the very end of an article, after all of the notes and references. This works quite well for most WP articles. However, WP:ELEM articles tend to have a huge volume of references -- sometimes equaling the size of the rest of the article and requiring 6-8 clicks to scroll through, even on a wide monitor. We do make extensive use of infoboxes at the top of our chemical element articles, but this doesn't completely fulfill the same function as navboxes.
When an article has a massive list of notes and references, I think it would be helpful to put the navboxes further up. I'm thinking of suggesting a change to the MOS to allow this. The general rule stays the same as it is now, but it would allow some flexibility, specifically, when there is a massive quantity of notes and references, navboxes are allowed to appear in the See Also section, but only in a collapsed state.
I've looked around and I have yet to find any articles outside of WP:ELEM with lists of notes and references that come anywhere near their average length in our articles elements... articles in Portal:Medicine seem to come closest. (e.g., from their showcase: Acute myeloid leukemia, Bacteria, Chagas disease, Dengue fever, Endometrial cancer. YBG ( talk) 16:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC))
What do others think? Is there any support for this in WP:ELEM? Any comments or suggestions? If there is support here, I'd like to take the suggestions given here and then see what interest I can generate over at Village pump and then over at Village pump. YBG ( talk) 08:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the best solution for the issues above is to develop one of the "Part of a series on ..." navboxes that hang on the right side of articles. Before I spend too much time thinking about this, I'd like to elicit some input from others. In particular, could you answer these questions:
Thanks! YBG ( talk) 02:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
By request [7], molar volume (data row) is added to {{Infobox element}}. See astatine for example (below densities).
|molar volume= |molar volume ref= |molar volume comment=
The default unit is cm3/mol (do not enter this). For gases, dm3/mol is used II'mC. For these (a dozen), alter the default and set |molar volume unit=dm3/mol
or whatever seems fit. . -
DePiep (
talk)
08:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
|molar volume= |molar volume ref= |molar volume comment= |molar volume unit=<!-- cm3/mol is default, otherwise add your unit here -->
|molar volume unit=
. -
DePiep (
talk)
17:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Some of the rest of the data tables in the other 150-odd pages are quite good. Sandbh ( talk) 02:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Here's the whole chapter Sandbh ( talk) 11:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Here. --- Sandbh ( talk) 01:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations. I think I should compliment R8R and Sandbh here. I am looking at your patience & carefulness for inspiration. -
DePiep (
talk)
20:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I hesitate to ask because these questions can get folk aggitated: could we agree that there are six platinum group metals? For casual readers and those working in the area, that would be my advice. In my 40 years working with PGMs, I have never seen the radioactive heavy threesome included, and I worry about giiving undue weight to a pretty esoteric perspective with no ramifications for the real world, IMHO. {| style="float:right; margin:5px; border:1px solid grey; text-align:center;" |+ Platinum group metals (PGMs) in the periodic table |- | white;| H|| colspan="17" | ||He |- | Li||Be|| colspan="11" | ||B || white;|C || white;|N || white;|O ||F ||Ne |- | |Na||Mg|| colspan="11" | ||Al||Si||P ||S ||Cl||Ar |- | |K ||Ca|| ||Sc||Ti||V||Cr||Mn||Fe||Co||Ni|| style="background:#90ff00;"|Cu||Zn||Ga||Ge||As||Se||Br||Kr |- | |Rb||Sr|| ||Y||Zr||Nb||Mo||Tc|| style="background:#00ff90;"|Ru|| style="background:#00ff90;"|Rh|| style="background:#00ff90;"|Pd|| style="background:#90ff00;"|Ag||Cd||In||Sn||Sb||Te||I ||Xe |- | Cs||Ba|| * ||Lu||Hf||Ta||W|| style="background:#90ff00;"|Re|| style="background:#00ff90;"|Os|| style="background:#00ff90;"|Ir|| style="background:#00ff90;"|Pt|| style="background:#90ff00;"|Au|| style="background:#90ff00;"|Hg||Tl||Pb||Bi||Po||At||Rn |- | Fr||Ra|| ** ||Lr||Rf||Db||Sg||Bh||Hs||Mt||Ds||Rg||Cn||Nh||Fl||Mc||Lv||Ts||Og|| |- | colspan="19" style="line-height:110%;" | |- | || ||* ||La||Ce||Pr||Nd||Pm||Sm||Eu||Gd||Tb||Dy||Ho||Er||Tm||Yb|| || |- | || ||** ||Ac||Th||Pa||U ||Np||Pu||Am||Cm||Bk||Cf||Es||Fm||Md||No|| || |-
| colspan=6 |
|-
| colspan=5 |
|} -- Smokefoot ( talk) 13:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
In {{
periodic table (micro)}}, you can highlight groups of elements by seting |mark=
to any group number or major category name, e.g., |mark=6
or |mark=metalloid
. Furthermore, the micro PT senses when it appears on an element page (or its infobox page) and highlights the single cell for that element; see, for example,
hydrogen and {{
infobox hydrogen}}. I think it would be very helpful if this template could be set up to highlight a particular element's cell in a more general context. I propose that |mark=1
, |mark=H
, or |mark=hydrogen
-- or maybe any one of them -- be used to mark the hydrogen cell. Ideally, you could highlight multiple elements by using forms like |mark=11,19,37,55,56,78,79
or |mark=Fe,Co,Ni,Gd,Dy
or |mark=boron,antimony
. This would provide a very nice way to illustrate the bullets at
Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals § Anomalous properties. I think that all that would be necessary would be to change the code to conditionally draw the border in {{
Periodic table (32 columns, micro)/elementcell}}, but I'm not completely sure. Can anyone (e.g.,
DePiep) verify that at least the single-element version is a relatively easy thing to do and either do it themselves or perhaps point me in the right direction? Thanks!
YBG (
talk)
02:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
|mark=Fe,Co,Ni,Gd,Dy
. Free list. -
DePiep (
talk)
15:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)|mark=Au, Fe
. -
DePiep (
talk)
20:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
|mark=9
keeps working for the group; list order can be random and writing "AU" does not produce an error here. Yes I removed that "mark Au when page is gold or infobox gold" logic because that was too fragile and unneeded elaborate (done 118 times/page). Infobox element now uses this |mark={{{symbol|}}}
too. If one sees any issues please report. Yeah of course my newly discovered class of elements has a common property; I'll leave it for you to puzzle for a while. (Really, I had a collegue once who in such a list did find a number pattern - spoiled the joke). Once again, I fell like Mendeleev must have felt. -
DePiep (
talk)
07:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)|mark=AU
will not produce an error or maintenance categorising. Of course it won't show as intended either. Do a count in the preview, I suggest. -
DePiep (
talk)
17:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)mark2=
option that marks elements dotted or red line bordered, to be explained "Only sometimes considered part of ...".|mark=P6
(
period 6) for it.
Parcly
Taxel
09:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)|mark=
list. Adding this extra would only be a shortcut (for the editor). On the other hand: the cell formatting is processed 118 times per micro PT. Adding this redundant feature would add to the pageload time. So I advise against it. -
DePiep (
talk)
10:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
|mark=3
and |mark=metalloid
?
YBG (
talk)
17:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
|markgroup=3
, |markcategory=metalloid
, |markelement=H
, |markelementlist=H,He
, |markfrom=19
|markto=36
? While these could all be parsed as part of |mark=
, if they were separate, it seems to me that the complex processing time would be expended only when it is actually used. I may be overthinking all of this, but if the template gets executed 118 times, every little bit might help.
YBG (
talk)
17:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Here. Check the key folds tab, too. (Added by Sandbh at 23:25, 22 April 2015 UTC ( YBG ( talk) 04:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)))
Can someone explain this?
If someone can explain it, I will be most appreciative. If someone can fix {{ chem}} so it does not have this problem, I will be even more appreciative. YBG ( talk) 03:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
some demo
|
---|
|
{{chem|O|2}}
produces:<span class="chemf" style="white-space:nowrap;">O <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:85%;text-align:left"><br />2 </span> </span>
In the astatine infobox, the oxidation states are noted this way: "−1, +1, +3, +5, +7": the "+" plus-sign is added. Shall we make that standard for all infoboxes? (I like it for stressing the essence, but is it best practice?) - DePiep ( talk) 07:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
One more approach. Can we split the small list, bolds first:
- DePiep ( talk) 19:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC) - DePiep ( talk) 07:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
Infobox astatine}}
. I've seen sources doing it without the + for the zero (although in that particular case they also removed the + for all the positive oxidation states). But to me it is a bit odd, because it makes me wonder if −0 would mean something different from +0. It's not really natural and obvious to me to put a sign in front of zero, because zero is neither positive nor negative.A long time desired improvement I have added: the ubiquitous category background color we use now has its legend connection in the {{ infobox element}}.
Sodium in the periodic table | |
---|---|
Element category | {{Infobox element/category format|category=alkali metal}} |
- DePiep ( talk) 00:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh dear. The bots are taking control by doing bot added Authority control in barium [8]. What a commanding name (aggressive twice, note). It gives control to wikidata.
Dear wikicommander. Can you explain why I should care to edit? KasparBot - DePiep ( talk) 20:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Here at {{
Drugbox}}, there is a talk to get the automated calculation of molar mass by atomic mass (from input like H=2|O=1
). Together with {{
Chembox}}, there are 15,000 potential articles.
My question is: for the atomic mass of an element, which source numbers should we use? (and knowing that IUPAC uses ranges like [1.234, 1.345], which number to use at all?). Issues like rounding and uncertainty can be addressed later. Practical laboratory rounding says "2 decimals is OK". - DePiep ( talk) 23:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Nergaal ( talk) 06:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
In general, I think the article is ready for FAC, but I'd like anyone to give it a last-minute look before the procedure starts. I checked the previous FAC, and it seems prose quality was the only major obstacle; now that the article has been copyedited, I would still love you to give it some final check.-- R8R ( talk) 18:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.-- Lucas559 ( talk) 22:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Just noting, here. Since one month there is a discussion about the definition of 'element'. See WT:WP Chemistry#Chemical element: french and englishdefinition. - DePiep ( talk) 20:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Next to Article Quality and Importance, there is a grading WikiProject called WP:Vital Articles. Non-stable elements and transactinide were discussed here. - DePiep ( talk) 23:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Todo: check and align the table in Symbol (chemistry). - DePiep ( talk) 22:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The redirects Other nonmetal and Other nonmetals, which currently point to Nonmetal are being discussed at RfD. Your input to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 20#Other nonmetal is invited. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Gonna read it. Then finally I may keep my old promise to rewrite Ce. Have been gone from here for too long... Double sharp ( talk) 20:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
After looking at WP:ELEM/PP: I dunno why indium is so popular now, but maybe we ought to get it to GA due to all this attention (it's not that far off, I think.) Double sharp ( talk) 12:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
See Talk:Indium#Indium article views on August 13, 2015. Double sharp ( talk) 12:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Periodic table#Placement of hydrogen and helium. (Will update link when it gets archived.) Double sharp ( talk) 07:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/224968080_On_the_Existence_of_Hydrogen_Atoms_in_Higher_Dimensional_Euclidean_Spaces Double sharp ( talk) 14:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
CIAAW has updated, by announced biannual pattern, their "Standard Atomic Weights" from 2013 into 2015 [10]. - DePiep ( talk) 19:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The brunt of the isotope work has been done a few years ago. How would you all feel about "closing" Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Isotopes and redirect (soft or hard) the discussions of isotopes to the main element page? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
{{
WP Elements|isotope=yes}}
. This is really about closing down a discussion page and redirecting the traffic to this one.Hmm, I moved it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive Isotopes, but then it doesn't show up on the main header. But then it doesn't show up. Do I need to give it a number? If so, I'll reserve 21 for it and then skip over from 20 to 22 for the main archives. (As it stands, 15 already cuts through the story.) Double sharp ( talk) 07:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Periodic Table of the Elements Nergaal ( talk) 15:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The article Extended periodic table says:
Elements 1-118 still follow the pattern we know and love. Elements 119 and 120, following the pattern of the first 2 elements of any row, are still following the pattern. But after that, if the elements were to follow the pattern:
But the article reveals that the table no longer follows the pattern that we know and love. First, the g-block has 20 elements, not 18. Then, elements 141-164 take the expected positions of elements 139-162. Then there will be no p-block for the eighth row; it will go straight the the s-block of the following row with elements 165 and 166. Worse, the ninth row will be just as long as the second and third rows with just 2 s-block and 6 p-block elements, followed immediately by the g-block of row 10 with no s-block at all. The pattern we all know and love is broken. No more "periodic table", but more of a "groupic table", meaning that putting elements in the same column by group because of their similar properties is what's important, not putting them in periodic patterns. Any thoughts on whether the table really still is periodic?? Georgia guy ( talk) 15:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Right. Sorry about that.
Well, periodic table says that it is ordered by atomic number, electron configurations, and recurring chemical properties. No mention of the constant n + ℓ value that you find in every earlier period. So I think it is actually doing its best given the weirdo electron configurations predicted.
Take the extra two superactinides: this is happening because the 8p1/2 electrons are lowered in energy so much that they're filling up along with 5g, and the properties are hard to distinguish. A bad analogy is how not only 4f, but also 5d1 fill up in the lanthanides. It's essentially the same question: "why are there 15 lanthanides when the f-block only can hold 14 elements" and "why are there 20 superactinides when the g-block only can hold 18 elements"?
The difference, of course, is that in the lanthanides 5d is supposed to fill right after they finish, at Lu–Hg, by Aufbau, but in the superactinides 8p should wait till 163–168 by Aufbau. So something has to give, and we, following Fricke, decided to go by predicted chemical properties. 139 and 140 are not expected to act too differently from the other superactinides, so with regards to the table, they should be together. Because when you put elements on the periodic table, there are four steps, per Jensen:
141–164 being two higher than expected is basically because 8p1/2 has also been filled, so you've got an extra two electrons as part of the inert core. So things still work out: for example, Rf has 6d2, and eka-Rf (156) has 7d2, following the above criteria.
Then after that we are faced with a problem. The subshell splitting is such a large effect now that 8p3/2 rises beyond 9s, and so the latter fills first. So we have no choice but to put 165 and 166 in the s-block of the next row. This doesn't really violate the criteria above, as the trends work out. And we have an added bonus that 9p1/2 and 8p3/2 are close in energy, so they act like a single p-subshell. So, why not move 8p3/2 into the ninth row? It keeps the elements in increasing atomic number, fits the trends, and now we have a short period like the 3rd row, just as is predicted by Fricke.
Finally, as for 173–184, since the 9th period is complete at 172, we have to treat it as being the g-block of the next row.
So I think the table is still as periodic as it can get with the electron configuration weirdness. The placements are perhaps not strictly following electron configuration, but do their best to expose the trends, both across periods and down groups. Double sharp ( talk) 02:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Now the greys are called "other metals", and envelope Be, Mg, Zn, Cd, Hg, Cn, as well as our post-transition metals. (I also edited their table to show Mt, Ds, and Rg as "unknown chemical properties", and Fl as a post-transition metal.) So Be and Mg aren't alkaline earth metals there? Interesting.
(Also, beryllium is the only element FA on Japanese Wikipedia. Would be interesting to do that here as well, as it was our first. Also wouldn't mind doing Li and Be together.) Double sharp ( talk) 07:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I would love to get Fricke/Pyykkö installed there for the extended PT, but I can't write the new overview... Double sharp ( talk) 14:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@ Sandbh: ja:Template:周期表 has some really interesting border-colour/cell-colour usage for mixed categories (e.g. metalloid/halogen). Double sharp ( talk) 12:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Now that we don't use "poor metals", I submit that if we do choose to take group 12 out of the TMs, we'd actually be listened to seriously instead of getting laughed at for "poor metals". If we want to go down that path, that is. (Although it does unfortunately mean uncolouring Cn and Fl. But then the whole can-it-use-d-electrons definition is very unnatural for the superheavy elements, if we listen to the predictions of Fricke et al, as there would be many cases like E113, E165, and E166 where the d electrons are used but result in main-group behaviour.) Double sharp ( talk) 08:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
:ja:wiki:periodic table
? -
DePiep (
talk)
23:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)A discussion on whether to leave group 12 out of the TMs would be worth having, presumably at Template talk:Periodic table. Sandbh ( talk) 22:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
John William Nicholson Pekka Pyykkö Charles Janet are part of the project articles. While Carl Gustaf Mosander is not part of the project. Should we include the rest of the discoverers and creaters of the periodic table.-- Stone ( talk) 21:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
|Importance=
option in the WP project template. And always a bio-interested editor can start on the Mosander page, however. -
DePiep (
talk)
21:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)|Importance=low
for Mosander, but pls keep him in (Again, IMO our 'edit capacity' is not defining who has something to do with elements). Yesterday I added
Diagonal relationship after a Double sharp tip. Low indeed, but interesting & related. -
DePiep (
talk)
21:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Cancelled
In {{
infobox element}}, I have removed the "above, below, left, right" links for element neighbours. I think our PT and our readers are good enough to know what the 'above element' is. See:
gold. -
DePiep (
talk)
21:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I put (or checked the presence of) WP Elements tags on the exotic atoms Mu (μ+e−), Ps (e+e−), Pn (p+p−), and p−He+ (p−-e−-He2+, He with one electron replaced with an antiproton): these are the ones for which some chemistry is known, or at least have a symbol. In particular, the symbol Mu for μ+e− is OK with IUPAC! Double sharp ( talk) 07:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Now that the elements table is nearing completion, perhaps a series of common comounds could be added to give project members the drive to push articles up to quality? (I know personally it's more fun and rewarding to bring a start up to B, than a GA up to FA).
Here are some famous and abundant compounds and their current article status:-- Coin945 ( talk) 12:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Famous and abundant compounds | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I don't think we're anywhere "near completion" yet:
Compound | Article status |
---|---|
Nitrogen | C |
Sodium | C |
Magnesium | C |
Aluminium | C |
Silicon | C |
Phosphorus | C |
Sulfur | C |
Chlorine | C |
Calcium | C |
Iron | B |
Arsenic | B |
Bromine | C |
Silver | B |
Tin | C |
Iodine | C |
Gold | C |
We're not there yet. It's too early to move the very small number of editors in this project elsewhere.-- R8R ( talk) 18:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
A video was released earlier today on a YouTube channel I watch named Periodic Videos. The video was titled, "Your periodic table is probably WRONG" and it is linked here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1zNbWJC5aw
It was discussing a paper released in Nature back in April that was bringing into question the commonly structured setup of the lanthanides and actinides on the table. The paper is linked here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7546/full/nature14342.html
My question is, was anything changed in our articles here in regards to this, such as how we portray the periodic table and, if not, what information and testing from scientists in the field would be necessary for us to then change it? Or is there an organization or society that would have to put out an official dictum before we make any changes? Silver seren C 21:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Since I am named above I take the liberty of adding a few comments relating to the Poliakoff video and the question of group 3. Interesting video. However the authors of the article in Nature magazine, who measured the first ionization of Lr, did not make an argument that it should be placed in group 3 as Poliakoff claims. It was rather the science news articles published in places like Scientific American. If one looks closely at this observation one finds that it still does not settle the issue conclusively. In my own book, "A Very Short Introduction to the Periodic Table", OUP, 2011, I give what I believe to be a categorical argument in favor of group 3 as Sc, Y, Lu, Lr. It is that the periodic table should be presented in its long or 32-column and that all elements should be shown in order of increasing atomic number. This settles it conclusively apart from the remote possibility, which coincidentally was shown of the video, of a table that breaks up the d-block into two highly irregular portions consisting of one and nine groups, separated by the d-block. I cannot believe that nature is so perverse as this. The 32-column table shown in the video is fundamentally incorrect. Just look at the triads. For all other transition metal groups the atomic number triads consist of the second , third and fourth elements in the group. In the case of group 3 as shown in that table it is the first, second and third elements that form a triad. This is highly inconsistent. Why should the d-block be the only group that is split up in this anomalous fashion? It makes no sense. please see www.ericscerri.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.169.229 ( talk) 00:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Each person born in this century should learn the Periodic Table in 32-column form. - DePiep ( talk) 20:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
By decree of IUPAC, all chemistry classrooms must have walls long enough for a 32-column periodic table. NO EXCEPTIONS. shoy ( reactions) 13:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Not that everyone follows everything given in the IUPAC PT as well (aside from the equivocation on group 3, which we should really get rid of). I bet everyone's seen at some point a periodic table with H floating around somewhere in the middle instead of being over group 1. (And the periodic table diagrams in Greenwood & Earnshaw's 2nd edition float both H and He this way!) And I bet most PT manufacturers include the unconfirmed elements near the end (113, 115, 117, and 118), even though the IUPAC PT doesn't yet. Double sharp ( talk) 13:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Flying Jazz appears to have split the thread at User talk:Silver seren#Question about periodic table layout, with some stuff about IUPAC at Talk:Group 3 element#IUPAC committee decides that the organization of the periodic table isn't their business. Double sharp ( talk) 11:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to bring the edits of 50.196.213.1 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the attention of this WikiProject. This editor went through many (all?) element articles and changed section headings from "Precautions", "Health effects", and the like to "Toxicity". I think consistency is good, but I don't know if there is consensus for these mass changes or not and thought a discussion might be warranted. ChemNerd ( talk) 15:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
If he's right (despite the continuing lack of corroborating papers), the truth is spreading. If he's wrong, we have a funny example of citogenesis, although here at least the fact got printed first. Double sharp ( talk) 09:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've had enough of this impossible-to-verify-outside-Emsley-and-his-source-Walter-Saxon tidbit that's being copied everywhere. I'm going to revert everything back to Pu as the highest natural element, in the absence of corroborating sources outside Emsley. After all, you'd think there'd be papers like there have been for primordial 244Pu. Double sharp ( talk) 13:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Wow, it apparently made actual scientists go to check... nope, no news of anything beyond Pu in nature outside Emsley. Double sharp ( talk) 02:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC) This has gone places! Double sharp ( talk) 02:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The argument has been raised before, and we seem to have reached a consensus our current unun- articles should be instrad named "element X." We haven't gotten this implemented because of how this should be done; now that the issue was raised at the Uus FAC, we may reopen the issue.
So two major questions are: do we still see "element X" as the better option and agree we should change the naming style, and, if so, how (technically) do we want to do it?-- R8R ( talk) 05:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
It might be good point to compile a list links related to this this topic
Wikipedia is now showing this (not so) huge banner saying that it has 5 million articles. If you will remember, I'm the one who copy-edited most of fluorine and copper. What should I do next? I have always been eyeing aluminium or sodium but haven't really got much time for it. I'm now doing some actual research of my own on Bézier curves as part of a high school project which is necessary for my graduation from there. Parcly Taxel 23:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
There are only 32 stub-class articles within this Wikiproject. I think it is time to look at them one by one and see if they should be merged, redirected, deleted, or expanded. Similarly, 86 start-class articles is relatively manageable.-- Coin945 ( talk) 12:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
A bit of research into article histories has revealed that the creator of all of the "proposed name" articles was @ Stone:. We should probably get her/his opinion.-- Coin945 ( talk) 19:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Just now noticed this list ... and noticed that it has includes 118 items. Coincidence? YBG ( talk) 06:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I noticed our infobox photo of cesium has it being a very dull yellow, to the point where it appears more like rubidium (silver) than the golden yellow of cesium. So are there any objections to me switching out the current photo in favor of File:CsCrystals.JPG which shows the color much more clearly? D ralwi k| Have a Chat 22:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Part of a series on the |
Periodic table |
---|
![]() |
After thinking for months and sandboxing for just over a week, I have created {{ Sidebar periodic table}}. It's not quite ready for prime time -- for example, the documentation page is yet to be written -- but it's certainly reached a point where comments would be helpful. YBG ( talk) 05:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
|expanded=
and |image=
.Currently, the first sentence for an element is like:
Could we change it to?:
My pref would be --B--. But that's just me, being familiar with these symbols. Most of our Readers won't even call it a 'symbol', but an abbr. Sure there is no obligation to state that it is a 'symbol' at all. - DePiep ( talk) 00:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)