![]() | 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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
After much discussion, we recently moved this article:
This was accomplished after overcoming some concern about plural titles running afoul of article naming standards, but I believe that concern was a misunderstanding of the standards. WP:NCPLURAL specifically says:
In general, Wikipedia articles have singular titles; for example, our article on everyone's favorite canine is located at dog, not dogs. This rule exists to promote consistency in our article titles and generally leads to slightly more concise titles as well.
Exceptions exist for two general types of articles.
- Articles on groups or classes of specific things.
- Cases where the title only exists in the plural.
The article give 8 groups of examples of the first type of article and 4 of the second, and finishes with an explicit note that some circumstances merit invoking WP:IAR to make WP better.
With all of this in mind, I'd like to propose some moves for other sets of element. But first let me list all possible changes. YBG ( talk) 07:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
This is (hopefully) a list of all possible changes if we were to pluralize the article titles for ALL sets of elements, which I don't think anyone would want to do. But I wanted to list them all for completeness' sake.
If I've missed any other names for sets of chemical elements, please add them above. And then join me in voicing your opinion below. YBG ( talk) 07:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
YBG ( talk) 07:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't actually mind pluralising the group names, giving "alkali metals", "alkaline earth metals", "pnictogens", "chalcogens", "halogens", or "noble gases". After all, they would typically be considered together as a group. But I daresay the plural of "boron group" is not "boron group elements", because it is already plural. Same for "carbon group". As well, for things like "group 3 element", I would argue that the right title is "group 3". Since this is ambiguous, I would actually not mind "scandium group". It is common in German and Greenwood and Earnshaw tends to just name the elements, so in this case "Scandium, Yttrium, Lanthanum, and Actinium". Most of the metallicity trend classes likewise can be pluralised. As for the periods, I don't quite care enough about those articles: the elements are just too distinct. Maybe you could use periods 2 and 3 as good demonstrations of periodicity, though (and I would personally float H and He and call Li–Ne and Na–Ar the first and second row). But likewise the right title is not "period 2 elements" but "period 2 (periodic table)". Double sharp ( talk) 11:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
The difference between singular and plural, as I see it, is that the former discusses the concept and the latter discusses the elements. So I'm all for plural in all periods and groups (except for "boron group elements": that "elements" adds nothing) and some other circumstances, but would probably keep singular in (say) "transuranic element" and definitely would in "metal."-- R8R ( talk) 21:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I've unarchived this section because I want to make a proposal, but I won't get to it right away. YBG ( talk) 02:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I think that this might be the easiest category to figure out. Here are the choices for group 2; other groups are similar:
Here are some general principles I think we could all agree on:
Now as to what I'm not sure we'd all agree upon:
Combining this yields:
Comments? YBG ( talk) 04:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The problem with "group 3 element" for me is that the disambiguation does not feel very natural. I don't want to say "iron is a group 8 element". No, I want to say "iron is in group 8". I don't call iron, ruthenium, and osmium "group 8 elements"; I call them "the elements of group 8". So group 8 is the primary thing, not the elements in it; but it has the problem of needing unnatural disambiguation. However, I wouldn't say "iron group" either, as that historically means iron, cobalt, and nickel. So I think we are more or less forced to "group X (periodic table)". (Actually, in speech I tend to use the numbers, with the trivial names for groups 1, 2, and 15–18 as possible alternatives.) So for me it is: group 13 (periodic table) > boron group, and I don't consider the "elements" names to be good approaches. Double sharp ( talk) 06:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
OK, it seems that we have consensus on groups 1-2 and 15-18. I (wrongly) thought the other groups would be easy, but let's leave them for now. Using (PT) as a disambiguator may well grow on me, but before we go down that path, I wonder if there are others were we could quickly reach a consensus on a natural disambiguation. The metallicity trend sets and the other "* metal" sets seem good candidates for agreement:
Could we arrive at a consensus on these? YBG ( talk) 18:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Here are the changes I am proposing:
PT Groups | Metallicity trend | Other sets |
---|---|---|
|
target(hN*) | Target page is a redirect with N versions, some containing content |
target(hN) | Target page is a redirect with N versions, none containing content |
target | Target page does not exist |
I don't plan on doing anything for a week or so. In the mean time, suggestions are more than welcome. YBG ( talk) 06:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd forgotten this discussion for a while, and now I'm wondering what direction to take with the following suggestions:
PT Groups | Metallicity trend | Other sets | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||
|
Here are the possible options. Let me know which is your preference.
Thanks for your input. YBG ( talk) 05:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
In a periodic table, we should write the atomic number where it belongs:
80Hg |
Not in a separate line like
80
Hg |
- DePiep ( talk) 22:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
90Th |
Essentially, while I find your proposal logical, I am not comfortable with it unless we can demonstrate a significant number of people using it - because this is supposed to be a very general PT, representative of the average one you find in the literature...and people would look to us to know how to read that, I think... Double sharp ( talk) 04:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I am personally mildly (too minor a question to be too concerned about) opposed to the new configuration. "80 // Hg" is correct. "80Hg" is a way to refer to element that is equivalent to the standard "Hg." "80 // Hg" visually separates the idea of symbol and that of atomic number. There's no mistake in this.-- R8R ( talk) 17:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Per Scerri 2007 (The PT, Its story and Significance): the period number = n. I have added this to the infobox. - DePiep ( talk) 01:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
here. Sandbh ( talk) 22:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Metals other than the alkali, alkaline-earth, lanthanide, actinide and transition metals, a redirect to Post-transition metal, has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 29#Metals other than the alkali, alkaline-earth, lanthanide, actinide and transition metals. My initial investigation suggests things are not quite as simple as might be expected so your comments are invited at the linked discussion. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Please move Ununtrium to Nihonium, Ununpentium to Moscovium, Ununseptium to Tennessine, and Ununoctium to Oganesson.-- Abelium ( talk) 08:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
element | pageviews | Tue 29 Nov | Wed 30 Nov | Sat 3 Dec Main page: In the News [1] |
---|---|---|---|---|
113 Nh | [1] | 250 | 4.000 | 14.000 |
115 Mc | [2] | 250 | 2.000 | 10.000 |
117 Ts | [3] | 35 | 4.000 | 12.000 |
118 Og | [4] | 2000 | 6.000 | 16.000 |
No article on an element or its isotopes is complete without information on its nucleosynthesis—whether primordial, stellar, explosive stellar, spallation, or radioactive decay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.231.248 ( talk) 13:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I have added to our Trophy list Radiocarbon dating ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch. It was promoted as FA in March 2015. Please take a look. - DePiep ( talk) 22:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
This is about our 120 element infoboxes (for example infobox U). Below I propose to split the isotopes table into a separate, new infobox. It would remove the very detailed and not-in-articlebody data from the top infobox. The new infobox can go into the ==Isotopes== section, and also as a regular infobox in page "Isotopes of <element>". I've arranged the proposal/discussion into: 1. Changes in infoboxes and articles, 2. What would the new infobox be like?
My hat tip for this brilliant information approach goes to YBG. Thinking out of the box—into another one.
Please do not discuss in this intro section. Use subsections instead. - DePiep ( talk) 19:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE (the paragraph is worth reading), the infobox should summarize information that is already in the article body. There is some leeway for this (we want the melting point in there, even if it is not described in the article body text). But there is a treshold for less relevant data.
Step Create. I propose to create a new infobox for the 'most stable isotopes' table ('Isobox' for short; × 120 elements). This step is a preparation (no content changes happen). This infobox is described in #The new Infobox <element> isotopes.
Step Remove. Now I do claim that the isotopes table does not belong in the infobox. For starters, they are not mentioned (that specific) in the article, so why should the infobox 'summarize' them? Then, the table adds too much detail, both in number of isotopes and in data columns. Also, the total list of infobox parameters is very, very long (which is too long to be an effective summary of the article). And compared to the other data present, I see few or little information that could be removed instead of this table (info with lower rights to be there). Other data can be up for discussion too, at some other time and place. Concluding, I propose to remove the isotopes table section from the element infoboxes.
Step Add. The new Isobox is added to the element's ==Isotopes== section. For any element the steps Remove and Add are performed at the same moment, so there will always be exactly one table in the article. Also, the Isobox is to be added to the article "Isotopes of <element>" (120 P), as a regular top infobox.
What will not change. Apart from the disappearing isotopes section, {{Infobox element}} will not change per this proposal. Also, the mentioning of isotopes in the lede is unchallenged (a good lede should not/will not require rewriting for this removal). The isotopes table itself will not change, because the Isobox is first of all a cut-and-paste copy. To keep this complex data move (and its discussion) manageable, content/structural changes in the 'most stable isotopes' table are not considered. Such improvements can be initiated once the new 120 Isoboxes are alive & well.
- DePiep ( talk) 19:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Looks like a good approach - and thanks for the hat tip. One idea that might remove a bit of the dependencies: Initially, create an empty isobox and add it to the ===Isotopes=== section. This should make zero difference in the appearance of the article itself. This could be done to all of the elements before anything else is done. Then element by element all that is required is to simultaneously remove stuff from the element infobox and add it to the already-created isotope infobox, without needing to do anything to the article itself. YBG ( talk) 19:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
tangential discussion of process
|
---|
|
It is an infobox with parameters:
{{Infobox element/isotopes | name= | isotopes= | isotopes table footnote= | relative atomic mass= | relative atomic mass ref= }}
The existing table 'Most stable isotopes of <element>' will be copy/pasted into the new infobox (that is, the existing |isotopes=
input from {{infobox <element>}}).
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Standard atomic weight Ar°(U) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
{{Infobox element/isotopes | name=uranium | isotopes= {{infobox element/isotopes decay2 | link=uranium-232 | mn=232 | sym=U ... }}<!-- one isotope, table row --> {{infobox element/isotopes decay3 | link=uranium-238 | mn=238 | sym=U | na=99.274% | hl=[[1 E17 s|4.468×10<sup>9</sup> y]] ... }}<!-- another isotope, table row --> }} |isotopes table footnote=Some footnote here |relative atomic mass=238.02891(3) |relative atomic mass ref=<ref>[http://www.ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm Standard Atomic Weights 2013].</ref> }}
|name=
Element name.|isotopes=
Parameter that has the table rows (the subtemplates). Same as in {{Infobox element}}|isotopes table footnote=
Footnote tied to the table. Replaces |isotopes comment=. (Used in
Li,
Ba,
Na)|relative atomic mass=
, |relative atomic mass ref=
(Ar) Added here because the "Isotopes of ..." articles add this to their lede. Can have a reference, preferably CIAAW. This value is labeled "
Standard atomic weight (±) (Ar)" in the main infobox. Something needs a change?Omitting:
- DePiep ( talk) 19:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
References
|wdQID=
) was a piece of cake. Problem with in-article edits using
WP:REGEX is that the body text can give undesired hit-and-edits to be handled.None of these is particularly pressing, but I thought I'd mention them while I was thinking about this. By the way, in order to establish a consensus, it would help to have a section for !Voting. YBG ( talk) 22:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Further to RFC consensus to use the -La-Ac table, there is an updated version of our periodic table article in my sandbox.
I could go ahead and post the thing but thought I'd list the changes here first in case there were any comments. You can also view the history of my sandbox and compare the current article (03:04 17 Jan) with the proposed article (03:05 17 Jan). ( diff current versions).
Whole article
Replaced the note tags with a version that supports the citation template within the notes.
Section: Lead
Table updated (as a jpg, not an svg)
Section: Overview
Table updated (as code, not yet the template)
Section: Grouping methods
Groups subsection
Table updated (as code, not yet the template)
Section: Periodic trends
Name change to "Periodic trend and patterns" --
Sandbh (
talk)
07:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Electron configuration subsection
Have asked the graphics lab to updated the periodic trends table
New subsection added
"Linking or bridging groups" --
Sandbh (
talk)
07:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Section: Different periodic tables
Paragraph 5: Added new note 12 that goes "But for the existence..."
Paragraph 6: Copy edited to explain that the -La-Ac table is chosen as the most popular table. Old note 15 re gas phase and solid phase electron configurations has been removed and replaced with a simplified mention of electron configurations in the "Open questions and controversies section", "Group 3 and its elements in periods 6 and 7" subsection, paragraphs 3 and 5.
Periodic tables by different structure subsection
32-column table updated
Section: Open questions and controversies
Group 3 and its elements in periods 6 and 7 subsection
Paragraph 1: Small copy edits. The order of the Group 3 options images has been swapped.
Paragraph 2: Sentence referring to further spectroscopic work as to the electron configuration of Yb relocated here from the old paragraph 3. I removed reference to Matthias describing the placement of La under Y as a mistake. I removed reference to Lavelle's support from La under Y. I added a sentence about lanthanum's incumbency advantage.
Paragraphs 3 and 5: These are new and briefly discuss the chemical behaviour of group 3, vertical trends, and the electron configurations of the f-block, for -La-Ac and -Lu-Lr.
Paragraph 4: Added new note 19 re the expected chemical behaviour of Lr.
Footer
Updated the Periodic table (as code, not yet the template)
Pending items
Ask for an svg version of the lead jpg table
Have asked De Piep to updated the table in the "Grouping methods" section, "Metals, metalloids and nonmetals" subsection
Will ask the graphics lab to update the discovery of the elements periodic table, in the History section, First systemisation attempts subsection
Will ask Double sharp to update the eight-column table in the History section, Second version and further development table
The 32-column 8-row table in the Open questions and controversies section, Further periodic table extensions subsection, needs to be updated.
-- Sandbh ( talk) 07:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
6 Open questions and controversies 6.1 Placement of hydrogen and helium 6.2 Group 3 and its elements in periods 6 and 7 6.2.1 Lanthanum and actinium 6.2.2 Lutetium and lawrencium 6.2.3 Lanthanides and actinides 6.3 Groups included in the transition metals 6.4 Elements with unknown chemical properties 6.5 Further periodic table extensions 6.6 Element with the highest possible atomic number 6.7 Optimal form [or up? 6.1? DP]
Unless I am missing something, current order is random. This proposal has some logic to it (low to high; simple to complicated). - DePiep ( talk) 09:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Need to replace some code with templates, and update a few more images as per list of changes in Implementing -La-Ac in our Periodic table article subsection above, but there you go. Sandbh ( talk) 00:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Is there a way to get them to show their group as "3" instead of "n/a"? Even editing the field doesn't quite work. Double sharp ( talk) 04:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
There is currently and RFC on what do do with the shortcuts used for the chemistry-related projects. Please comment. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- DePiep ( talk) 01:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
What is meant by "+X" or "+Y" in a excitation energy column? Please see Isotopes_of_rhenium. There are also some other confusing values - without a explanation - in this article, including "non-exists" for 168mRe and "0(100)# kev" for 172mRe. 89.166.13.36 ( talk) 22:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
See here for the nomination and closure, and here for my response. A morning needlessly wasted. Sandbh ( talk) 00:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
In recent weeks, User:Squee3 has changed discovery details of several elements' infoboxes ( contributions)
Today I had to revert a Template:Infobox technium change, back to the year that was plainly in the article's source. Earlier, a back-and-forth at Template:Infobox arsenic (es saying 'As far as I can tell' as a source). In both examples the infobox deviates from the article body text & sources. Last month, in Timeline_of_chemical_element_discoveries only one source was added (again deviating from Tc article source).
Seeing that the edits are badly sourced if at all, I propose that all their edits in this area are reviewed, and that Squee3 be notified that no unsourced edits are disputed a priori and so must be discussed. - DePiep ( talk) 09:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Since there is now a discussion about that, a great date for rerunning periodic table would be 6 March 2019 (150th anniversary of Mendeleyev presenting his first periodic table to the Russian Chemical Society). Double sharp ( talk) 09:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Biological role of nitrogen is a redirect that currently points at a non-existent section of the main Nitrogen article. I've nominated this redirect for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 9#Biological role of nitrogen where your comments are invited. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I am working to understand and improve the standard atomic weight and its related/unrelated quantities. Aim is to publish the right values with the right quantities (definitions, names, numbers, units, values, nonconfusing).
Derived from standard atomic weight:
Current ![]() | |
---|---|
Standard atomic weight (Ar) | [98] |
Proposals | |
a. Mass number (A) | 98 |
b. Mass number (most stable isotope) | 98 |
c. Mass number (most stable isotope) | 98Tc: 98 |
d. Mass number of most stable isotope | 98 |
The new label should have " Mass number", which has symbol A and is dimensionless. Adding "(most stable isotope)" would be the clearest descriprion IMO. Quite trivial, but also very clear is adding the isotope: "98Tc: 98". (a, b, c are added for reference here only).
Comments? Other variants? - DePiep ( talk) 13:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Current | |
---|---|
Standard atomic weight (Ar) | 24.305 (24.304–24.307) [1] |
Proposals | |
a. Standard atomic weight (Ar) | 24.304, 24.307 [1] |
conventional | 24.305 |
b. Standard atomic weight (Ar) |
|
c. Standard atomic weight (Ar) [1] |
|
d. Standard atomic weight (Ar) [1] | 24.304, 24.307 conventional: 24.305 |
e. Standard atomic weight (Ar) | conventional: 24.305 24.304, 24.307 [1] |
f. Standard atomic weight (Ar) N | conventional: 14.007 14.00643, 14.00728 [1] |
The interval is written, by SI convention, with square brackets, comma, and a space. We should follow that. Then, I think it clarifying to add "conventional" to the second value. The source ref (CIAAW) could go with the label? Example e. has the order reversed. Examples b and c are using {{unbulleted list}}, d and e have a <br>. The data being in two rows, one should also check mobile view (makes a. look bad). f is nitrogen. Comments? - DePiep ( talk) 15:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
References
Note that per this RFC, the shortcuts to WP:CHEMISTRY/ WP:CHEMICALS have been updated.
Old discussions have had their shortcuts updated already. If I have made a mistake during an update, feel free to revert. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Working on relative atomic mass and CIAAW. From there, over at Wikidata I am proposing to add two Properties for elements:
- DePiep ( talk) 20:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, here at enwiki I have put content into standard atomic weight (copy/pasted from relative a.m. to start with). - DePiep ( talk) 23:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
A general note from me. What is happening now in Wikidata is serious matter (however you and I dislike it). also 'www.webchems.com' and 'www.DePiepSmartServices.com' (projected) will pull data freely from Wikidata (legally, and no source need be mentioned). Wikidata will be the source google pages pull this data from (and not enwiki any more). The problem is (for me at least): how to work with Wikidata as I am used to work with enwiki? At least for the standard atomic weights now, I could pick up and work there. - DePiep ( talk) 23:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine. [1] [2]. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia. Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas: Editors
Authors
If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.
|
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 10:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
15 years ago I started this project with the goal of turning the Periodic table by the quality blue. I see now that it is almost all green with a lot of blue. Great work and keep it up! I no longer have time to help, but continue to be proud of what everybody who has contributed to this project has done. -- mav ( reviews needed) 03:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
103rd edition (2016) of Holleman-Wiberg's Inorganic Chemistry; only 2,622 pages. Sandbh ( talk) 06:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it worth considering, to introduce the periodic table initially in the left step form, and have all classrooms wallpapered with it. Instead of the crumbling-castle like figure.
How is the periodic table introduced anyway? I am open for teachers who say that one form or the other is way too complicated to teach. Note: this post is to datastamp this idea, although I probably am not the coining one. - DePiep ( talk) 11:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I | II | III | IV | V | VI | VII | 0 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H | He | ||||||
Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne |
Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar |
K | Ca |
We had a great discussion on changing colors of the current categories about a year ago. I re-discovered my suggestion a few days ago and found it great. DePiep also had a draft for one but it at the moment didn't comply with the web design color criteria he introduced me to (DePiep acknowledged this, saying this would be worked on in a later revision).
Is anyone still interested in developing a new color scheme? I'd want to reignite the discussion for now if that's possible.-- R8R ( talk) 11:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Please comment. This would affect a few templates as well. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 11:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
We originally colored Fl as a metal following a 2014 paper authored by Yakushev et al.. In 2016, another Yakushev et al. paper was published, however, that, despite admitting the results of 2014, now says, "Two contradicting conclusions on the chemical behaviour follow from the first gas chromatography studies on the flerovium-gold interaction: one suggests weak physisorption of Fl upon the deposition on gold, another suggests a metallic character. The question “is flerovium a metal or a noble gas?” is still waiting for an unambiguous answer."
This means we should uncolor Fl for now. Any objections?-- R8R ( talk) 17:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
As a first step I have done some preliminary "uncolouring" of Fl in the most obvious periodic table pictures we see on Wikipedia. The rest will take a while longer. Double sharp ( talk) 04:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Thought you might be interested. A couple of weeks ago, I was contacted by Wikimedia staff member Ed Erhart; he asked me if I would write an article for Wikimedia blog about why I keep writing articles about the elements, to which I agreed. Just very recently, it went live and you're free to give it a read :)
BTW sorry for not being able to take part in the discussion of the scheme proposed by Sandbh. I have a lengthy reply in mind but I am unable to write it down for the next couple of weeks (or more) due to lack of spare time.-- R8R ( talk) 08:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I like how you mention Au as a far-future project, BTW. It is another of those things I have wanted to tackle in a group, but have a phobia of doing alone.
Silver is a good example of this sort of phobia: the first three sections, dealing with the properties of the element, are fine, but doing the rest of the article absolutely terrifies me. I got over it for iron mostly because there was already a good base there and all I had to do was to find citations. I will definitely need a PR for this to continue further into applications, history, and the cultural background. Double sharp ( talk) 15:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
(Shh...I'm getting over that. The sandbox is going through!) ^_-☆ Double sharp ( talk) 15:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
The antimony article says that, "The +5 oxidation state is more stable." Is that right? I do know that the +3 oxidation state in Bi is more stable, and that Sb(V) shows less tendency to revert to (III) than P and As. Sandbh ( talk) 02:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
<
rant>
Has no one else cringed at "The task group will only concern itselve [
sic] ..."? I checked, and it is actually on the IUPAC website. By my en-us ear, it should be "The task group will only concern itself ..." but it may be that en-uk would prefer "The task group will only concern themselves ..." but unless I'm missing something, "itselve" would )be equally unacceptable in any ENGVAR. Does someone have a contact who could suggest they fix this? It certainly makes the IUPAC look to be a bit illiterate. </rant>
YBG (
talk)
18:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I checked, and it is actually on the IUPAC website. [YBG]. Yes, I did copy well ;-) - DePiep ( talk) 02:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC).
Has anyone actually ever seen any of these three elements (except Sr in the fabulous Wikipedia picture) without an oxide layer? Only in the aforementioned fabulous WP picture do you see the "pale yellow" colour that Greenwood and Earnshaw refers to on page 112. (Same goes for europium and ytterbium.) Double sharp ( talk) 15:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
That what you had in mind? Sandbh ( talk) 02:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
It begins now. Anyone reading this, good at chemistry or not (not only chemistry PhDs will read this article), please, take some time to give it a good read and write some comments: this would help a lot, whether it's going to be plain support or a list of issues (this is actually great; if you see issues, please don't restrain yourself from writing them down). Any comment is helpful, so please give it your time!-- R8R ( talk) 19:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I have created an {{Infobox <element> isotopes}} for the 120 elements. I added this infobox to each article [[isotopes of <element>]]. The new infobox has a full copy of the "Most stable isotopes" section in the main element infobox. (see new infoboxes, isotopes articles. Example: Isotopes of uranium).
As of today, 2017-03-31, for each element. The 'most stable isotopes' table is copy/pasted from the main infobox into the new isotopes infobox. So today: they are the same.
"can't think of what to get rid of" -- please let me help you out.
I have boldly changed: isotopes header now reads "Main isotopes of element" (was: "Most stable isotopes of element"). Because: discussion here; a talk here, and the lead exemplary situation:
Please only remove these few, irrelevant isotopes from the infoboxes. This is not intended for a general shakeout of half that table. That better be discussed in general, being infobox criteria.
Not affected: no changes (required, made) in the isoboxes, and not in the Isotopes section. - DePiep ( talk) 07:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
As was the original plan, we can now split the table from the element's main infobox into the section #Isotopes (the new infobox) for each article. Any ideas for this? - DePiep ( talk) 19:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the general idea is good and DePiep presents it well. My only concern is, as I said before, vertical space. The navbox in the end takes too much space that I'd rather try to spend on pictures. This would be a little easier to overcome if we used V•T•E in the bottom left corner instead. I'm currently thinking of lead; every section usually needs a picture, and this table could theoretically substitute a picture (great!), but there, I've got a very good illustration I want to keep and the vertical space is limited, so saved half a line could help.
Also, as I once read from a professional designer, design is functionality, and this would apply here.-- R8R ( talk) 10:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm worried about about the current title "Most stable isotopes of X." In lead, we are currently featuring six isotopes, but these are not the six most stable ones, and the title is misleading. Lead-210 is far more important than lead-202, even though the latter is more stable, and we only feature the former.-- R8R ( talk) 16:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Above, Double sharp proposes new columns in the Isobox (not the main indfobox; 08:07, 03:54). Listed:
Notes:
Aim:
The big picture: 1. Main element infobox list can/will be reduced. 2. Isobox as top infobox in page "Isotopes of...". 3. Isobox is preferably useful in #Isotopes section as tabular overview. - DePiep ( talk) 07:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Note how DePiep, when noticing our current PT colors were bad, suggested he drew a new table and not just "fix" the old one (removing the screaming red etc.). That's how you do good business: do it from the very beginning when the foundation is weak. And a fresh look is always good. I tried that myself, and I found myself surprised there is actually information I'd want to add. But let's start from scratch.
Basic talk: atomic number, group/period, category, standard atomic mass, electronic config, pronunciation ("roentgenium"... what was that, again?). We already have that; great.
Perhaps of the most basic information about substances is its state and basic physics: is it solid or liquid or gaseous? Does it take much to freeze it to solid/melt it? so mp and bp are good. You also want density, this is super basic as well (no solid densities for gases: I've never needed any of these and I think we don't need to appease those very few who have). There we have it.
Chemistry? We should do oxidation states (also super basic), atomic radius (so we know if the atoms are big or small; no need for covalent radii etc. as they add only details to the general picture), electronegativity. Basic chemical outline is done.
Is this thing common? We can add two abundances: in space and Earth's crust. There we have the general picture of if it's widespread.
Has this thing been around for long? We cover that well now.
I'd leave it there and get a good readable infobox that doesn't just look fancy but is good for readers. I have very rarely ever referred to our infoboxes to get something other than density. I don't think I'm underusing these.-- R8R ( talk) 18:18, 6 April 2017 (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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
After much discussion, we recently moved this article:
This was accomplished after overcoming some concern about plural titles running afoul of article naming standards, but I believe that concern was a misunderstanding of the standards. WP:NCPLURAL specifically says:
In general, Wikipedia articles have singular titles; for example, our article on everyone's favorite canine is located at dog, not dogs. This rule exists to promote consistency in our article titles and generally leads to slightly more concise titles as well.
Exceptions exist for two general types of articles.
- Articles on groups or classes of specific things.
- Cases where the title only exists in the plural.
The article give 8 groups of examples of the first type of article and 4 of the second, and finishes with an explicit note that some circumstances merit invoking WP:IAR to make WP better.
With all of this in mind, I'd like to propose some moves for other sets of element. But first let me list all possible changes. YBG ( talk) 07:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
This is (hopefully) a list of all possible changes if we were to pluralize the article titles for ALL sets of elements, which I don't think anyone would want to do. But I wanted to list them all for completeness' sake.
If I've missed any other names for sets of chemical elements, please add them above. And then join me in voicing your opinion below. YBG ( talk) 07:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
YBG ( talk) 07:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't actually mind pluralising the group names, giving "alkali metals", "alkaline earth metals", "pnictogens", "chalcogens", "halogens", or "noble gases". After all, they would typically be considered together as a group. But I daresay the plural of "boron group" is not "boron group elements", because it is already plural. Same for "carbon group". As well, for things like "group 3 element", I would argue that the right title is "group 3". Since this is ambiguous, I would actually not mind "scandium group". It is common in German and Greenwood and Earnshaw tends to just name the elements, so in this case "Scandium, Yttrium, Lanthanum, and Actinium". Most of the metallicity trend classes likewise can be pluralised. As for the periods, I don't quite care enough about those articles: the elements are just too distinct. Maybe you could use periods 2 and 3 as good demonstrations of periodicity, though (and I would personally float H and He and call Li–Ne and Na–Ar the first and second row). But likewise the right title is not "period 2 elements" but "period 2 (periodic table)". Double sharp ( talk) 11:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
The difference between singular and plural, as I see it, is that the former discusses the concept and the latter discusses the elements. So I'm all for plural in all periods and groups (except for "boron group elements": that "elements" adds nothing) and some other circumstances, but would probably keep singular in (say) "transuranic element" and definitely would in "metal."-- R8R ( talk) 21:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I've unarchived this section because I want to make a proposal, but I won't get to it right away. YBG ( talk) 02:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I think that this might be the easiest category to figure out. Here are the choices for group 2; other groups are similar:
Here are some general principles I think we could all agree on:
Now as to what I'm not sure we'd all agree upon:
Combining this yields:
Comments? YBG ( talk) 04:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The problem with "group 3 element" for me is that the disambiguation does not feel very natural. I don't want to say "iron is a group 8 element". No, I want to say "iron is in group 8". I don't call iron, ruthenium, and osmium "group 8 elements"; I call them "the elements of group 8". So group 8 is the primary thing, not the elements in it; but it has the problem of needing unnatural disambiguation. However, I wouldn't say "iron group" either, as that historically means iron, cobalt, and nickel. So I think we are more or less forced to "group X (periodic table)". (Actually, in speech I tend to use the numbers, with the trivial names for groups 1, 2, and 15–18 as possible alternatives.) So for me it is: group 13 (periodic table) > boron group, and I don't consider the "elements" names to be good approaches. Double sharp ( talk) 06:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
OK, it seems that we have consensus on groups 1-2 and 15-18. I (wrongly) thought the other groups would be easy, but let's leave them for now. Using (PT) as a disambiguator may well grow on me, but before we go down that path, I wonder if there are others were we could quickly reach a consensus on a natural disambiguation. The metallicity trend sets and the other "* metal" sets seem good candidates for agreement:
Could we arrive at a consensus on these? YBG ( talk) 18:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Here are the changes I am proposing:
PT Groups | Metallicity trend | Other sets |
---|---|---|
|
target(hN*) | Target page is a redirect with N versions, some containing content |
target(hN) | Target page is a redirect with N versions, none containing content |
target | Target page does not exist |
I don't plan on doing anything for a week or so. In the mean time, suggestions are more than welcome. YBG ( talk) 06:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd forgotten this discussion for a while, and now I'm wondering what direction to take with the following suggestions:
PT Groups | Metallicity trend | Other sets | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||
|
Here are the possible options. Let me know which is your preference.
Thanks for your input. YBG ( talk) 05:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
In a periodic table, we should write the atomic number where it belongs:
80Hg |
Not in a separate line like
80
Hg |
- DePiep ( talk) 22:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
90Th |
Essentially, while I find your proposal logical, I am not comfortable with it unless we can demonstrate a significant number of people using it - because this is supposed to be a very general PT, representative of the average one you find in the literature...and people would look to us to know how to read that, I think... Double sharp ( talk) 04:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I am personally mildly (too minor a question to be too concerned about) opposed to the new configuration. "80 // Hg" is correct. "80Hg" is a way to refer to element that is equivalent to the standard "Hg." "80 // Hg" visually separates the idea of symbol and that of atomic number. There's no mistake in this.-- R8R ( talk) 17:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Per Scerri 2007 (The PT, Its story and Significance): the period number = n. I have added this to the infobox. - DePiep ( talk) 01:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
here. Sandbh ( talk) 22:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Metals other than the alkali, alkaline-earth, lanthanide, actinide and transition metals, a redirect to Post-transition metal, has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 29#Metals other than the alkali, alkaline-earth, lanthanide, actinide and transition metals. My initial investigation suggests things are not quite as simple as might be expected so your comments are invited at the linked discussion. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Please move Ununtrium to Nihonium, Ununpentium to Moscovium, Ununseptium to Tennessine, and Ununoctium to Oganesson.-- Abelium ( talk) 08:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
element | pageviews | Tue 29 Nov | Wed 30 Nov | Sat 3 Dec Main page: In the News [1] |
---|---|---|---|---|
113 Nh | [1] | 250 | 4.000 | 14.000 |
115 Mc | [2] | 250 | 2.000 | 10.000 |
117 Ts | [3] | 35 | 4.000 | 12.000 |
118 Og | [4] | 2000 | 6.000 | 16.000 |
No article on an element or its isotopes is complete without information on its nucleosynthesis—whether primordial, stellar, explosive stellar, spallation, or radioactive decay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.231.248 ( talk) 13:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I have added to our Trophy list Radiocarbon dating ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch. It was promoted as FA in March 2015. Please take a look. - DePiep ( talk) 22:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
This is about our 120 element infoboxes (for example infobox U). Below I propose to split the isotopes table into a separate, new infobox. It would remove the very detailed and not-in-articlebody data from the top infobox. The new infobox can go into the ==Isotopes== section, and also as a regular infobox in page "Isotopes of <element>". I've arranged the proposal/discussion into: 1. Changes in infoboxes and articles, 2. What would the new infobox be like?
My hat tip for this brilliant information approach goes to YBG. Thinking out of the box—into another one.
Please do not discuss in this intro section. Use subsections instead. - DePiep ( talk) 19:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE (the paragraph is worth reading), the infobox should summarize information that is already in the article body. There is some leeway for this (we want the melting point in there, even if it is not described in the article body text). But there is a treshold for less relevant data.
Step Create. I propose to create a new infobox for the 'most stable isotopes' table ('Isobox' for short; × 120 elements). This step is a preparation (no content changes happen). This infobox is described in #The new Infobox <element> isotopes.
Step Remove. Now I do claim that the isotopes table does not belong in the infobox. For starters, they are not mentioned (that specific) in the article, so why should the infobox 'summarize' them? Then, the table adds too much detail, both in number of isotopes and in data columns. Also, the total list of infobox parameters is very, very long (which is too long to be an effective summary of the article). And compared to the other data present, I see few or little information that could be removed instead of this table (info with lower rights to be there). Other data can be up for discussion too, at some other time and place. Concluding, I propose to remove the isotopes table section from the element infoboxes.
Step Add. The new Isobox is added to the element's ==Isotopes== section. For any element the steps Remove and Add are performed at the same moment, so there will always be exactly one table in the article. Also, the Isobox is to be added to the article "Isotopes of <element>" (120 P), as a regular top infobox.
What will not change. Apart from the disappearing isotopes section, {{Infobox element}} will not change per this proposal. Also, the mentioning of isotopes in the lede is unchallenged (a good lede should not/will not require rewriting for this removal). The isotopes table itself will not change, because the Isobox is first of all a cut-and-paste copy. To keep this complex data move (and its discussion) manageable, content/structural changes in the 'most stable isotopes' table are not considered. Such improvements can be initiated once the new 120 Isoboxes are alive & well.
- DePiep ( talk) 19:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Looks like a good approach - and thanks for the hat tip. One idea that might remove a bit of the dependencies: Initially, create an empty isobox and add it to the ===Isotopes=== section. This should make zero difference in the appearance of the article itself. This could be done to all of the elements before anything else is done. Then element by element all that is required is to simultaneously remove stuff from the element infobox and add it to the already-created isotope infobox, without needing to do anything to the article itself. YBG ( talk) 19:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
tangential discussion of process
|
---|
|
It is an infobox with parameters:
{{Infobox element/isotopes | name= | isotopes= | isotopes table footnote= | relative atomic mass= | relative atomic mass ref= }}
The existing table 'Most stable isotopes of <element>' will be copy/pasted into the new infobox (that is, the existing |isotopes=
input from {{infobox <element>}}).
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Standard atomic weight Ar°(U) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
{{Infobox element/isotopes | name=uranium | isotopes= {{infobox element/isotopes decay2 | link=uranium-232 | mn=232 | sym=U ... }}<!-- one isotope, table row --> {{infobox element/isotopes decay3 | link=uranium-238 | mn=238 | sym=U | na=99.274% | hl=[[1 E17 s|4.468×10<sup>9</sup> y]] ... }}<!-- another isotope, table row --> }} |isotopes table footnote=Some footnote here |relative atomic mass=238.02891(3) |relative atomic mass ref=<ref>[http://www.ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm Standard Atomic Weights 2013].</ref> }}
|name=
Element name.|isotopes=
Parameter that has the table rows (the subtemplates). Same as in {{Infobox element}}|isotopes table footnote=
Footnote tied to the table. Replaces |isotopes comment=. (Used in
Li,
Ba,
Na)|relative atomic mass=
, |relative atomic mass ref=
(Ar) Added here because the "Isotopes of ..." articles add this to their lede. Can have a reference, preferably CIAAW. This value is labeled "
Standard atomic weight (±) (Ar)" in the main infobox. Something needs a change?Omitting:
- DePiep ( talk) 19:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
References
|wdQID=
) was a piece of cake. Problem with in-article edits using
WP:REGEX is that the body text can give undesired hit-and-edits to be handled.None of these is particularly pressing, but I thought I'd mention them while I was thinking about this. By the way, in order to establish a consensus, it would help to have a section for !Voting. YBG ( talk) 22:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Further to RFC consensus to use the -La-Ac table, there is an updated version of our periodic table article in my sandbox.
I could go ahead and post the thing but thought I'd list the changes here first in case there were any comments. You can also view the history of my sandbox and compare the current article (03:04 17 Jan) with the proposed article (03:05 17 Jan). ( diff current versions).
Whole article
Replaced the note tags with a version that supports the citation template within the notes.
Section: Lead
Table updated (as a jpg, not an svg)
Section: Overview
Table updated (as code, not yet the template)
Section: Grouping methods
Groups subsection
Table updated (as code, not yet the template)
Section: Periodic trends
Name change to "Periodic trend and patterns" --
Sandbh (
talk)
07:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Electron configuration subsection
Have asked the graphics lab to updated the periodic trends table
New subsection added
"Linking or bridging groups" --
Sandbh (
talk)
07:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Section: Different periodic tables
Paragraph 5: Added new note 12 that goes "But for the existence..."
Paragraph 6: Copy edited to explain that the -La-Ac table is chosen as the most popular table. Old note 15 re gas phase and solid phase electron configurations has been removed and replaced with a simplified mention of electron configurations in the "Open questions and controversies section", "Group 3 and its elements in periods 6 and 7" subsection, paragraphs 3 and 5.
Periodic tables by different structure subsection
32-column table updated
Section: Open questions and controversies
Group 3 and its elements in periods 6 and 7 subsection
Paragraph 1: Small copy edits. The order of the Group 3 options images has been swapped.
Paragraph 2: Sentence referring to further spectroscopic work as to the electron configuration of Yb relocated here from the old paragraph 3. I removed reference to Matthias describing the placement of La under Y as a mistake. I removed reference to Lavelle's support from La under Y. I added a sentence about lanthanum's incumbency advantage.
Paragraphs 3 and 5: These are new and briefly discuss the chemical behaviour of group 3, vertical trends, and the electron configurations of the f-block, for -La-Ac and -Lu-Lr.
Paragraph 4: Added new note 19 re the expected chemical behaviour of Lr.
Footer
Updated the Periodic table (as code, not yet the template)
Pending items
Ask for an svg version of the lead jpg table
Have asked De Piep to updated the table in the "Grouping methods" section, "Metals, metalloids and nonmetals" subsection
Will ask the graphics lab to update the discovery of the elements periodic table, in the History section, First systemisation attempts subsection
Will ask Double sharp to update the eight-column table in the History section, Second version and further development table
The 32-column 8-row table in the Open questions and controversies section, Further periodic table extensions subsection, needs to be updated.
-- Sandbh ( talk) 07:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
6 Open questions and controversies 6.1 Placement of hydrogen and helium 6.2 Group 3 and its elements in periods 6 and 7 6.2.1 Lanthanum and actinium 6.2.2 Lutetium and lawrencium 6.2.3 Lanthanides and actinides 6.3 Groups included in the transition metals 6.4 Elements with unknown chemical properties 6.5 Further periodic table extensions 6.6 Element with the highest possible atomic number 6.7 Optimal form [or up? 6.1? DP]
Unless I am missing something, current order is random. This proposal has some logic to it (low to high; simple to complicated). - DePiep ( talk) 09:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Need to replace some code with templates, and update a few more images as per list of changes in Implementing -La-Ac in our Periodic table article subsection above, but there you go. Sandbh ( talk) 00:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Is there a way to get them to show their group as "3" instead of "n/a"? Even editing the field doesn't quite work. Double sharp ( talk) 04:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
There is currently and RFC on what do do with the shortcuts used for the chemistry-related projects. Please comment. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- DePiep ( talk) 01:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
What is meant by "+X" or "+Y" in a excitation energy column? Please see Isotopes_of_rhenium. There are also some other confusing values - without a explanation - in this article, including "non-exists" for 168mRe and "0(100)# kev" for 172mRe. 89.166.13.36 ( talk) 22:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
See here for the nomination and closure, and here for my response. A morning needlessly wasted. Sandbh ( talk) 00:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
In recent weeks, User:Squee3 has changed discovery details of several elements' infoboxes ( contributions)
Today I had to revert a Template:Infobox technium change, back to the year that was plainly in the article's source. Earlier, a back-and-forth at Template:Infobox arsenic (es saying 'As far as I can tell' as a source). In both examples the infobox deviates from the article body text & sources. Last month, in Timeline_of_chemical_element_discoveries only one source was added (again deviating from Tc article source).
Seeing that the edits are badly sourced if at all, I propose that all their edits in this area are reviewed, and that Squee3 be notified that no unsourced edits are disputed a priori and so must be discussed. - DePiep ( talk) 09:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Since there is now a discussion about that, a great date for rerunning periodic table would be 6 March 2019 (150th anniversary of Mendeleyev presenting his first periodic table to the Russian Chemical Society). Double sharp ( talk) 09:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Biological role of nitrogen is a redirect that currently points at a non-existent section of the main Nitrogen article. I've nominated this redirect for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 9#Biological role of nitrogen where your comments are invited. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I am working to understand and improve the standard atomic weight and its related/unrelated quantities. Aim is to publish the right values with the right quantities (definitions, names, numbers, units, values, nonconfusing).
Derived from standard atomic weight:
Current ![]() | |
---|---|
Standard atomic weight (Ar) | [98] |
Proposals | |
a. Mass number (A) | 98 |
b. Mass number (most stable isotope) | 98 |
c. Mass number (most stable isotope) | 98Tc: 98 |
d. Mass number of most stable isotope | 98 |
The new label should have " Mass number", which has symbol A and is dimensionless. Adding "(most stable isotope)" would be the clearest descriprion IMO. Quite trivial, but also very clear is adding the isotope: "98Tc: 98". (a, b, c are added for reference here only).
Comments? Other variants? - DePiep ( talk) 13:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Current | |
---|---|
Standard atomic weight (Ar) | 24.305 (24.304–24.307) [1] |
Proposals | |
a. Standard atomic weight (Ar) | 24.304, 24.307 [1] |
conventional | 24.305 |
b. Standard atomic weight (Ar) |
|
c. Standard atomic weight (Ar) [1] |
|
d. Standard atomic weight (Ar) [1] | 24.304, 24.307 conventional: 24.305 |
e. Standard atomic weight (Ar) | conventional: 24.305 24.304, 24.307 [1] |
f. Standard atomic weight (Ar) N | conventional: 14.007 14.00643, 14.00728 [1] |
The interval is written, by SI convention, with square brackets, comma, and a space. We should follow that. Then, I think it clarifying to add "conventional" to the second value. The source ref (CIAAW) could go with the label? Example e. has the order reversed. Examples b and c are using {{unbulleted list}}, d and e have a <br>. The data being in two rows, one should also check mobile view (makes a. look bad). f is nitrogen. Comments? - DePiep ( talk) 15:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
References
Note that per this RFC, the shortcuts to WP:CHEMISTRY/ WP:CHEMICALS have been updated.
Old discussions have had their shortcuts updated already. If I have made a mistake during an update, feel free to revert. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Working on relative atomic mass and CIAAW. From there, over at Wikidata I am proposing to add two Properties for elements:
- DePiep ( talk) 20:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, here at enwiki I have put content into standard atomic weight (copy/pasted from relative a.m. to start with). - DePiep ( talk) 23:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
A general note from me. What is happening now in Wikidata is serious matter (however you and I dislike it). also 'www.webchems.com' and 'www.DePiepSmartServices.com' (projected) will pull data freely from Wikidata (legally, and no source need be mentioned). Wikidata will be the source google pages pull this data from (and not enwiki any more). The problem is (for me at least): how to work with Wikidata as I am used to work with enwiki? At least for the standard atomic weights now, I could pick up and work there. - DePiep ( talk) 23:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine. [1] [2]. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia. Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas: Editors
Authors
If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.
|
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 10:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
15 years ago I started this project with the goal of turning the Periodic table by the quality blue. I see now that it is almost all green with a lot of blue. Great work and keep it up! I no longer have time to help, but continue to be proud of what everybody who has contributed to this project has done. -- mav ( reviews needed) 03:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
103rd edition (2016) of Holleman-Wiberg's Inorganic Chemistry; only 2,622 pages. Sandbh ( talk) 06:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it worth considering, to introduce the periodic table initially in the left step form, and have all classrooms wallpapered with it. Instead of the crumbling-castle like figure.
How is the periodic table introduced anyway? I am open for teachers who say that one form or the other is way too complicated to teach. Note: this post is to datastamp this idea, although I probably am not the coining one. - DePiep ( talk) 11:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I | II | III | IV | V | VI | VII | 0 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H | He | ||||||
Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne |
Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar |
K | Ca |
We had a great discussion on changing colors of the current categories about a year ago. I re-discovered my suggestion a few days ago and found it great. DePiep also had a draft for one but it at the moment didn't comply with the web design color criteria he introduced me to (DePiep acknowledged this, saying this would be worked on in a later revision).
Is anyone still interested in developing a new color scheme? I'd want to reignite the discussion for now if that's possible.-- R8R ( talk) 11:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Please comment. This would affect a few templates as well. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 11:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
We originally colored Fl as a metal following a 2014 paper authored by Yakushev et al.. In 2016, another Yakushev et al. paper was published, however, that, despite admitting the results of 2014, now says, "Two contradicting conclusions on the chemical behaviour follow from the first gas chromatography studies on the flerovium-gold interaction: one suggests weak physisorption of Fl upon the deposition on gold, another suggests a metallic character. The question “is flerovium a metal or a noble gas?” is still waiting for an unambiguous answer."
This means we should uncolor Fl for now. Any objections?-- R8R ( talk) 17:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
As a first step I have done some preliminary "uncolouring" of Fl in the most obvious periodic table pictures we see on Wikipedia. The rest will take a while longer. Double sharp ( talk) 04:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Thought you might be interested. A couple of weeks ago, I was contacted by Wikimedia staff member Ed Erhart; he asked me if I would write an article for Wikimedia blog about why I keep writing articles about the elements, to which I agreed. Just very recently, it went live and you're free to give it a read :)
BTW sorry for not being able to take part in the discussion of the scheme proposed by Sandbh. I have a lengthy reply in mind but I am unable to write it down for the next couple of weeks (or more) due to lack of spare time.-- R8R ( talk) 08:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I like how you mention Au as a far-future project, BTW. It is another of those things I have wanted to tackle in a group, but have a phobia of doing alone.
Silver is a good example of this sort of phobia: the first three sections, dealing with the properties of the element, are fine, but doing the rest of the article absolutely terrifies me. I got over it for iron mostly because there was already a good base there and all I had to do was to find citations. I will definitely need a PR for this to continue further into applications, history, and the cultural background. Double sharp ( talk) 15:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
(Shh...I'm getting over that. The sandbox is going through!) ^_-☆ Double sharp ( talk) 15:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
The antimony article says that, "The +5 oxidation state is more stable." Is that right? I do know that the +3 oxidation state in Bi is more stable, and that Sb(V) shows less tendency to revert to (III) than P and As. Sandbh ( talk) 02:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
<
rant>
Has no one else cringed at "The task group will only concern itselve [
sic] ..."? I checked, and it is actually on the IUPAC website. By my en-us ear, it should be "The task group will only concern itself ..." but it may be that en-uk would prefer "The task group will only concern themselves ..." but unless I'm missing something, "itselve" would )be equally unacceptable in any ENGVAR. Does someone have a contact who could suggest they fix this? It certainly makes the IUPAC look to be a bit illiterate. </rant>
YBG (
talk)
18:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I checked, and it is actually on the IUPAC website. [YBG]. Yes, I did copy well ;-) - DePiep ( talk) 02:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC).
Has anyone actually ever seen any of these three elements (except Sr in the fabulous Wikipedia picture) without an oxide layer? Only in the aforementioned fabulous WP picture do you see the "pale yellow" colour that Greenwood and Earnshaw refers to on page 112. (Same goes for europium and ytterbium.) Double sharp ( talk) 15:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
That what you had in mind? Sandbh ( talk) 02:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
It begins now. Anyone reading this, good at chemistry or not (not only chemistry PhDs will read this article), please, take some time to give it a good read and write some comments: this would help a lot, whether it's going to be plain support or a list of issues (this is actually great; if you see issues, please don't restrain yourself from writing them down). Any comment is helpful, so please give it your time!-- R8R ( talk) 19:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I have created an {{Infobox <element> isotopes}} for the 120 elements. I added this infobox to each article [[isotopes of <element>]]. The new infobox has a full copy of the "Most stable isotopes" section in the main element infobox. (see new infoboxes, isotopes articles. Example: Isotopes of uranium).
As of today, 2017-03-31, for each element. The 'most stable isotopes' table is copy/pasted from the main infobox into the new isotopes infobox. So today: they are the same.
"can't think of what to get rid of" -- please let me help you out.
I have boldly changed: isotopes header now reads "Main isotopes of element" (was: "Most stable isotopes of element"). Because: discussion here; a talk here, and the lead exemplary situation:
Please only remove these few, irrelevant isotopes from the infoboxes. This is not intended for a general shakeout of half that table. That better be discussed in general, being infobox criteria.
Not affected: no changes (required, made) in the isoboxes, and not in the Isotopes section. - DePiep ( talk) 07:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
As was the original plan, we can now split the table from the element's main infobox into the section #Isotopes (the new infobox) for each article. Any ideas for this? - DePiep ( talk) 19:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the general idea is good and DePiep presents it well. My only concern is, as I said before, vertical space. The navbox in the end takes too much space that I'd rather try to spend on pictures. This would be a little easier to overcome if we used V•T•E in the bottom left corner instead. I'm currently thinking of lead; every section usually needs a picture, and this table could theoretically substitute a picture (great!), but there, I've got a very good illustration I want to keep and the vertical space is limited, so saved half a line could help.
Also, as I once read from a professional designer, design is functionality, and this would apply here.-- R8R ( talk) 10:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm worried about about the current title "Most stable isotopes of X." In lead, we are currently featuring six isotopes, but these are not the six most stable ones, and the title is misleading. Lead-210 is far more important than lead-202, even though the latter is more stable, and we only feature the former.-- R8R ( talk) 16:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Above, Double sharp proposes new columns in the Isobox (not the main indfobox; 08:07, 03:54). Listed:
Notes:
Aim:
The big picture: 1. Main element infobox list can/will be reduced. 2. Isobox as top infobox in page "Isotopes of...". 3. Isobox is preferably useful in #Isotopes section as tabular overview. - DePiep ( talk) 07:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Note how DePiep, when noticing our current PT colors were bad, suggested he drew a new table and not just "fix" the old one (removing the screaming red etc.). That's how you do good business: do it from the very beginning when the foundation is weak. And a fresh look is always good. I tried that myself, and I found myself surprised there is actually information I'd want to add. But let's start from scratch.
Basic talk: atomic number, group/period, category, standard atomic mass, electronic config, pronunciation ("roentgenium"... what was that, again?). We already have that; great.
Perhaps of the most basic information about substances is its state and basic physics: is it solid or liquid or gaseous? Does it take much to freeze it to solid/melt it? so mp and bp are good. You also want density, this is super basic as well (no solid densities for gases: I've never needed any of these and I think we don't need to appease those very few who have). There we have it.
Chemistry? We should do oxidation states (also super basic), atomic radius (so we know if the atoms are big or small; no need for covalent radii etc. as they add only details to the general picture), electronegativity. Basic chemical outline is done.
Is this thing common? We can add two abundances: in space and Earth's crust. There we have the general picture of if it's widespread.
Has this thing been around for long? We cover that well now.
I'd leave it there and get a good readable infobox that doesn't just look fancy but is good for readers. I have very rarely ever referred to our infoboxes to get something other than density. I don't think I'm underusing these.-- R8R ( talk) 18:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)