Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Set Nominations/Chemical elements

Chemical elements

Based on responses to my earlier query (see below) I am nominating all of the chemical elements that have been discovered so far (no undiscovered ones!). I do not propose to tag all 115 or so elements, I only tagged hydrogen (#1). Can you please just take a look at Periodic table (standard) for the list.

Earlier comments (copied from Wikipedia_talk:Version_0.5_Nominations#Chemical_elements

I see some elements appearing in 0.5, and this prompts me to ask a question I've wondered for many months - what should we include? As a chemist myself, I'm pretty familiar with the element articles, and most of them are at least B-Class. It seems to me that we should definitely have elements like iron and oxygen, but beyond that it's debatable. So let's debate it, then I'll put together a set nomination. Which should we go for? I think I favour option 2 or 3, though of course I'd most like 4!

Option 1: Only the most familiar 20 or so elements like copper and hydrogen.
Option 2: All of the main group elements up to barium, plus lead and the commoner transition metals like gold and platinum, about 50 in all.
Option 3: All of the main group elements up to barium and all d-block transition metals up to mercury, also include radon, radium, thorium, uranium and plutonium from the radioactives. Omit the lanthanides, except for lanthanum, cerium and samarium (note - much of my research uses elements like dysprosium!). Around 80 in all.
Option 4: Just include the whole lot of them (those that have been discovered) around 114 of them.

Walkerma 07:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Periodic table (standard). The main group is groups 1, 2, then 13-end. Walkerma 07:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that I would not object to including all of them.

The longer answer -- None of them are trivia. Including all might make us heavy in chemistry, but at least we'd be heavy in an important area, in my view. The elements are close to the top of the tree. They are a finite set and a reasonable number. If you are confident of their quality, then I think they should all be included. Maurreen 08:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since this has been started here, if we get a clear consensus, any which way, we could maybe skip the set nomination stage. Maurreen 08:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maurreen +1! I think if we include all europian countries, all planets, then we should include all of the elements. Of course, if there is no stub among them. NCurse

_work 09:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New comments

Include all. There's really no reason why not to do so. Titoxd^(?!?) 07:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What he said. No compelling reason not to include all of 'em. The complete set > the sum of its individual articles. Nifboy 17:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]