Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Merging different versions of the periodic table?

I recently stumbled onto one of the articles and found to my suprise wikipedia has 17 articles with different versions of the periodic table and 17 lists which ranks the elements based on different criteria. Needless to say this seems excessive. A proposal to merge the lists of elements was made in 2008, supposedly when the table sorting tool became available, but this was never completed. I want to propose the following:

crosposting this from my talkpage: Please note I did not merge the list of elements by hardness page. There was indeed a significant amount of additional information in the List of elements by symbol which got lost in the merge and I am still thinking what to do about it. Maybe an idea to undo that merge and move the article to a name that better represents the contents? (such as List of symbols used for chemical elements). Yoenit (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
My mistake about Moh's hardness. I should have looked more closely at your exact edits. I've struck the portion relating to hardness.
As for the "elements by symbol" issue, I can see an argument for creating a page for it as a {{main}} article titled something like Symbolic designations of elements with a brief subsection (or possibly only a "see also" entry) under History of chemistry. I notice that there is also a lot of overlap with the List of chemical element name etymologies article and so perhaps the solution is to expand the list into the article called "Symbolic designations of elements" and merging the daltonian/alchemical symbols from the List of elements by symbol into this new broader article. What do you think? -Thibbs (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
If it is merged with the name etymologies list the new article should also include those, making it something like "Name etymologies and symbolic designations of the elements", which would be a fun little project to turn into a proper FL. I will start working on it once I get this stuff with Nergaal reverting everything I do worked out. Yoenit (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Need quick help

here, as as author does not understand basic WP policies of notability and WP:RS, and I am not in the mood for 3RR. In short, Amnov has already been criticized in 2008 for his "discoveries" of new elements, and here comes another one. Materialscientist (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Need_quick_help. - Danjel (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Neptunium

The Neptunium page states that predicted by Walter Russell's spiral organization of the periodic table this should date into the 1920s or so. There is a biography of Mendeleev from Paul Walden doi:10.1002/cber.190804103191 from 1908 with a reprint of a periodic table. There is a dash between thorium and uranium and one dash after uranium. For me this means that Mendeleev was aware that there might be more to come. For me the spiral is not really a prediction, because it is not predicting the actinides, but the fact that this will be a short period. Any good suggestions? --Stone (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Valence (chemistry)

A user has been recently editing the table under valency article. His edits might be right, but if C has 5, shouldn't Li have at least 4 then (i.e. [Li(thf)4]+)? Nergaal (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

  • No, as THF is not a univalent atom (I mean exactly one atom, not a complex) to complete IUPAC definition. That's aluminium still has 3 instead of 4 provided by [Al(OH)4]- ion, which is known. Also you may note iron still has that of 3, although ferrate(VI) (FeO42-) ion is known (as oxygen here isn't univalent). Carbon has five due to CH5- ion. Just to make sure, you may reread the IUPAC definition from that article--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
You are saying that [AlH4]- does not exist? Nergaal (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Utter claptrap! Valence as defined by IUPAC is not the same as the number of bonds formed ("coordination number"), and this has been known since at least the work of Alfred Werner. Any hallucination that makes carbon pentavalent and fluorine divalent is a sign of WP:OR at it worst, combined with a fundamental lack of understanding of chemistry. This sort of edit rings a bell, we may have the return of a banned editor here... Physchim62 (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, yes, valence isn't defined by IUPAC isn't the same as the number of bonds formed (or iron would have more than three, or iodine would have 12 since IO65- ion, read of periodic acid). It's the maximum number of univalent atoms that an atom of this element can be bonded to. If you're interested, example of fluorine you mentioned is given in the article - may be that'll give you the better understanding. No original research - I'm not a chemist (I can't research it myself), but am interested in this science. Also, in case of hydrogen's 2, you can read of bifluoride. And please, understand that I am working for Wikipedia, not against it. And you think all my edits were wrong (I've misunderstood words of the definition or something - if I have, please explain that to me), undo them and please tell me why so - in no ways I will undo your undoing. Also, please, don't be so aggressive - that better leads to the solution and, at least, I'm not so to you

Also, to be sure, I give here the definition. It is directly copied (without any modifying) from the article; the proving link can be found there.

The maximum number of univalent atoms (originally hydrogen or chlorine atoms) that may combine with an atom of the element under consideration, or with a fragment, or for which an atom of this element can be substituted.

(P.S. I haven't ever heard of [AlH4]-. If it really exists, improve valence of aluminium to four)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

See for example Lithium aluminium hydride. DMacks (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
What would Potassium ferrocyanide look like in that respect.--Stone (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Fluorine - complete revision

Okayuser:R8R Gtrs has rewritten this whole article. It is probably not a good idea to rewrite a large, mature article in a single revision. Are we agreed on that policy? A number of editors are going through this thing. Notes and suggestions welcome at Talk:Fluorine. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Elements Triple Crown

I, SMasters, am pleased to award this special edition platinum triple crown to WikiProject Elements and its hardworking volunteers. – SMasters (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Your Majesties, thank you for all your hard work. This award is for the project itself. Copies of the award will be presented to:

Well done! What a grand effort. When more people qualify to join please let me know. Warm regards – SMasters (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Isotopes

I feel that many of those stubby articles on individual isotopes, such as thallium-205, should be merged into the main article on isotopes of element. I've done this for isotopes of thorium, what do you think? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 06:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's what we've done with quite a few of them. Some, like Tl-205 were missed. Feel free to merge them. Nergaal (talk) 06:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I know only of a few deserving articles on their own, thallium-201 might be a possible one but not thallium-205. I created iron-55 which might be fleshed out enough to survive the merging activities.

One thing necessary is to substitute the

  • {{WikiProject Elements |class=XXXX|importance=XXXX |isotopes=yes}}

by

  • {{WikiProject Elements|class=redirect|importance=NA|isotopes=yes}} {{Mergedto|Isotopes of thorium|date=February 2011}}

on the talk page of the article to make it possible to sort into the redirect category.--Stone (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is a list of the non stub articles on Isotopes

Stubs can be found here Stub-Class_chemical_element_isotope_articles

--Stone (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I went through most of the isotope articles and rerated them a bit. Most of the remaining stub articles, as well as a few of the start ones, really ought to be merged for now. Nergaal (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

New project template parameter?

The isotope parameter that we have now to mark all the articles pertaining to isotopes seems to have worked out quite well. There are some more subarticles that I think may benefit from tagging, and the first ones that come into mind are "Compounds of {element}" as well as series of those on allotropes. What do you guys think? Also, how should the new parameter(s) be named? Nergaal (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

There are very few of these articles. For compounds, there's hydrogen, then carbon, zinc, and oxygen. For allotropes, we have boron, carbon, oxygen, phosphorus, sulfur, iron, and plutonium. I don't really see the need to specially identify them via the banner. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sc Y Lu Lr, Sc Y La Ac, Sc Y * **...

Image from the Infobox lutetium

It's a bit weird to see the periodic tables mostly going with Sc Y * ** when the chemical element infoboxes all imply Sc Y Lu Lr.

04:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the whole info box and reinserted the PSE from the infobox, I hope this is OK for you?--Stone (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • IUPAC Periodic Table
    IUPAC Periodic Table
  • Chinese Periodic Table
    Chinese Periodic Table
  • Project Periodic Table
    Project Periodic Table

There might be more different ones but they show the full spectra of the lanthanide insertion problematic.--Stone (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Why are Noble gas and Group 18 element separate articles??

Although I can understand the rationale, this just doesn't seem to be the norm. I mean, since ununquadium may be the 7th period's noble gas instead of ununoctium, then ununpentium would be de facto an alkali metal. So we look at Nitrogen group, and see that ununpentium is mentioned in the pnictogens' electron configuration table, unlike in Noble gas, where ununoctium is briefly mentioned in the lead, and left out elsewhere. Shouldn't we have consistency?? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There is an old comment on Talk:Group 18 element#Redirect pondering the same thing. But even before that, there is a discussion at Talk:Noble gas/Archive 1#Definition of noble gas that led to Group 18 element being split off as its own article. That's not an absolute prejudice against revisiting the issue with input from new editors and ideas though. DMacks (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
As the main propagator of the above-mentioned split, I agree that consistency is of course preferrable, but the two cases you mention are not quite the same: The difference between "Noble gas" and "Nitrogen group" is that the second is just another name of the 15th group, not implying any common properties of its "members" other than the electron configuration (and these elements are indeed quite different, as we know). OTOH, labelling an element a "noble gas" implies that it is "noble" (i.e. chemically almost inert) and (I presume) that it is a gas at standard conditions. So I think it would be quite consistent to only split "noble gas" and the similar case of "halogen" (and maybe the "alkali (earth) metals") from their "corresponding" group, but not groups 3-16. (Ununseptium had not yet been discovered when I made the group 18 split, but its discovery means that we should now split off "group 17" from "halogen" as well IMO.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Ununoctium has commentary and cite that it is likely not a noble gas, so it could still make sense to have an article on the group that includes material on group-number, vs an article on the group-name that is based on chemistry and associated properties. However, now we also well know that the noble gases aren't really "noble", so I wonder if there really is much to say that does apply to the whole He->Rn set but not to Uuo? DMacks (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree with DMacks. We could possibly put all the articles like chalcogen at names like group 16 element, but I doubt people will type in group 1 elements in water when they mean alkali metals in water. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Lets make it like a real wiki lawyer. Have you any credible source for either of your statements? If not that both would be original research and would led to sever consequences! Now for the reality: I would think that no more than 0.01% of all wikiusers would know that there is a difference in Group 18 elements to noble gas elements the percentage might reach 1% in the people reaching on of the two articles. Why not include all the Group 18 element into Noble gas article and make a section describing the up to now unknown status of the last period elements. --Stone (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


I agree with Stone. I think the group 18 article should be merged into the noble gas one, and have its separate small section describing the differences. Nergaal (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree - merge. --mav (reviews needed) 01:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Merged. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Periodic table (discovery periods)

This was created to replace the old out-of-date image at element discovery, but the colours may need to be edited, as I think they may cause problems (especially between 1850-1899 and 1900-1949, which can be hard to distinguish at times, at least for me). Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, some data (e.g. neodymium) is inconsistent with the rest of the article. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Okay, here it is.
Periodic table by era of discovery
1 2   3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Group →  
↓ Period  
1 1
H 		2
He
2 3
Li 		4
Be 		5
B 		6
C 		7
N 		8
O 		9
F 		10
Ne
3 11
Na 		12
Mg 		13
Al 		14
Si 		15
P 		16
S 		17
Cl 		18
Ar
4 19
K 		20
Ca 		21
Sc 		22
Ti 		23
V 		24
Cr 		25
Mn 		26
Fe 		27
Co 		28
Ni 		29
Cu 		30
Zn 		31
Ga 		32
Ge 		33
As 		34
Se 		35
Br 		36
Kr
5 37
Rb 		38
Sr 		39
Y 		40
Zr 		41
Nb 		42
Mo 		43
Tc 		44
Ru 		45
Rh 		46
Pd 		47
Ag 		48
Cd 		49
In 		50
Sn 		51
Sb 		52
Te 		53
I 		54
Xe
6 55
Cs 		56
Ba 		1 asterisk 71
Lu 		72
Hf 		73
Ta 		74
W 		75
Re 		76
Os 		77
Ir 		78
Pt 		79
Au 		80
Hg 		81
Tl 		82
Pb 		83
Bi 		84
Po 		85
At 		86
Rn
7 87
Fr 		88
Ra 		1 asterisk 103
Lr 		104
Rf 		105
Db 		106
Sg 		107
Bh 		108
Hs 		109
Mt 		110
Ds 		111
Rg 		112
Cn 		113
Nh 		114
Fl 		115
Mc 		116
Lv 		117
Ts 		118
Og
 
1 asterisk 57
La 		58
Ce 		59
Pr 		60
Nd 		61
Pm 		62
Sm 		63
Eu 		64
Gd 		65
Tb 		66
Dy 		67
Ho 		68
Er 		69
Tm 		70
Yb 		 
1 asterisk 89
Ac 		90
Th 		91
Pa 		92
U 		93
Np 		94
Pu 		95
Am 		96
Cm 		97
Bk 		98
Cf 		99
Es 		100
Fm 		101
Md 		102
No 		 
 

Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Systematic element name template?

Has anyone thought of a template to automatically create systematic element names based on atomic number? My testing here: Template:Systematicelementname, Template:Systematicelementname product. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you give us an example of the syntax to use this and where it would be useful? To be generally useful, would be best to take a simple number {{systematicelementname|105}} rather than I think yours requires passing each digit separately. Also nice would be an option to autolink to its element page. {{systematicelementname|105|link=y}}. No objection to having it, but is there substantial need for this rather than just typing the name? Might accidentally start promoting people to use systematic names for elements that already have formally accepted names, or else gives two ways of doing things depending on whether element has been named or not. DMacks (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Last check of Californium before FAC submittal

I will be submitting Californium to FAC after work Eastern U.S. time on Monday 14 February. Just a heads up. --mav (reviews needed) 02:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I envy you, you have Californium but I do not have a Bavarium. --Stone (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Fake elements images

I have nominated several fake elements images for deletion per WP:OR. Please vote here and there. Materialscientist (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. Materialscientist (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

For those interested, there are deletion discussions concerning Unbitrium, Unbiunium, and Unbipentium at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unbitrium, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unbiunium, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unbipentium. ChemNerd (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The last check

This Sunday (or, if I won't be able, the closest possible day after it) I'll submit fluorine to FAC, if there won't be major opposes. Please anyone, feel free to add any comments at fluorine talk page--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't really read the article, but judging from a large number of problems found/fixed within a few minutes, I would say the article does need careful reading by more than one editor. You'll definitely need a good copyeditor to tidy the article before and during the FAC. Materialscientist (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Transactinide lifetimes

I found this as a nice, reliable source for all those uber-sketchy lifetimes we have listed in the heavier elements. Nergaal (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

  • {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Periodic Table by Quality.PNG

I like this image, but it can be quite out of date at times...(e.g. Alkali metal is now B-class, not reflected yet). So I propose to have a sort of "testing ground" to put in changes for the periodic table before the next update occurs for the image, currently situated at User:Lanthanum-138/PTQ (short for Periodic Table by Quality). What do you think? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I proposed a change to svg some time ago. --Stone (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Periodic Table by Quality.SVG
Why not make one based on wikicode, e.g. by changing the colors of {{Periodic_table}}. Christian75 (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
A template was not adopted because nobody had spent time to crete it. It should be used on the main project page instead of the image. I would still keep an image around for the wikiproject template, and I would be fine with the svg as long as everybody prefers that (i would kep the jpeg around for historic reasons though - commons?). Nergaal (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I have the template here: User:Lanthanum-138/PTQ/Periodic Table by Quality. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I like it! Now, Lanthanum-138 has spent the time, so let's use the template, it'll be very useful, I believe. (two points: a) please, make GA color darker, B and GA are hard to distinguish; b) also, if possible, keep ununbium and unbibium with other elements 123-137, La with lanthaniods, Ac with actinoids. (Myself, I find Lu and Lr transition metals, rather than La and Ac, but that's only due to keeping neutral) Also, lanthanide and actinide pages include both 15 elements. I'll edit myself - but if you don't like it, revert - that's your subpage, anyway.) So, I hope it'll be included into project page--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
That's a bit of legacy from Cryptic C62. I also think having Sc/Y/Lu/Lr in one group is better, but am keeping neutral. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

So, with the quality table, should we now remove the chemical series table? I don't think we need two full-sized tables (but I find inclusion as a picture acceptable).--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Project template uses one. Both should be kept, for historical reasons if nothing else. Nergaal (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ratings

Okay, now that we have a table which shows at a glance, what do we do about it? I'm having a hard time finding when the articles were graded by the chem team for "quality," and WHERE is the assessment result in each case. Wouldn't this be a natural thing to link to, in the relevant quality score in the databox for this, that appears at the top of the element TALK page? Yet I don't see it. For example, bromine is C class for the chemistry people. When was that assessment done? It looks better than that to me! SBHarris 21:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Recently: Br severely lacks citations in many places, and the is lots to be said about the prose quality. Nergaal (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Though it could use more citations, I disagree about it having bad prose quality. It reads naturally and is full of info. If you read it, you'll find out more about bromine that even most chemists know. Of course, I'm biased a bit since I've been working on the thing. Still, if you could point me to the review, it would help. Also, the general problem of WHERE ARE THE REVIEWS on the elements, has still not been answered. Are they secret? SBHarris 23:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure what are you looking for exactly, but if you spend time on the history of the talk page you will find this edit. Nergaal (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, but on a general note, I really should not have to search through the TALK page diffs to find out when the last assessement of a grade for an article was made. Second, I would really like to know WHO assigned the grade. Was it you personally (in that case, I personally disagree with you), or some committee? Third, I'd like a better reason than the edit summary of the relevent TALK page diff! In this case, it appears that Bromine was downgraded from B to C last September, and the only reason I can find is not enough references in the major sections. Okay. Today's article is 20% longer and has 20% more references. Time for somebody ELSE to take another look. And while we are at it, could we commit to having links in the TALK grade box made to someplace (I don't care were) that holds the last grade, who gave it, and why they gave it? For example, the last good review of fluorine is here. I may not agree with it, but at least it's easy to find and says what its beefs are. Flourine has 112 cites, chlorine has 35, bromine has 47. How many is our standard? Is it a per-section thing? SBHarris 23:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure what exactly are you trying to prove here. Cl is a GA, but feel free to wp:GAR it and then it will probably be rated as C. As for reviews, there is no formal process. There was an attempt to get one for A-class but things are not sufficiently active around here so it did not really work. I tend to do most of the re-ratings myself, based ALSO on cross-skimming through related articles. Br could probably be in a better shape (chemistry section and refs) but it looks like a borderline B/C case so feel free to rerate it. As for links to the last good review: nice but probably naive idea. Feel free to prove me wrong, but doing that consistently throughout the articles is probably not trivial to do, and even it is set up that way, in the long run it become a feature not used by anybody (same way todo subpages that used to be used on talkpages ended up not very useful). Nergaal (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Not trying to prove anything so much as find out what the system is, or even if there IS a system. You can make a pretty table with pretty colors, but what's behind it? It's a fair question. Since it appears that nobody died and left you Sole Olympic Judge of Wikipedia Chemical Element Article Quality, I think I will indeed go to bromine and change its quality back to a grade that pleases My Royal Person.

As for your other question, if the point of these grades isn't to point out which parts of articles need improving, and by how much, what's the point of it? The pretty colors on the chart end up being instead more like Nergaal Prizes (for Chemistry Writing). Then, just as with the Swedish prizes, we'd all just be supposed to work hard and hope they're bestowed upon us, like divine grace. You can't even lobby.

By the way, the comment about "knowing more about bromine than the average chemist if you read the wiki" was a little joke. The average chemist knows about two paragraphs of information about bromine, just as I did, before I started. If you asked the average chemist what the most important industrial use of bromine was, you wouldn't get an answer. Unless he or she had read the wiki article, of course. For those reading here who haven't the article, can YOU answer that question off the "top of your head"? Well, I couldn't either! And I've made elemental bromine in the lab from MnO2, bromide, and sulfuric acid, just like many others of you that are of my boomer generation (perish the thought they'd let students do this, these days). I'm not unfamilar with the stuff. I've used it inorganic reactions, O-chem, and even in veterinary medicine. Raise your hands if you knew bromide was used in vet-med, and that you can draw levels for it, and have them done by any veterinary blood lab. Cheers! SBHarris 01:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure exactly what exactly did I type to make you go on a wp:PA rampage, but to your surprise you may find out that I have used bromine liquid, and I have also seen somebody bleeding out of the nose after smelling it (which I think the Hazards section doesn't even cover well). Nergaal (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, that's impressive. I can't imagine anybody trying that, but the effect is believable. Let me see if I can top it. When I was 13 years-old I was collecting elements, and I discovered that the price of a large bottle of tech grade bromine was smaller than for a small sample. So I figured I'd order the large bottle. It said 5 lbs, but I didn't believe it. I sent a typed letter and cash, and Aldrich (as I remember) sent me a 5 lb bottle of tech grade liquid bromine. This is in 1970. The only concession to safety was that it came by freight, which meant on a train. So my father and I had to go to the freight yard to pick it up. It was in a wooden box with packing material, and inside the packing-- some kind of zeolite looking stuff (no aluminum can) was a glass bottle of 5 lbs of bromine (liquid). Not even metric; 5 POUNDS. Nobody checked to see how old I was. In those days anybody with money could order anything from a chemical company they wanted. I knew enough about bromine even then to use rubber gloves and goggles to get rid of the red-ant hill in the nearest vacant lot. Just pour a cup down the main ant-holes, glug, glug (fume). Then I couldn't figure out what to do with the rest, which was most of it. Had visions of dropping it and having the fire department have to evacuate nearby houses (no Hazmat in those days). So I got dad to take me to the local university chem department where they relieved me of the monster bottle (I had been careful and it was carried around always in the same wooden box with packing), poured out half a mL into a glass ampule, and sealed it for me. And I left with that, happy as a clam. That was what the world was like 40 years ago, and I sure miss it. (About the same time I ordered a pound of tech grade sodium metal the same way. That DID come in a cylindrical can. With a key and a tab, like a great big cylindrical thing of sardines.)

Anyway, if you can avoid breathing the stuff, liquid bromine is great for getting rid of anthills. I thought of putting that under "applications." Original research, though, I'm afraid. SBHarris 07:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Bromine#quality_scale_assessment. Would this be sufficient? --Stone (talk) 11:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Templates for each article rating

The trouble with having a table like this is that we can't resize it for other uses, such as in the WP:ELEMENTS talk page template. This is fixed by holding ratings for each article in its own template, such at Wikipedia:Oxygen assessment/Elements rating, which holds the text Wikipedia:Oxygen assessment/Elements rating via the wikitext {{Wikipedia:Oxygen assessment/Elements rating}}, which in turn can be put in any number of tables. Wikipedia:Oxygen assessment will hold info on the assessment of the element, maybe including a brief history of the article's progress from stub to where it is today (interesting meta data, IMO). The downside is that edit links to each rating template would need to be provided next to each rating on talk pages and on the main rating table in the WP namespace. Adding the below code to Template:WikiProject Elements would do the trick: [{{fullurl:Wikipedia:{{PAGENAME}} assessment/Elements rating|action=edit}} edit rating]. What does everybody think? --mav (reviews needed) 14:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

And the biggest advantage of this plan is that editing just one page will update the article's rating everywhere it is tracked (create as many tracking tables and lists you want with minimal maintenance concerns). Anybody who is interested in tracking article ratings will simply need to watch each article rating page they are interested in. --mav (reviews needed) 14:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Or we can expand on the current assessment page convention of using, for example, Talk:Beryllium/Comments as the base page and Talk:Beryllium/Comments/Elements rating as the place to hold ratings. Either way works for me. --mav (reviews needed) 14:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ratings 2

In response to the lengthly discussion between Nergaal and SBHarris, I suggest that:

  1. First, someone comes and rates the articles (Nergaal's already doing that);
  2. If there are any disagreements, someone can do an objective quality scale assessment (like at Talk:Bromine).

What does everyone think? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I like it (and thanks, Stone). In fact, eventually I hope it gets done at least once for every article, even if there are no disagreements, as it aids in pointing out obvious deficiencies, and problems that new readers have. SBHarris 02:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
New suggestion after SBHarris:
  1. First, someone comes and rates the articles (Nergaal's already doing that);
  2. Second, someone else will do an objective quality scale assessment - it does not matter whether step 1 was controversial, this must be done.
  3. The current ratings (before this becomes reality) will be reviewed by step 2.
Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Isotopes

I am thinking to move this page completely as a subpage of the project (similar to the pictorial table one). Nergaal (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --mav (reviews needed) 03:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Chemical series colours

The following elements have disputed colours:

Any comments regarding their proper colours (especially Mt, Ds, Rg) is appreciated. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Is anybody looking here? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Let's find IUPAC (authoritative) sources. Nergaal (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Po: Metal/metalloid/nonmetal status is not defined by IUPAC.
Mt, Ds, Rg: Given here (IUPAC); however, they use the term "transition element", rather than "transition metal", so it could be argued that Roentgenium111 is correct as transition "metal" implies that the elements are metals, which is uncertain. (Of course since Hs and Cn behave normally for their groups, Mt, Ds and Rg are probably also going to, but this is OR.)
Uut, Uuq, Uup, Uuh, Uus, Uuo: IUPAC does not comment. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

For me, we shouldn't color Mt, Ds, Rg, Uut, Uuq, Uup, Uuh, Uus, Uuo, since none of this have been experimentally chemically tested. About Po, I'd prefer coloring as metal, since I have never seen a truly scientific article that would mark it as a metalloid, but I saw ones that mark it as a metal. For example, check article's lead: ref of metal being a metal seems to be a scientific ref, unlike the ref of metalloid being. Looking on more refs, some of them call Po a metal, some don't state, but none else calls a metalloid--R8R Gtrs (talk) 09:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Periodic table layout

This one is a very old issue (as I can see from the archives and history), but currently whenever we use the long-form periodic table, we have Sc/Y/Lu/Lr in the same column, but whenever we use the short-form periodic table, we have Sc/Y/*/** in the same column. Since this is an inconsistency, I'd like to know what started this inconsistency, and why it's still like that. is there a good reason for this? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, OK, of course, there's a problem, but let's not enlarge the degree a problem. It appeared much before Wikipedia. The original Russian and German extended tables used La and Ac as transition metals and keep on doing so, due to that Ln3+ all are [Xe]4fn, with La having n=0 and therefore pretending to be a transition metals (f0, therefore counted only as d1). This became disputed by those who proposed Lu for this. They generally didn't agree with judging this using ions electronic configuration rather than those of neutrals atoms as actually followed in the all of the remaining table, asking to follow non-breaked blocks, plus most lanthanides have [Xe]6s24fn in neutral, which follows to that La isn't a d-block metal, since lantanides, if preceding La was d-element, would have [Xe]6s24fn-15d1, quite successfully comparing hard relationship of Al and Ga to those of Y and Lu, assuming that analogously Sc and Y should be p-elements, and Ga and In being d, that that if E3+ would all be in the same column, argumants with non-changed placing of B and Al. IUPAC, trying to resolve this, expanded the "lantanoid" and "actinoid" series to 15 elements, despite 14 elements in f-block. As people different have opinions, they want to "correct" to their way.
In fact, I disagree with placing La and Ac in our quality table, asking for the neutral variant (or non-breaking-blocks Lu and Lr variant, but the neutral one is preferrable). I'll undo that and ask for the consensus, unlike the image, we don't have historic ties.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The "Cross Method" of improving articles

To all WPE (WIkiProject Elements) members (particularly La-138, Nergaal and Stone):

I have devised a new way of improving articles.

The title stems from the method described here. I got the idea when looking at the periodic table by quality and seeing a B/C class cross centered on silver. I then realised: "Hey, if we can do an article improvement drive centered on silver but also on the surrounding articles, then we could apply this to all articles!" So... I have decided that we improve radium while at the same time improving barium and actinium (francium is already featured, so no worry on that, and unbinilium is sufficiently non-notable to be not considered now), and we do this for whatever large patch of unimproved articles there are. By the way, for this and subsequent improvement drives, the center article has to be stated on the project's main page. FREYWA 04:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? These articles are far from silver on the periodic table. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Here is what I mean: To use the "Cross Method", we improve an article (hereby called the target article) while at the same time improving the articles that are immediately up, down, left and right of it. The target article for this case is radium and the others are barium, unbinilium, francium and actinium. Then we should be improving fluorine (target) by the cross method too (which got whacked by Pyrotec when he reviewed it for GA status), and the surrounding articles are neon, oxygen and chlorine (the space above fluorine is empty so ignore it). Whenever the cross method is used, the target article has to be stated on the project's main page. FREYWA 06:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the wikiproject is a bunch of individualist. I think all tries to established a scheme all individualists have to fit in is impossible here. Preaching to the crowed is not like in this video. The collaboration of the month or any other suggestion just starved. What really works here is start working on an article in earnest and attract others by asking questions or asking for help, like what happened with niobium in 2008 or fluorine in 2011. --Stone (talk) 10:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thorium

The whole article reads like a advertising for thorium use as nuclear fuel. Although there are article strongly indicating that also thorium use is problematic. --Stone (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I plan to start working on that article once californium gets featured. I'll make another push to resolve the remaining FAC comments this weekend. --mav (reviews needed) 02:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Very good! The Uranium and Plutonium articles are balanced and do not read like an advertisement, this should happen with this one too! --Stone (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Copper

I just made a major edit to the copper page (check history) and I am hoping that it will get to featured article class as soon as possible. Seriously, this is one of the most crucial articles in the periodic table of Wikipedia, and yet it's B-class? How can this be? I'm asking for help on the article, not for a collaboration as I did in proposing the cross method above. One thing I would like to point out is that the article is too long (57 KB and 7800 words whereas yttrium, a FA, has 47 KB and 6000 words). FREYWA 08:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Technically, its length (<29k of prose text) is Ok. Yttrium is no reference here. Anything below 50k of prose text is considered fine. Materialscientist (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, just to note, our most viewed article, which seems to me the symbol the project, is only C-class. So fifth most viewed B isn't that scary (our third most viewed has a similar problem). But you're right, copper deserves any promotion (I mean, it deserves work that could lead to promotion). At a very quick read, I found an empty subsection, only having Main article template and a tag [which?]. Take care of these things and then, you may propose a PR where you may get a lot of advise and, on minor things, help.

But still, it's nice you've pointed that out! Work on copper must be important. If you start working on the article and a PR, you'll surely get help, advice or edits!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I created the page, look here, but it does not show on the talk page, what do I do now? FREYWA 09:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to hack the nomination manually, but don't know if this will help. I would restart the process by following the procedure described at Wikipedia:Peer_review. Materialscientist (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
It worked. I actually created the PR page while editing the copper talk page. FREYWA 09:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
How do you see it worked? The template on Talk:Copper is added by me, hoping the PR bot will pick it up and create an entry at Wikipedia:Peer_review. As long as this not happened, the nomination is incomplete. Materialscientist (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I have an idea. This is a private peer review, one which only the members of this project participate in. We do this first, and then I will make a second peer review for all editors of Wikipedia to participate. Do you agree? FREYWA 14:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, I just kicked myself in the head and closed my own peer review. I am going to start a new one. (Ah, archive 2.) FREYWA 16:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Fluorine

Just wanted you all to know I'm beginning a new peer review, which will in a moment appear on Project's main page. I'm seeking for FAC condition for the article, so please, anyone, admit anything to make it worth FAC. Thanks--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"the" or "a"

Hi, this is a bit picky, but I've noticed over time that quite a few element articles start off with a sentence like:

"XXX is the chemical element with atomic number YYY ..."

I think this phrasing is slightly odd. I think the articles should be standardised to read like:

"XXX is a chemical element with atomic number YYY ..."

86.179.5.31 (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It's awkward both ways. Are there any other chemical elements besides XXX that are number YYY (too many clauses strung together, confusing what's giving details about what)? If not, then the indefinite article is not really correct--the definite article clarifies that it's the definition (1 to 1) rather than one member of a class (1 of many). Maybe an alternative would be:
"XXX is a chemical element, with atomic number YYY."
since it's two separate (though obviously related) statements about what XXX is. This way makes it clearer that it's a member of a group and separately is a specific definition. DMacks (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Actinides

I am not sure if anybody is aware of this already, but I found some really neat reviews for actinides:

Nergaal (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Chemical symbols added by Lanthanum-138 Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks great! (Btw, the book http://radchem.nevada.edu/classes/rdch710/files/front-matter%20book.pdf also has reviews for fermium, mendelevium, nobelium, lawrencium and probably some transactinides. Somebody might want to get a copy...!) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
To complete the reviews:
Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I didn't know about the list and used the above Es pdf for Es article. It was good but certainly not sufficient to cover the whole article. Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Those are chapters from the fairly expensive book, The Chemistry of the Actinide and Transactinide Elements (cite below for the Californium chapter, which cost me $25). I'm pretty sure Springer would not be happy that this entire expensive book is online for free download. --mav (reviews needed) 12:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Haire, Richard G. (2006). "Californium". In Morss; Edelstein, Norman M.; Fuger, Jean (eds.). The Chemistry of the Actinide and Transactinide Elements (3rd ed.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media. ISBN 1-4020-3555-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)

Importance?

Should the importance of articles really be indicated on Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Articles? For FA, GA and A, we don't have that, except for WP:VITAL. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Importance is added to the WP 1.0 table there by a bot. So I see no harm. --mav (reviews needed) —Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 11 April 2011
No harm in removing them, I suppose? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Userbox

I now present to all interested WP:ELEMENTS members this userbox for any element that they consider their favourite: {{User:UBX/Element}}. There's an example of usage and output on the documentation page. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Cf picture

Is it really a non-free image? The paragraph in the book says: "The preparation of pure 249Cf metal to date has been in the 2–10 mg range,with the largest known amount prepared at one time being about 10 mg (Haire,1978, 1980, 1982). A picture of a 10 mg 249Cf product is shown in Fig. 11.2,where it is compared to the head of a common safety pin. A more detailed account of the preparation of californium metal is available (Haire, 1982)." The author himself is from Oak Ridge, so it must mean that the picture was taken by a government worker. Am I right? Nergaal (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not if they were employed by the lab. National Labs in general keep copyright even though their funding is federal. --mav (reviews needed) 02:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Ra bromid.jpg

Since I'm on the verge of violating 3RR with Eeekster, I'd like feedback on whether the listed image is worthy of inclusion of Radium#Chemical characteristics and compounds. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Considering the fair use concern I wouldn't consider it suitable for inclusion in Radium. However, I don't see any reason why it can't be included in Radium bromide. Polyamorph (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The image should be seriously cropped. Nergaal (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Element images

I wish to draw to everyone's attention three things:

  1. Of all the element pictures we already have, File:Promethium.jpg is definitely the worst sourced. If anyone can find anything better, please upload over the image.
  2. The most conspicuously absent element image is thorium. I found [2] (File:Thorium under argon atmosphere.jpg?), but is it free? If not, someone might have to buy some thorium and photograph it. (Th should be available as free image, so we can hardly use non-free images for it.)
  3. At, Ac, (Th), Es and Fm are all still missing images. (We can hardly expect Md and after to have images because they were not synthesised in bulk.) If images are found, please upload with non-free use rationale.

Please, if you can help with the pictures, please do so. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thorium: how about this: Th? A sample of ~0,1g (grey) Th sheet under argon. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It says "© Heinrich Pniok " - thorium is common element, it would be difficult to justify a copyrighted image. Materialscientist (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, it is very simple. I can upload all my own images ;-) Please look to the exif/meta data to one of my uploaded images, perhaps this one . Best, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do, we desperately need a thorium image! I couldn't find a free one, even though the element is so widely available. Materialscientist (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 Done . --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost

I just want to let you know that... We're going to be featured in the Signpost! I was the one who actually stepped forward and did the proposal, and thus our WikiProject has been accepted. The issue that we are going to be featured in is June 13 (see here.) Flex your fingers for the interview! FREYWA 07:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Information we could use for isotopes of elements past ununoctium

[3] Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't access the information there, you seem to need a user (university?) account.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I saw the links and thought it might be useful, but I can't access the information either. Double sharp (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Collaboration?

I've been thinking that if several people work on an article, it'd do faster. So here's what I'm thinking about — collaboration on anything. If, say, three-four users began working on the same article, we could possibly bring it to GAN (from C) in a month or at most one and a half. For instance, we wouldn't we try it? I know there used to be something similar, and that's where my idea originates from. If anyone has what to say on recreating the idea, please, comment it. I'd like to find out if I could find some people to do so.

But what about beginning a monthly collaboration on one article? I'd like to propose potassium for May and aim up for GA. Pretty simple chemistry, C-class, Top-importance, and 14th most viewed article within the project (say, calcium is number 20, and sulfur is 28th). If the idea is worth anything, please comment--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be able to work. This should be worked on by all members of the project, and possibly should attract users from outside by putting some notice/tag on the talk page of the article. FREYWA 09:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source about some of the superheavy elements?

I found the website http://www.apsidium.com/ (see web archive and a mirror site, if the website doesn't work), which gives many predictions on elements' atomic masses by the theory called significant atom-mass(e.g. Unquadquadium). How this was supported by other academic sources?--Inspector (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Please don't. We've had enough problems with this site already in the archives. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 5#Elements beyond Rg, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 8#Super duper heavy element articles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 9#Uhs (167) - Ust (173) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 10#Truss (chemistry). Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
So do you recognize it as a reliable source?--Inspector (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I see. The last discussion concluded it as an unreliable source.--Inspector (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Plus:Are there any theories about Ground State Electron Configuration? I think that might be slightly more reliable.--Inspector (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Sure. Aufbau principle Lanthanum-138 (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The problem with the Aufbau principle, though, is that when you get such high Z (atomic number) that you need to speculate based on theories, relativistic effects come into play due to the electrons travelling so fast. We also can't forget the irritating exceptions: chromium, nickel, copper, niobium, molybdenum, ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, silver, lanthanum, cerium, gadolinium, platinum, gold, actinium, thorium, protactinium, uranium, neptunium, curium, and probably lawrencium. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Found a similar site[4], but still no references were given.--Inspector (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Article alerts

Can somebody please remove the late Feb and early Mar alerts from the article alerts? This is getting ridiculous (although I suppose it's a consequence of the large number of recent GA nominations). Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Chlorine

And so chlorine got packed off to WP:GAR by me, given its severe lack of citations. Everyone: please go there and tell me what you think. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Elements 114 and 116 naming

This cite shows an article with two interesting statements by JINR staff: the director Sergey Dmitriev stated these elements are expected by JINR to have been recognized by IUPAC by the end of 2011, and vice-director Mikhail Itkis stated they want to name them флеровий, flerovium, after Georgy Flerov, and moscovium (or whatever spelling would stand for московий in English), respectively, (the article itself is named "Russian Physicians Will Suggest to Name Element 116 as Moscovium") after not Moscow, but Moscow Oblast, and after the recognition the JINR will suggest these as full-righted names. The text in the link, if you haven't clicked there yet, is in Russian, so think twice. Also, the two names were earlier proposed for ununoctium, but it seems not anymore thought to be the future names for 118. But I was about...is this all notable for ununquadium and ununhexium (possibly also ununoctium)?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess so. "Becquerelium", "Rikenium" and "Japonium" also had mention in ununtrium, din't they? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I certainly think that's notable, as in ununtrium. If there's no English source available, it would be good to add an English translation of the relevant quotes to the reference. (I don't speak Russian, so I can't do it myself.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Added, but without quotes for now. (I don't speak Russian either.) Btw, what will the symbols be? My guess is "Fl" for flerovium and "Mk" for moscovium (moskowium? moskovium? moscowium?) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Symbols aren't revealed, so any suggestions would be OR.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

FPs

File:NatCopper.jpg is now at FPC. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Native copper Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Oxygenglow.jpg is now at FPC. See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Oxygen glowing Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Pictorial Periodic Table

This was old news.

But now, we've got Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Periodic table (pictures) - a potential article version.

Thoughts? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Californium FAC part 2

I was going to re-submit Californium to FAC today, but I see that Fluorine is currently at FAC. I don't want to overburden chemistry reviewers right now so I'm asking here: Is now a good time to re-submit Californium to FAC or should I wait another week to give more time for consensus to be reached on the Fluorine FAC? Either way, please take a look to see if Cf is ready. --mav (reviews needed) 16:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Alkali metal - Ununpentium

For me the claim that Ununpentium is a Alkali metal looks strange to me. To put this into the article of the alkali metals is for me not acceptable. The element has not jet characterized in a way that this claim could be argued in a to come to that conclusion. The paper used for that claim [5] in the 115 article ends with the chemistry of element 114 and neither mentiones 115, ununpentium nore Alkali metal. I will put all the claims in hiding until somebody shows up with a credible source. --Stone (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it's pure speculation if Uup will be an alkali metal. Just because Uuq is a noble gas doesn't mean Uup has to be an alkali metal! If things were this simple, Uuq would be a poor metal! Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Is 114 a real noble gas? Even theoretical data I've read gave me the expression 114 is just a very noble metal, and 115 would be similar to... hmmm... thallium? Anyway, it's not the undisputed experimental truth, so I suggest not to make any claims (possibly show some calculations, but state these are only calculations)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I found nothing in a journal, so where does it come from.--Stone (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
@R8R Gtrs: As referenced in the ununquadium article and by Stone above, there is experimental evidence for it being a noble gas. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
From the "noble gas" ref (that's all on 114):

With a [Rn]6d107s27p2 configuration the question was how the filled 7p1/2 subshell influences the chemical properties of element 114. Due to a pronounced spin-orbit splitting between the spherical 7p1/2 and distorted 7p3/2 orbitals estimates ranged from a noble gas-like behaviour [106] to a lead-like behaviour [107]. Since currently no gas chemistry device would be able to cover such a broad range of volatilities, it was decided to first search for a very volatile element 114 using the same set-up as applied in the chemistry experiments with element 112.

This experiment was conducted in 2007 at FLNR. In the course of two experiments using the reactions 48Ca + 242Pu and 48Ca + 244Pu three decay chains assigned to element 114 were observed, with low probability to be of random origin, one of 0.5s 287114, and two of 0.8 s 288114. This result was somewhat surprising given the transport time of 2 s.

Two of the three atoms were observed on the Au surface at very low temperatures, between -80 and -90 °C, where adsorption of heavy noble gases via van der Waals interaction is expected. This finding is in line with expectation from Pitzer [106] but disagrees with more recent predictions. Semi-empirical extrapolations [121] and relativistic theoretical calculations [122] predict element 114 to behave like a volatile metal, slightly more volatile than Pb but certainly not like a noble gas. Therefore, these experiments will be continued in 2008 to search for additional atoms of element 114.

Do these words 100% show it's a noble gas? Sure, partially yes, but not clear enough to put it into noble gas category (even regardless Aufbau principle)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
If 114 is a noble gas than 115 is a alkali metal This Original Research at it worst. This is against all the principles of Wikipedia. I will delete the material I put into hiding. This is not worth being added anywhere.--Stone (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
@ R8R Gtrs: Don't you mean that 114 is [Rn]5f146d107s27p2? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I copied from ref and hasn't made a single change--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
@ R8R Gtrs: 100% not, but it's the best (i.e. most probable) explanation for the experiment's results. Someone claimed they wanted to repeat the experiment in 2009 to gather more data, but I don't know if that happened... OTOH, we don't have "100%" (only very high) evidence for other transactinides (105-108, 112) being metals either. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Your right, even dubnium is not 100%. Agreed. But! At least all elements to hassium are believed to be transition metals, by all calculations, the experimental data (yes!) just agrees, but there are no thoughts for them not to be metals. Even Cn is different; calculation and views all believe it to be a TM as well, just more volatile, continuing trend shown in Cd-Hg-112 sequence. 114 isn't thought to be an undisputed noble gas, neither a metal; calculations and views get different, it's controversial. For that reason, Hs may be a transition metal easily, but 114 is not.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
If 114 is a noble gas 113 is a halogen: This will make the PSE a nice place for OR.--Stone (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Chemical properties section from ununpentium is 100% OR, and the only ref is about bismuth, from webelements.com and doesn't even mention 115. If the theme got started, maybe we should do something with sections like this?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, cut such sections out completely, unless the speculation appeared in a journal article (although that's pretty unlikely). I don't like OR. For me: putting down "unknown" gives more info. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Gold phosphine complex

Hi, I'm not sure if this would by your type of thing or not but I was trying to de-orphan this article Gold phosphine complex as part of that I googled for refs and it has heaps. Unfortunately I don't have a clue about this subject. If anyone is interested in expanding this stub here is the link to google scholar search [6] Blackash have a chat 14:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's our field even through someone from here could help. Maybe you should consult Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals or Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry instead?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Polonium and others

Is Po a metal or a metalloid? Is it both? And what of At and some others? Sources disagree. The German compact PSE has a Template:Backimage for this sort of thing, which I could probably program if needed (I'm OK at template coding), but is that really the best solution? That would cause endess problems with having to adapt the colours for the infoboxes and other places. It seems to me that we've got to decide if Po is metal or metalloid - we've already decided about them transactinides earlier (put them as unknown chemical properties). So, well? In Po article, it mentions dispute over whether Po is metalloid or poor metal, both sources are ref'd, but poor metal source is more reliable than metalloid source. I seem to remember this article called "Polonium and Astatine are not Metalloids"...not entirely certain about the content though. Thoughts? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

doi:10.1021/ed100308w --Stone (talk) 07:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I would say that... Polonium is a metal. It is hard to decide which character prevails - the metal or the metalloid - because polonium has an equal tendency to form positive and negative ions. However, the page on polonium shows a crystal lattice, and in a shape that you would expect of a metal. Therefore, it is a metal, but a very unusual one. FREYWA 07:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Discussion on Po and At: This short page cites Cotton and Wilkinson's Advanced Inorganic Chemistry (Wiley) and Greenwood and Earnshaw's Chemistry of the Elements (Pergamon Press). They state that Po is a metal and that At is a halogen. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I hope more comment on this... Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Metal. I just haven't been shown a single 100% trusted source naming it a metalloid--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • nonmetals and the last two (tellurium and polonium) are metalloids Chemistry Raymond Chang - 1988
  • The last member of the group, polonium (Po), is a metalloid with mostly metallic properties. Introduction to chemistry Martha J. Gilleland - 1986 are two quotes --Stone (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I stand corrected! It seems that a brief look over first 50 results in Google books wasn't enough.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Selenium's status (nonmetal or metalloid?) is also under dispute at times. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

How was those predictions made?

I still can't find any detailed sources explaining the half-lifes and nuclear spins of 272Mt and 273Mt in the list Isotopes of meitnerium. The predictions were mentioned in several sources [7][8], but I am still not clear about how they get the number, since they did not explain or cite the predictions.--Inspector (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

does this doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.72.064331 help?--Stone (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
See. Is it widely recognized by the academics?--Inspector (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it is better to put this kind of source to articles related to the predictions and models od superheavy nuclei.--Inspector (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The last four elements without images

It may become four, because I think I've found At: Astatine - National Research Council Canada. What do you think? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a copy here: 85. Astatium (Astatine) - Elementology & Elements Multidict. I've inserted the image (incredibly low-res, though...) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Here's what Materialscientist has to say on this.
Well, at least it's very slightly more believable than the bayerf.de image. Although I'm not sure, since this happens to be a Canada gov't website. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Get the synchrotron! It all falls down to A-hp to get the image now. FREYWA 05:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The Nuances

Should we include all the minor things of the periodic table (like s-block, actinide) in the PTQ? I think it would be better for our project. FREYWA 05:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Than we have to include a lot of things, like metal and uranium-238. This will make the PTQ a little bit like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Elements/Popular_pages.--Stone (talk) 07:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, then just include the different classifications of elements, like actinide and nonmetal, and the four blocks (s, p, d, f). I think that will fit comfortably. FREYWA 07:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think PTQ should have any more things than a normal table would have. And also, there's just no room to make it look OK - or it could be widely printed.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
You could always put them in a separate table like {{PeriodicTablesKey}}. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a reason to. Per Stone oppose. WP:ELEM/PP would serve well, and crowding the table is not needed. Which is even more, most project don't have graphic illustration of article quality. We've got one, but only to keep elements and periods/groups. Lanthanide/actinide/superactinide given as well. and the inclusion would make the table messed up and could lead to inclusions of others, even less needed, even maybe isotopes. Which is even more, say, metal is a field to work of six WIkiprojects, not being so unique to even just chemistry. I don't even know how to impress it, but I'm sure we shouldn't do it.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I was testing it out. It doesn't look very good, to say the least! These articles are, moreover, the least of our worries - think about it? Who looks up f-block? Whoever would would probably look at that stubby article for a moment and go read up instead on lanthanides and actinides. Btw, I am the one improving alkali metal (although not for predictable amounts of time), so it's not like I'm not involved in this. :-) Regardless, I wouldn't mind if this was removed.
In a minute I'll rm those extra tables, and post the relevant diff. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Elements%2FArticles%2FPeriodic_Table_by_Quality&action=historysubmit&diff=428920088&oldid=428912120 Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Promethium pictures

File:Promethium 01.jpg? I'd advise readers to be cautious, because I think this is actually Nd. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 04:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I also suspect that the uploader is lying about the source of the picture, because this obviously says: "Copyright (c) 2003 Theodore W. Gray". Lanthanum-138 (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Tagged, warned the uploader. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 04:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The periodic table

After the refreshing (?) success of copper through PR and GAN, I now turn my attention to the periodic table. My goal is to get this to at least GA, and I want a peer review. The problem: there is this tag on there.

According to PR rules, a PR on an article cannot proceed if tags like this are on that. What can I do? FREYWA 08:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Add reliable references, I guess... Think where they are still needed. There a lot of paragraphs without any refs. If you want, I'll add some [citation needed] tags later today or during the first half of the upcoming week--R8R Gtrs (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
OK. FREYWA 12:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Group 3 element

So R8R Gtrs shelved his earlier plans to improve Group 12 element to work on Group 3 element. Unfortunately, now we have a problem on whether to use Sc/Y/La/Ac, Sc/Y/Lu/Lr, Sc/Y/Ln/An (articles only, so La, Ce... Ac, Th... not included), or even just Sc/Y. (Myself, I prefer Sc/Y/Ln/An, not least because it's mentioned here, and that it's at least keeping neutral...) Regardless, R8R Gtrs himself sees Sc/Y/Lu/Lr to be the best solution (which I don't, thus causing the problem...) So, what should be done?? (This problem seems to have occurred a quadrillion times already...) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I should explain my position. Even through the group is kinda unique among d-block groups, I am still sure it should deal with four elements...well, because contracting actinides to a single element cell is like contracting transition rows to one cell to emerge it with anything. Also, La-Lu relationship seem to me in some kind similar to Sc-Ga one... both have difference in electronic shells of a filled subshell (d10 and f14) and this reflects many things in the same way - atomic radii, hardness...that's why I'm against to put all the lanthanides the cell for group 3, period 6 - with the same success the element 21-30 could be placed together with gallium (or calcium? in some case, 3d-series is similar to 5f-series, but the "main" valence is 2, not 3.)...that's all my OR...but I don't think lanthanide should take the cell. There are better proofs, I just can't think of any of them at the moment :) I'll add them as (if) I come up with any. (Maybe it's that 32 elements is a very little too much for one group...lanthanides and actinides are groupless to my opinion. In school, I was told that when actinides concept was adopted, someone raised debates about introducing C-groups (along with common A-groups (main block elements) and B-groups (transition metals)...for example, B IV is group 4, A V is group 15, so on)...this wasn't adopted because none knew how many C-groups should there be (seven elements for C VIII (not to mention no f-block element shows +8) was too much) and so on...but the concept is quit useful - leaving elements 57-70 (and 89-102) to groupless (C's weren't adopted), and count 71 and 103 as B III (group 3)...or, to your opinion, 58-71 and 90-103)...I'm too long about it) The remaining variants are La/Ac and /Lu/Lr. I haven't thought of any calculations, any opinions, and just followed with a common (and which is more important, very general) Aufbau principle, which is honestly mentioned. So Lu/Lr is taken. I think the article should have a neutral lead section, which treats two alternatives (/La/Ac and /Lu/Lr) as equal (which I hope might be considered written), as well as sections that touch the grouping in some way. Characteristics and, of course, Group borders sections will mention La and Ac as well. But some sections aren't of any need to be expanded for 6 elements, such as History, so the primary (which per above is Lu/Lr) is taken. I might've forgotten anything, you might read my talk page and Lanthanum-138's original comments about it, including the one he first wrote to me. By the way, can't it be now at least a C? :) Thanks--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Too long, R8R! The correct Group 3 is Sc/Y/Lu/Lr, because La-Yb and Ac-No are the f-block and thus have oxidation states between +2 and +3, meaning that they do not belong to any group. FREYWA 16:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Potassium

Hi, in the last few days the potassium article expanded [9] a little by 20kbyte. Now a few helping hands are needed to identify the most problematic points in the article. Comments can be added to Talk:Potassium#B-Class_review. Thanks --Stone (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Periods in the periodic table

(Note: It is a bit difficult to extend the periodic trends section format past period 3 because it just scrolls of the page. Bother.) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 06:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Not every period 5 element, it could be better to discuss the general trends in 4d transition metal series. About atoms images, you could use the following scheme if necessary:
Rb Sr Y Zr Nb Mo Tc Ru Rh Pd
Ag Cd In Sn Sb Te I Xe
This way it is used in short-period periodic table (like Mendeleev's original table), which remains the most (in fact, only) common in Russia and near abroad--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
That still breaks periods 6 and 7 (no room for Ln and An)...I'll talk with Geo7777 about period 5. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm...use asterisk?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
You mean:
Cs Ba * Hf Ta W Re Os Ir Pt
Au Hg Tl Pb Bi Po At Rn
* La Ce Pr Nd Pm Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Lu
?Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Still not enough room to stretch the lanthanides across! :-( Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Be more creative! Make them smaller, make a single image of the fifteen to lessen the space between two atoms, at least, cut them in two, too.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
* La Ce Pr Nd Pm Sm Eu
Gd Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Lu
Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
A possible solution is on one of the videos from The Periodic Table of Videos: [10]. Double sharp (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Article creep

Did you see that ununpentium is now Start-class?

The recent upload of the PTQ and the wikitext version of it show that some articles have degraded (quality or otherwise) recently. What happened? FREYWA 01:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

As usual, they filed up on the references. Don't fret - at least cadmium improved from C to B. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, if you want to avoid this kind of thing happening to your article, bring it to GA, since GAR has only ever happened three times here (to Al, Cl and Cu). Lanthanum-138 (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
What "filed"? Filing up on refs? I don't understand at all. FREYWA 16:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I rerated most of them. Most of the article lack references. Some have weak sections, while others were upgraded without comparing with other neighbouring articles. GA and FA are less likely to get re-rated.--Stone (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
By "filed up" I meant "messed up" or similar. If I explained more, this would go off topic, wouldn't it? :-) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
It is a euphemism. Double sharp (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
...and also a punning one. Double sharp (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Copper/GA1

There are some concerns from User:Smokefoot about the 2nd paragraph in the Physical section. Can anyone help address them?? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 03:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Freywa and Lanthanum-138 are doing much for the project these days, but they often miss obvious scientific and prose errors and are going too fast with nominating and reviewing GANs. Proper reading reveals obvious problems, such as those mentioned by Smokefoot (I hope I managed to quick-fix them, though further comments are surely welcome). Materialscientist (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
One more thing - avoid using webelements (and similar websites which don't use proper referencing) in our elements articles, because these articles eventually all aim at GA/FA level where such references are too weak. Materialscientist (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have another comment on the copper article: A copper saturated stream running from the disused Parys Mountain mines is the subscript under a image. My concern is now the word saturated. Is there a ref for that? --Stone (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to improve on this; see Talk:Palladium/GA1 for my 2nd attempt at GA reviewing (Pd). Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Element spectra

Why do only some elements have their spectra? (I can generate the images, but for some reason I can't seem to upload them. Probably because I used "Print Screen" to get the data from Atomic Spectra program. :-(.) All of them should have the spectra in the infobox! Lanthanum-138 (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Element pictures

I finally managed to borrow the MATTER book, where I found a description of the Rn picture (finally!). Uploaded (again) at File:Radon.jpg.

I also tried getting a description for the former Theodore Gray picture File:Promethium.jpg. Unfortunately, RGB states that it is again promethium lumious paint, so no. (How are we going to get Pm pictures??) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You can spend days, find a picture and realize it is showing nothing useful. I would focus on informative images. They don't have to be of pure elements - we are lacking tons of pictures on compounds and applications (products where the elements are used). They are easier to find and are often more interesting. Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I have uploaded quite a few compound images (mostly the radioactive ones: CfOCl, Cm[OH]3, Pa2O5, Ac2O3, Pm2O3, BkO2 and quite a few I've forgotten). :-) I'm finding quite a few of those missing ones. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. There are hundreds or even thousands to go though (if restricting to binaries, take any category:xxx compounds) :-). Materialscientist (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Another caesium/cesium comment

See User talk:Lanthanum-138. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Americium and curium

There are discussions regarding americium and curium's natural occurence at Talk:Americium and Talk:Curium. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If what is called "neutron-bombarded plutonium" is, as it would keep sense, plutonium bombarded by neutrons, then existence of americium is possible:
239Pu + 2 n → 241Pu → 241Am
And since it is claimed by sources I find OK, I may agree americium exists in nature. Curium is not cited (feel free to prove me wrong), and thus does not occur (for Wikipedia, maybe it does really). The way I see it americium is from decay, and curium synthetic.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Periodic table 2

OK, I just went to the article on the periodic table and found it really lacking. The different pieces of data just don't match up! How am I going to add refs like I said earlier? To help untangle this mess, I've tagged the article with this:


FREYWA 08:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Actinium image

Not sure if this is real: [11]. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 04:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable site, uncredited and unexplained image, rare element - not a good combination for using the image. Materialscientist (talk) 07:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
File:Actinium.jpg, anyway. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Missing element images

We now have only 5 elements (of those up till 100, where either they are naturally occuring or they have been synthetically prepared in visible amounts) not covered by a picture (Pm, At, Rn, Ac and Fm. (We used to have Pm and Rn, but they were not reliable enough. Ac was talked about but was also not reliable enough.) At and Fm are likely to be the hardest of the lot to get hold of. :-(

Also, our current image for Fr doesn't really show how the element looks like in person. (Oh, of course this is going to be the best we can get, but if this isn't encyclopaedic enough...) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Are we really sure that fermium has been isolated in visible quantities? http://radchem.nevada.edu/classes/rdch710/files/Fm%20to%20Lr.pdf says that "Fermium metal has not been prepared; however, measurements have been performed on alloys with rare earth metals and a number of predictions about it have been made." If this is true, then we may never be able to get an image of Fm (neither would we be able to get an image of At).
Also, I switched the francium images in the article so that the image closer to what one sees is in the infobox instead.
Rn would doubtless be hard to show. Perhaps we could crop out the ThO2? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ignore fermium altogether then. So it is now 95/99. BTW in Guinness World Records 2008 astatine is shown as a black solid and the rarest element in nature. The article on astatine tells you how to make this really radioactive element. How about that? FREYWA 09:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no use showing a picture of colorless gas (radon), which is why we used a liquid for nitrogen and gas discharge for some other gases (neon, etc). Materialscientist (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and only Fm alloys with other rare earths have been prepared. (And yes, At is really a black solid. Unfortunately I don't have the Guinness World Records 2008 book.) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Freywa, could you please scan the image of At (if possible) and upload? I'm sure we'd all appreciate it very much. ... Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
@Freywa: It's not all that clear-cut about Fm...some sources say that the last element isolated in sufficient quantities is Bk, some say Cf, some say Es, some say Fm. The one thing they all agree about is that Md and up have not. I've put Fm back in the goals (how pure do we want an alloy to be?)
@Materialscientist: Yes, it's a big problem for Rn. We might want to check the "MATTER" book for a description. (It's by Ralph Eugene Lapp, so may be genuine.) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, Fm alloys won't be in the infobox. (Although they may be of some use in the main article.) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
However Fm is not really in the same league as Md, No, Lr, &c. because it is possible to isolate Fm in macroscopic quantities, it's just that nobody has bothered yet. Microgram quantities of Fm have been made - would that be enough? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Freywa has told me that he can't upload the At image right now. So, I guess we'll have to wait until he does so and brings the count up to 96%. (Is Guinness Book of Records 2008 reliable? This has got to be the only image ever published on the pure element. I recall seeing At described somewhere as "black precipitate", so they probably got the colour right. I do hope they didn't use a sample of uraninite...) Is 1 μg of At enough to take photos? (And is 1 μg of Fm - the most ever produced and isolated, for the same question?)
If we're restricted to displaying Rn as discharge tube, the recently deleted File:Radon.jpg would have been our only choice - which is why I suggested someone get the book, or at least borrow it (MATTER by Ralph Lapp, 1965 ed.), so that we could get a description. And Pm - the element that we should have a picture of but don't! (Largely because a lot of people show Pm as the oxide or the chloride.) And as for Ac...I find it perplexing why we should get an Es image (far more radioactive) before we get an Ac image. The old RSC faked photo seems to be from "the Justin Urgitis Element Collection..." (van der Krogt). Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
By the way, the astatine in GWR 2008 is shown in a glass vial as 3 black chunks. The record that At holds is "Rarest element on Earth". I can't upload now because (1) the scanner in my home can't mouth the book and (2) the image is very small and I am new to scanning. FREYWA 11:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
My calculations show that if fermium had density of 13 g/cm3 (which seems quite possible to me compared to other elements), a ball of fermium would have a radius of 0.0264 mm. I don't think it's photographable. So if even this may be counted as bulk metal, a photo would be very hard to take, so maybe none would take care to do so; however, I think someone should've tried. So maybe you should forget the idea (maybe I'm wrong, through)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 Done I think I'm done with the astatine pic! 40px FREYWA 06:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't you think that's a bit too much astatine to be believeable? And doesn't this worry us? I have a feeling that this is a fake image (pitchblende). Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Posting suspicious URL: http://www.bayerf.de/pse/85_At_en.html. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Raised concerns to Materialscientist, who had been working with me on some other elements. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Judging by the amount, it is indeed pitchblende. I'd wait some time and delete it if no objection. Materialscientist (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged it, which gives it seven days until it is deleted. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
You should remember Alchemist-hp from his many images. Why not give him a message and tell him about the At picture? Ask him to make astatine, photo it, and upload under a good license. The formula is given in the article on astatine itself. FREYWA 04:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
His images were mostly on stable metals and alloys. Why do you think he has astatine at his disposal? Materialscientist (talk) 04:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Methinks Freywa means that Alchemist-hp could take some Bi and irradiate it with alpha particles to make some At, which can be distilled out. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Discussion carried on at #The last five elements without images. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
#The last five four elements without images Lanthanum-138 (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Now it's just promethium and fermium. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

GA reviews

Hey guys who review GAs for our project! I was thinking that maybe we shouldn't review our GANs. Not like I am bullying, not at all, of course. Just I find it might be useful for the articles to be reviewed by non-chemist, who don't find it all common, and independent, they usually ask more, but improve the quality. Anyway, thanks for the reviews already done!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you here, although I think that sometimes it may depend on the article in question...an incredibly specialised article (e.g. hassium) might work better with in-project reviewers, whereas a common topic (e.g. potassium) would probably work better by outside reviewers. Of course usually outside reviewers would be better... Lanthanum-138 (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd like all future GANs not to be reviews by project members. Even on articles like transactinides — there are people who can deal with such things outside the project, hundreds or thousands of them.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 07:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
As a person who regularly reviews articles from WP:GAN I believe that the reviews should be left to non Wikiproject reviewers. Most B-class articles are close to GA-class anyways and most seasoned GA-reviewers know what to look for. For more complex article such as hassium I would suggest some sort of "A-class review" for the wikiproject to come after the GA-process. This would also be beneficial as a "specialized peer-review" as the regular peer review seems to lack many experts and is a more general opinion of the Wikipedia community. Tarret talk 03:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think we should stick to just nominating them. (We're getting uncomfortably close to a situation when Freywa and I just review each others' nominations...that wouldn't really be a good idea.) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 06:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

New news

I found that ununquadium and ununhexium have been officially accepted by the Joint Working Group of the IUPAC. The evidence is here: doi:10.1351/PAC-REP-10-05-01. There is a video about this event: It's Here! FREYWA 17:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Neat! I updated the articles, thanks for the info--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Basically, this is what they had to say (only their assessments given here to avoid being accused of copyvio). Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

PSE Rating

The selenium assessment hasn't been done yet. I took pity on it due to its number of citations --Lanthanum-138 (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I did it but somehow it did not get saved. Sorry.--Stone (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

GAs

Of our B-class articles, what do you think is needed to bring them to GAs? (Carbon looks pretty promising.) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Basically, C, N, K, in order to get closer to possible GTs. But we're 10 articles away from a big GT of transition metals (without elements 109-111). Promoting vital Ag, Au and Fe would be also sweet... You may check out some B-articles and nominate the closest to GA, not necessarily those I mentioned. But note we've already got 2 open GANs and a FAC, on which I'm busy and won't able to help some time. Don't take as advise, these are just my thoughts, but it'll be sweet if you find it helpful--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
In case I missed the point of the question, check GA criteria and Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. Maybe you'll find it useful--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I disagree to take a B-Class and than nominate it. First work on it and improve it that it is a clear GA and tha nominate it.--Stone (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, I actually meant "which would be best to work on first" (that sort of thing)... Lanthanum-138 (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I also thought it was implied--R8R Gtrs (talk) 09:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I experienced it with Copernicium, Cobalt and Nickel, that nominating without contributing also happens.--Stone (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about nickel, but I've helped copernicium during the second fluorine PR/the first wave of its FAC, and was planning to submit it right after the FAC; it already had most of the needed before I started helping the article, but 'twas poorly formated, and no chemistry, and some other missing things. Cobalt was an A — maybe that's why?
I rerated carbon as A as it looked quite close to GA (I expect to get it to GA within a reasonable amount of time) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Wanted element pictures

Just a hit-list for everything that seems good.

Po

Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Cm-Uuh

"Experiment zur Erzeugung von Element 116 (Uuh): Montage eines Targets aus 248Cm" one)

Lanthanum-138 (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Pm

Lanthanum-138 (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If WebElements states the truth here (http://www.webelements.com/promethium/), then promethium should be commercially available and we would have another thorium situation. But I doubt this. --Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Element descriptions

Can we get rid of the descriptions of the appearance of the elements? I feel that the picture does better in settling arguments (e.g. fluorine: tan -> yellow -> tan OR yellow -> yellow...) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Not everybody is sighted or have monitors with good color. The text should also stand somewhat on its own. --mav (reviews needed) 02:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, but we could at least have some citations for them. That would certainly help a lot. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 03:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I deleted that field in the infobox for F, independent of knowing that R8 approved (I thought I was going against him, but it warms my alligator snapping turtle heart to know that he agreed anyhow. Problem to me is it reads too much like a caption above and below the photo. Also, the photo shows it (and we have alt text), plus it is discussed in article. Perhaps form of matter at standard conditions would be a more useful field (but even then, I think we handle it fine in article...this is always addressed in the lead, as well as being part of our first "physical section", so really infobox is better used for the numerical minutia (that someone can scan and grab). Anyhow, it is no biggie if some people like it, as we obviously have some lattitude for the editor working on a particular element to customize the fields in that infobox as preferred. Just sharing my thinking with the team...TCO (talk)

Random facts

Hello everybody! It's been some time since I've came here, but I have some things prepared for you.

First of these is this crossword whose letters can be rearranged to Words With Friends: 

     W
  D  H
 FIR O
  NEWS
   S
DIRT

I've just reviewed cadmium, it's a pass, but can anybody tell me how to install the DejaVu fonts onto Inkscape? I tried it, but it doesn't work.

Returning to elements: I, for a long time, was thinking of this transperiodic highway, a link from alkali metals to noble gases using only up/down (change period by 1) or left/right (change group by exactly 1; H-He, Be-B and Mg-Al are not allowed) movements. The lanthanides/actinides are considered group 3, meaning left/right/up/down movements are totally OK here. The transperiodic highway would then be a sequence of such moves that took you from group 1 to group 18 while staying on good/featured articles. So the gaps currently are strontium, gallium, aluminium, carbon, nitrogen (or Sr, Ga, I, XX, where XX is one of "arsenic, selenium", "As, antimony" or "tin, Sb"). It would look good if we could fill in those gaps - the PTQ then would look aesthetically pleasing because of a band of green and blue. FREYWA 04:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually you just read my mind :-) I had been thinking about something like this since March or April. The p-block is certainly an obstacle. I thought of a less strict requirement: all the GAs and FAs must be connected to each other, with noble gases-alkali metal connections allowed, but the f-block, boron and tellurium are then isolated. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 06:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Improving the reference of isotopes

I had recently just read some isotope articles like Isotopes of meitnerium, and I found most of them just referenced from several databases. Some isotopes were shown citation to other articles, while some others were marked as predictions and was not well-explained. I think we should cite each existent isotopes, and keep an eye on those had not been synthesized.

Plus: These databases were published between 2003 and 2005, so there might be new reports that was not included. --Inspector (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

For many elements, the parent article is better referenced (and has more recent values) than the isotope article. Materialscientist (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I see. But are the predictions on half-lifes reliable? I did not see the procedure of prediction in the references listed down.--Inspector (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
This is one of the most up-to-date databases out there. Feel free to use it to update all those entries. Nergaal (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Still, many half-lifes were unconfirmed and unexplained predictions. Some isotopes, likeMeitnerium-276 was given sources, but I couldn't find sources for 272Mt, 273Mt and some more.--Inspector (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
{{citation needed}}Put on 272Mt and 273Mt.--Inspector (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
@Nergaal: Is it really up-to-date? The halflives given there e.g. for Uut-285 and Uut-286 (apparently theoretical estimates) completely disagree with those given in Ununtrium, whcih are sourced by a 2010 Dubna paper. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Periodic table for B?

With the recent revamping of the periodic table by "some guy" named LarryMorseDCOhio, I feel that the periodic table is ready to be promoted to B-class. Any comments or concerns? FREYWA 18:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Closer but not yet. It still has {{cn}} tags, plus many interesting points are missing from History section, I'll add them to talk page of the article.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand what difference to the reader does it make - changing the letter C to B at the talk page :). Materialscientist (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Raistuumum

has just about exhausted our patience with him/her over the Mt/Ds/Rg/Cn issue. (You know the drill: he/she sees a periodic table with Mt/Ds/Rg uncoloured, proceeds to colour them as transition metals, gets reverted, reverts back, and then uncolours Mt/Ds/Rg/Cn. Not sure what they are trying to do.) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Lanthanum

CRC Handbook from 1968 states that 25% of REE consumption goes into carbon lightning applications. We copy this statement and others like an article doi:10.1143/JPSJ.70.1825 from 2001 copies this without questioning it. Does any body know if Hollywood is still using carbon arc lamps or if they switched to xenon arc lamps a long time ago?-- Stone (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I was perusing the rare earth element articles and found that the lanl address used as a source has changed from http://periodic.lanl.gov/elements/(element#).html to http://periodic.lanl.gov/(element#).shtml. I've updated the promethium and samarium discussion pages. Is there a way to automate the updating? If not I volunteer to do the rest of the rare earths.Wikimedes (talk) 09:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably could be semi-automated with WP:AWB, or definitely a simple one-time task to request a bot to do. There are currently only 139 pages with links to /elements/ URLs including talk-pages and other discussions, so not a big task overall. DMacks (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Echo that - I knew that url change for quite some time and updated manually when editing something else in an article, not on purpose (the trick is off course not to forget about this LANL issue :-). Materialscientist (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I just updated a few more, then put in a request for DeadLinkBOT to do the rest.Wikimedes (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
DeadLinkBOT (talk · contribs) is dead, since 2009, as the name might imply :) Materialscientist (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
It looks like DeadLinkBOT (talk · contribs) and ThaddeusB (talk · contribs) have been back since Feb11 (or maybe just during Feb11?), but I went and updated the rare earth lanl links anyway. Wikimedes (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Source drought

I'm now trying to add references to the periodic table to prep it for PR. There is a problem however: the most obvious things (like "the f-block houses the lanthanides and actinides") are actually under-referenced in papers and journals, because they are widespread facts. I'm here because the inclusion criteria is not widespread facts but sources. Anyone willing to help? FREYWA 18:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If not in papers and journals, then well in books, e.g. Googlebooks. Per WP:Primary, books are always preferred to journals anyway. Materialscientist (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Scientific_citation_guidelines? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Spectral lines

Why do some elements have their spectral lines in the infoboxes and others not?? (You may want to check out http://gotexassoccer.com/elements/Spectra/index.htm, based on data from the CRC Handbook of Physics and Chemistry.) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Elements (up to fermium, as it's not reasonable to expect to find the rest) you won't find spectral lines for there: B, At, Fr, Fm. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Will someone add the spectrum for F to the F article? Either in the infobox as per Oxygen (looks nice), or if it is a larger pic, like in the link above, we can just add it in article (need a little discussion then, though).TCO (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

GA reviews

Hey there! I notice that you haven't commented at all on my review on potassium. Would you kindly comment? Please leave them in the Comments section I have prepared for you. By the way, please help find references for the remaining [citation needed] tags as I want all the statements to be verified before I send this for peer review. FREYWA 05:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The explanation is simple - the nominator, Lanthanum-138 (talk · contribs), is on wikibreak since 9 June. In any case, your comments will not be wasted, and I'll address them when time permits. Materialscientist (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

A-class

I'd love to re-rate all our A-class back to Bs (maybe except from actinide). WP:A? says there should be some kinda multi-reviewer assessment, and even more — an A should be close to FA, not a GA, and re-ratings of carbon and potassium on the ground they're close to GAs seems kinda stupid. Some other WikiProjects use Bplus-class ratings (which you're free to create) for such things, but not A. I'm reverting them back to B.

By the way, what about A-class (re-)creation? I've wanted to suggest it about a couple of months. Originally thought to be slightly higher than GA-class (and yes, I know the difference, if you don't, check this), we could make a new A-class, which could be above GAs, unlike now. Maybe if anyone's interested in that, we could try to re-rate some of our GAs/Bs, to create a new class of high quality. Possibly if not ourselves, we could stick to some larger project?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. My idea some time ago was to use WP:PR to determine A class status. Implementing B+ as a means to tag articles that are almost ready for GAN is a great idea. --mav (reviews needed) 02:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Well A-class is hardly used around here anyway. But my point is: between GA and FA, is there really such big a difference that warrants a separate class? If yes, then I'm OK with the new A-class: if not, then I think there's no real need for this. (I don't know, but since you've helped fluorine so much on its way from C to GA/FA, you ought to be able to tell me.) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
My thinking is that: the current ratings distinguish the OK articles into "B-class" (not ready for GA, and will not be ready for some time) and "A-class" - or "B+-class" if you wish - (not quite ready for GA, but soon will be). The more conventional "A-class" is (not quite ready for FA, but soon will be), but I don't think there's a need for that, most of our articles went from GA to FA without any need for a separate in-between level. So I don't really see the need for this. I think our A-class serves a more useful purpose in showing us which ones we should aim for GA quickly. It's been like that for some years now and it's been fine. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 06:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Also "there should be some kinda multi-reviewer assessment" Was there such things for all these articles once listed as A's? Also might want to check how an A-class evolves:
Uuo A --> GA --> FA
Pu A --> FA
Rn B --> A --> GA
C B --> A --> B --> A
O B --> A --> GA --> FA
S B --> A --> B --> C
Se B --> A --> B --> C --> B
Al B --> A --> C --> B
Cu GA --> A --> B --> GA
Mn B --> A --> GA
Ni B --> A --> GA
Ag B --> A --> B
Pt B --> C --> B --> A --> B --> GA
Au B --> A --> B
Co B --> C --> B --> A --> GA
Rb B --> C --> Start --> B --> A --> B --> GA
Sm Start --> B --> C --> Start --> B --> A --> GA
Pa Start --> B --> A --> GA
Cm B --> C --> Start --> B --> A --> GA
Bk Start --> Stub --> C --> B --> A --> GA
Cf B --> Start --> C --> B --> A --> GA
Es Start --> B --> Start --> C --> Start --> B --> A --> GA
F B --> C --> A --> GA
An C --> A
Rf Start --> B --> A --> GA
K B --> C --> B --> A
So most A's make it to GA's, and if they don't, usually they degrade rather than go up to FA's. I think this shows that currently the rating system is all right as it stands. --Lanthanum-138 (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Let's discuss here first before doing anything drastic with the ratings. This would certainly be a major change, if it were to be adopted. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I would agree that the conventional A (between GA and FA) does require a multi-reviewer assessment, but I don't think the current one does. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
In my analysis above I forgot Ir, V, Zn. But that's quite enough :-) --Lanthanum-138 (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The "A"-class is mostly due to WP:CHEMISTRY's hatred of FA and GAs. As far as I'm concerned, let's re-rate all A-class to B-class, and let's let WP:CHEMISTRY worry about their ratings. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It still would be useful to have something to mark articles as close to being ready for a GAN. That is why I like the idea of having a B+, which can be done unilaterally like any sub-A rating. A class should require multi-user input, even if we choose not to use it much in practice (although I will in conjunction with pre-FA PRs). --mav (reviews needed) 23:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
B-class is not that far from GA condition to have both B+ and A before GA. Articles that are B but not GA-worthy should be B, and GA-worthy Bs should be B+. On the other hand, the gap between GA and FA is great — see helium (FA) and neon (GA). More than that, A isn't right between GA and FA — the concepts for GA and A are different. When an article is of B-class, it has two ways to go — first one is adding info to bring it to FA-worthy condition in sense of info the article contains (to get an A) and then clean-up for minor grammar, refs formatting and similar things to aim FA. The another one is first such clean-up and only then adding info (for which both B—GA—FA and B—GA—A—FA scenarios are possible).
The list of examples you've given is not very useful — I believe that most of downgrades of our As come from that they aren't A-worthy in sense of the whole Wikipedia and thus re-rated (which allows both downrates by both project and non-project users). And actually, you're saying my system won't work because it was didn't work before when it had another meaning (it was used as pre-GA rather than pre-FA).
And finally, my suggestion doesn't break the working system — A-class is to be replaced by Bplus-class; at the same time, A-class will be of higher standard than now--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Nod. Use B+ for articles that at least one project member thinks is close to being ready for GAN and use A class for articles that a multi-member assessment agree adheres to A-class standards and thus are close to being ready for FAC. But, of course, neither assessment is a mandatory prerequisite to GAN or FAC. --mav (reviews needed) 22:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
While I'm here, I would just say what I think - that there is no use wasting time on polishing ratings. (i) We have two global ranks - GA and FA, those are kept up to standards (more or less - some old GAs are actually not). A,B,C is decided by a quick look by one, maybe sometimes 2-3 project members, i.e. it is just a superficial opinion (no check of content, reliability of sources, etc.), not a review. We could make it a review, but I think this would be redundant to GA/FA reviews. PR might be a ground for ranking, I just don't know whether it is kept up to any standard. I believe primary is quality - working with editors (often anons) who provide constructive criticism; rating (even GA/FA) is secondary, and there is so much work to do actually (look at lanthanides, thorium, etc. - improve them instead of re-rating!). Many of our articles needs systematic expansion efforts, not just patching. Materialscientist (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually improving articles should always be our number one goal, of course. But that should not prevent us from spending a small amount of time improving our workflow tracking, which will also make our ratings more standards compliant. --mav (reviews needed) 06:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree. By the way, wouldn't anyone try to add Bplus-class? I tried but failed. At least we could reserve such a possibility--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Hm. I just tried and it failed for me too. Anybody know which projects use B+? Once we find that out, we can figure out how they get B+ to work. --mav (reviews needed) 01:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
There are two projects (I thought there are way more): WP Maths and WP Statistics. The first one tells me not to. The second hasn't replied yet. BTW, I've retouched Maths thing. It's here: User:R8R Gtrs/WP, and it supports B+. Maybe replace our current thing with it?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Hate to be too fast, but that's the point. I seem to understand it now. A look will be taken tomorrow--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I really don't like that there three my comments in a row, but who cares — I did it! Bplus-class is added. So, revert it if you want, but all current A-class articles get B+.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

<-Outdent: Cool - I like it. We can now reserve A class for articles that have had some type of multi-user review. --mav (reviews needed) 11:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem - I'll add the colouring for B+ to the PTQ. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Oops, I missed that it's already there. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Subject bars

Hi, I recently added the {{Subject bar}} template to Hydrogen and Astatine, and I was just wondering if use of this template across all element articles would be beneficial. I think it's a great way to make the chemistry portal and periodic table books readily accessible. --Gyrobo (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles

As of June 22, 2011, half of our element articles are good or featured. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Books progress table

To create books, simply click on the "Create a book" link, which can be found in the "print/export" toolbox on the left of your screen. See Help:Books if you need help, or just drop be a line if you are still confused/unsure of yourself. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Number Element Book Reviewed?[1] Expanded?[2] Well-linked?[3]
1 Hydrogen Book:Hydrogen Yes Yes Yes (main, cat)
2 Helium Book:Helium Yes Yes Yes (main, cat)
3 Lithium Book:Lithium Yes Yes Yes (main, cat)
4 Beryllium Book:Beryllium Yes Yes Yes (main, cat)
5 Boron Book:Boron No No No (main, cat)
6 Carbon Book:Carbon No No No (main, cat)
7 Nitrogen Book:Nitrogen No No No (main, cat)
8 Oxygen Book:Oxygen No No No (main, cat)
9 Fluorine Book:Fluorine No No No (main, cat)
10 Neon Book:Neon No No No (main, cat)
11 Sodium Book:Sodium No No No (main, cat)
12 Magnesium Book:Magnesium No No No (main, cat)
13 Aluminium Book:Aluminium Yes Yes Yes (main, cat)
14 Silicon Book:Silicon No No No (main, cat)
15 Phosphorus Book:Phosphorus No No No (main, cat)
16 Sulfur Book:Sulfur No No No (main, cat)
17 Chlorine Book:Chlorine No No No (main, cat)
18 Argon Book:Argon Yes Yes Yes (main, cat)
19 Potassium Book:Potassium No No No (main, cat)
20 Calcium Book:Calcium No No No (main, cat)
21 Scandium Book:Scandium No No No (main, cat)
22 Titanium Book:Titanium No No No (main, cat)
23 Vanadium Book:Vanadium No No No (main, cat)
24 Chromium Book:Chromium No No No (main, cat)
25 Manganese Book:Manganese No No No (main, cat)
26 Iron Book:Iron No No No (main, cat)
27 Cobalt Book:Cobalt No No No (main, cat)
28 Nickel Book:Nickel No No No (main, cat)
29 Copper Book:Copper No No No (main, cat)
30 Zinc Book:Zinc No No No (main, cat)
31 Gallium Book:Gallium No No No (main, cat)
32 Germanium Book:Germanium No No No (main, cat)
33 Arsenic Book:Arsenic No No Yes (main, cat)
34 Selenium Book:Selenium No No No (main, cat)
35 Bromine Book:Bromine No No No (main, cat)
36 Krypton Book:Krypton No No No (main, cat)
37 Rubidium Book:Rubidium No No No (main, cat)
38 Strontium Book:Strontium No No No (main, cat)
39 Yttrium Book:Yttrium No No No (main, cat)
40 Zirconium Book:Zirconium No No No (main, cat)
41 Niobium Book:Niobium No No No (main, cat)
42 Molybdenum Book:Molybdenum No No No (main, cat)
43 Technetium Book:Technetium No No No (main, cat)
44 Ruthenium Book:Ruthenium No No No (main, cat)
45 Rhodium Book:Rhodium No No No (main, cat)
46 Palladium Book:Palladium No No No (main, cat)
47 Silver Book:Silver No No No (main, cat)
48 Cadmium Book:Cadmium No No No (main, cat)
49 Indium Book:Indium No No No (main, cat)
50 Tin Book:Tin No No No (main, cat)
51 Antimony Book:Antimony Yes Yes Yes (main, cat)
52 Tellurium Book:Tellurium No No No (main, cat)
53 Iodine Book:Iodine No No No (main, cat)
54 Xenon Book:Xenon No No No (main, cat)
55 Caesium Book:Caesium No No No (main, cat)
56 Barium Book:Barium No No Yes (main, cat)
57 Lanthanum Book:Lanthanum No No No (main, cat)
58 Cerium Book:Cerium No No No (main, cat)
59 Praseodymium Book:Praseodymium No No No (main, cat)
60 Neodymium Book:Neodymium No No No (main, cat)
61 Promethium Book:Promethium No No No (main, cat)
62 Samarium Book:Samarium No No No (main, cat)
63 Europium Book:Europium No No No (main, cat)
64 Gadolinium Book:Gadolinium No No No (main, cat)
65 Terbium Book:Terbium No No No (main, cat)
66 Dysprosium Book:Dysprosium No No No (main, cat)
67 Holmium Book:Holmium No No No (main, cat)
68 Erbium Book:Erbium No No No (main, cat)
69 Thulium Book:Thulium No No No (main, cat)
70 Ytterbium Book:Ytterbium No No No (main, cat)
71 Lutetium Book:Lutetium No No No (main, cat)
72 Hafnium Book:Hafnium No No No (main, cat)
73 Tantalum Book:Tantalum No No No (main, cat)
74 Tungsten Book:Tungsten No No No (main, cat)
75 Rhenium Book:Rhenium No No No (main, cat)
76 Osmium Book:Osmium No No No (main, cat)
77 Iridium Book:Iridium No No No (main, cat)
78 Platinum Book:Platinum No No No (main, cat)
79 Gold Book:Gold No No No (main, cat)
80 Mercury Book:Mercury No No No (main, cat)
81 Thallium Book:Thallium No No No (main, cat)
82 Lead Book:Lead No No No (main, cat)
83 Bismuth Book:Bismuth No No Yes (main, cat)
84 Polonium Book:Polonium No No No (main, cat)
85 Astatine Book:Astatine No No Yes (main, cat)
86 Radon Book:Radon No No No (main, cat)
87 Francium Book:Francium No No No (main, cat)
88 Radium Book:Radium No No No (main, cat)
89 Actinium Book:Actinium Yes Yes Yes (main, cat)
90 Thorium Book:Thorium No No No (main, cat)
91 Protactinium Book:Protactinium No No No (main, cat)
92 Uranium Book:Uranium No No No (main, cat)
93 Neptunium Book:Neptunium No No No (main, cat)
94 Plutonium Book:Plutonium No No No (main, cat)
95 Americium Book:Americium Yes Yes Yes (main, cat)
96 Curium Book:Curium No No No (main, cat)
97 Berkelium Book:Berkelium No No Yes (main, cat)
98 Californium Book:Californium No No No (main, cat)
99 Einsteinium Book:Einsteinium No No No (main, cat)
100 Fermium Book:Fermium No No No (main, cat)
101 Mendelevium Book:Mendelevium No No No (main, cat)
102 Nobelium Book:Nobelium No No No (main, cat)
103 Lawrencium Book:Lawrencium No No No (main, cat)
104 Rutherfordium Book:Rutherfordium No No No (main, cat)
105 Dubnium Book:Dubnium No No No (main, cat)
106 Seaborgium Book:Seaborgium No No No (main, cat)
107 Bohrium Book:Bohrium No No Yes (main, cat)
108 Hassium Book:Hassium No No No (main, cat)
109 Meitnerium Book:Meitnerium No No No (main, cat)
110 Darmstadtium Book:Darmstadtium No No No (main, cat)
111 Roentgenium Book:Roentgenium No No No (main, cat)
112 Copernicium Book:Copernicium No No No (main, cat)
113 Nihonium Book:Nihonium No No No (main, cat)
114 Flerovium Book:Flerovium No No No (main, cat)
115 Moscovium Book:Moscovium No No No (main, cat)
116 Livermorium Book:Livermorium No No No (main, cat)
117 Tennessine Book:Tennessine No No No (main, cat)
118 Oganesson Book:Oganesson No No No (main, cat)
Period Article Book Reviewed Expanded Well-linked
1 Period 1 element Book:Period 1 elements No No No (main, cat)
2 Period 2 element Book:Period 2 elements No No No (main, cat)
3 Period 3 element Book:Period 3 elements No No No (main, cat)
4 Period 4 element Book:Period 4 elements No No No (main, cat)
5 Period 5 element Book:Period 5 elements No No No (main, cat)
6 Period 6 element Book:Period 6 elements No No No (main, cat)
7 Period 7 element Book:Period 7 elements No No No (main, cat)
8 Period 8 element Book:Period 8 elements No No No (main, cat)
Group Article Book Reviewed Expanded Well-linked
1 Group 1 element Book:Group 1 elements No No No (main, cat)
2 Group 2 element Book:Group 2 elements No No No (main, cat)
3 Group 3 element Book:Group 3 elements No No No (main, cat)
4 Group 4 element Book:Group 4 elements No No No (main, cat)
5 Group 5 element Book:Group 5 elements No No No (main, cat)
6 Group 6 element Book:Group 6 elements No No No (main, cat)
7 Group 7 element Book:Group 7 elements No No No (main, cat)
8 Group 8 element Book:Group 8 elements No No No (main, cat)
9 Group 9 element Book:Group 9 elements No No No (main, cat)
10 Group 10 element Book:Group 10 elements No No No (main, cat)
11 Group 11 element Book:Group 11 elements No No No (main, cat)
12 Group 12 element Book:Group 12 elements No No No (main, cat)
13 Group 13 element Book:Group 13 elements No No No (main, cat)
14 Group 14 element Book:Group 14 elements No No No (main, cat)
15 Group 15 element Book:Group 15 elements No No No (main, cat)
16 Group 16 element Book:Group 16 elements No No No (main, cat)
17 Group 17 element Book:Group 17 elements No No No (main, cat)
18 Group 18 element Book:Group 18 elements No No No (main, cat)
  1. ^ AKA made sure nothing's wrong with the book, and that it has a picture
  2. ^ AKA checked for additional articles (discoverers, important chemical processes, ...)
  3. ^ {{Wikipedia-Books|Element}} should at the least be present in element's article, isotopes of element's article, and in the element's category.

See also

Note:Need to change element 112 name to copernicium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemicalinterest (talk • contribs) 16:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Still working on this... --mav (reviews needed) 03:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Finished creating all the books up to 112 (no pics) and marking the talkpages. Nergaal (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Groups (and periods) should be added too. Nergaal (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't archive yet. --mav (reviews needed) 19:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Bump. --mav (reviews needed) 02:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Preemptive bump. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 06:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

All the books have been created. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I just created for convenience. I also create a few remaining books on periods, groups, actinides, lanthanides, etc... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Table references

Having an r link at the bottom of the infobox to a Wikipedia namespace page that itself lists other links to wiki-editable values does not a reference make. Adding cites right after each value in the table, as was done with fluorine, makes the table harder to read, and, IMO, ugly. I therefore created a mock-up at User:Mav/Sandbox, which replaces the easy to miss r link with a [Table references] link, that goes to a ===Table references=== subjection under ==References==. Any suggestions for improvement? Note that, by default, nothing will change for any article. Only when a new template is edited for a particular inobox will the new format become live for that infobox. --mav (reviews needed) 23:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

r was my personal initiative, and I do not mind at all changing it. Most refs come from the page linked behind the r, unless overwritten by specific refs. On a first thought, I would rather support placing those refs into Chemical_elements_data_references and maintaining those files rather than abandoning them and creating new systems. I sort of abandoned fluorine not to conflict with FAC editors, but would actually support moving all those refs to Chemical_elements_data_references. Mav, your idea is to take specific refs and data out of Chemical_elements_data_references and place them into every individual article (experience tells, once these changes start, someone will go around and change all articles, "for uniformity"). Graphically, it looks unwieldy, as there should be many more lines to cover the entire infobox ("table" is ambiguous here - there could be other tables in the article). Materialscientist (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
An OK thing, but again, "table" may not be the only one in the table; more than that, I wouldn't even readily realize it's a table. Isn't the "infobox" word a Wikijargon? Maybe "opening table"? Also, why not expanding infobox down to include the refs? Like in Croatia, but without in-line citation?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
How about the below instead? We could either hard code the references into the master template or they could be parameters that need to be filled in on each infobox template page. References for vapor pressure and isotopes would be done via notes right below those blocks; this is already implemented for the isotopes. This way, we use the standard referencing system, have referenced infoboxes that won't prevent its article from being featured, and only uses some whitespace on the right of the infoox. --mav (reviews needed) 22:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Atomic properties ref
Oxidation states 2, 3, 4 [1]
Electronegativity 1.3 (Pauling scale) [2]
Ugh.. I am again on a run, but feel like to vent :-). The above table will eat too much width (because of different line lengths), which is already precious - on 1024x768 resolution, it is difficult to put any second image left to the (long) infobox, which is a handicap, because such images are often needed for the 1st subsection. After I wrote yesterday, I realized the whole problem, and am thinking about two solutions: (i) embrace all element articles as an entity and keep and maintain Chemical_elements_data_references as an integral part, or (ii) abandon Chemical_elements_data_references and copy all those refs into individual articles (as soon as they go to FAC or even GAN). If (ii), maybe there is no need to change anything in the standard reference system (e.g. as done in fluorine). The nuisance is to keep track of refs between the infobox and the article, but I would bear with it and not move the infobox into the article body. There might be some easy solution to put the infobox code at the bottom of the article code, but make the box display on top in the output (like "display=" in geocoordinates). Materialscientist (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Adding numbered references right next to numeric data in a table makes it a confusing mess. Some separation between the reference and the data is needed. With the exception of a couple fields that force STP values into the data area (something that needs to be fixed for other reasons), which fields would be made wider? From my view, nearly all feilds have plently of white space on the right. --mav (reviews needed) 12:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, your idea is to run the reference line between the red lines, that is within subsections, without crossing tables and the image - not adding a global column to the right of the box? Then the width might remain the same. You can foresee better whether this would be graphically Ok, and give it a try in sandbox. The only problem is this will be a global change, urging to fill up the refs for all elements. How about adding some global (CRC) refs to the parent infobox template as the default, with an option to overwrite them in the individual boxes? Often one CRC page reliably covers one property for all elements. This would save a lot of time. We can also ask help with coding when needed. Materialscientist (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

DOT hazard symbols

I corresponded with the DOT and verified that all of their hazard symbols are public domain. There are about 40 of them. Wonder if there is someone interested in uploading them? See [12]. TCO (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

P.s. I used the 4 signs for F transport in the F article and it came out very nice as a graphic to illustrate precautions. There is some other document that says what is required when. (Note, not advocating "how to" on transport. Just describing some aspects of usage, one of which is here.)TCO (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

GA review (again)

Hello there! I just would like you to know that I've found all the issues for Group 3 element. They are at the corresponding review page. See you there! FREYWA 09:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Should the main element article be the main repository of data on the isolated element, or not

This is a question that has to do with more than just style guidelines, as it threatens to be made a decission via the "style backdoor"

Here's the RFC

Element articles are usually NOT about the elemental forms

Following a discussion at Talk:phosphorus: The element articles are about the main source/use/history of anything containing the element as a dominant component, not the elemental form. About the uses of phosphorus, we dont want to delude readers into thinking that white or red phosphorus is very really dominant - that angle give undue weight to a relatively modest aspect. The content should instead reflect the fact that phosphorus mainly occurs and is used as oxides. The article on lithium, similarly, should not be mainly about lithium metal but about the minerals that are sources of Li+, the compounds of Li+, and the applications, which again are mainly Li+-containing materials. The manual of style for elements articles specifies:

1 Characteristics
1.1 Physical
1.2 Chemical
1.3 Isotopes
1.4 Occurrence
2 Production
3 Compounds
4 History
5 Applications
6 Biological role
7 Precautions

Sections 1.1 and 1.2 are allocated to the properties of the elemental form of the element. For some elements, say Ti, the dominant uses involve the elemental form (Ti metal), in which case #2 (production) and #5 (applications) would emphasize (but not exclusively describe) the production and use to Ti metal. Please let me know if these views do not reflect consensus. Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Since we do not presently have subarticles on the isolated element and its properties, for most elements, most of this info has been hitherto been put into the major element article, and that "work" done there. I think this reflects the expectation that most people would rather see the stuff on the isolated element in the main article ON the element (if it will fit), rather than in some spin-off. This tends to "overweight" articles on elements for which the elemental form is hardly ever used or even seen (say ytterbium), toward information on the isolated element which is actually rare. For elements like titanium and neon where the element is almost the only thing used industrially, it's not an issue. And yet I would not change it, simply because (again) people expect to see the element properties and uses HERE, if anywhere (this is how most encyclopedias do it). Only if uses of the element are very common and contain so much information as to need subarticles due to space limitation, should they be spun off (example: carbon).

That's only an opinion. It means that personally, I'm happy to see (say) most of the metallic lithium info and the pure elemental bromine info, in the main lithium and bromine articles, distributed in many sections, but compound uses spun off into other articles-- even though these are by far the most common uses for the element over all (> 75% for lithium and even more lop-sided for bromine). SBHarris 00:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think what we are doing is broadly right. I think we need to cover the base element properties even if it is usually part of a compound (and so if it has interesting allotropes we should cover that). For phosphorus, what is there (element and allotropes spinout) works ok, but I would prefer something like P and then spinouts to each allotrope individually (if we want to show more info). Similar for carbon, cover the allotropes at a summary level within the element article and then have spinouts to graphite and buckeyball and diamond, vice to an article on elemental carbon forms. But I don't feel strong enough about it to care much. main thing is what we do in the element article, not the spinout(s).TCO (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
In general, I don't like having an article on lithium as an element only in addition to the article, but I guess if someone got hard-core into metallurgical asptects, an article on just the solid form of elemental Li might make sense. I know for F, I may have a spinout on the solid form (there is an interesting phase change). But it really doesn't "hurt" the main article in any way.TCO (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking for a table of cosmological elemental abundance

I have found a decent Israili website that gives a table of abundance in the crust. But would like one for cosmological. Want the actual numbers, not the semilog chart. GnE says the chart comes from Cameron 1973 paper. Can probably use that for what I want (abundance of elements around F), but would hope maybe there is something new out there. Did not find a good table in Google scholar or in my oldish CRC.

[13]

TCO (reviews needed) 20:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

With the upcoming interview with The Signpost, I'm thinking: where's our logo? Some people say that it's our PTQ, but I want something unambigious. I'm thinking of something that looks like several letters coming together to form our project name. So we have W, P for WikiProject and for ELEMENTS we use PT for periodic table. Do you agree with this? FREYWA 03:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

PTQ is quite appropriate in my view. Polyamorph (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hah, OK. FREYWA 05:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

For a very long time we had our logo being the one we use in all the templates. I still like it.--Stone (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

PTQ is gorgeous. I do think that conceptually and visually, having "B+", may not be the best thing. I saw an interesting discussion over at FAC (or somewhere like that), that said really we should just have Stub, Start, GA, FA.
Maybe for a project like Mil-hist, that really has a system for A, it makes sense to keep that. Even then would change the name as it is confusing how the letters intermingle with words. And I think, maybe they need an A class more than we do. We are probably served fine by just GA and FA at the top levels. WRT, lower ranks, maybe "B" is a useful distinction, but even then changing the term would be useful. I think dwelling on the difference of a C and a B is not worth it, thus argue against having a B+ also.
All of this is very theoretical, though, so not worth sweating over. Let's just get everything to GA+ and these distinctions will be academic.
But continuing on the academic note...I think until you get to GA, you really don't have a real "article" yet. You might have some decent info in there...but you basically just have random scribblings by different people on a forum website. After GA, you've had one person take ownership of the article (said in the good sense, of responsibility) and integrated it front to back, and also had a review.TCO (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I think A and B+ are just markers saying "ready for FA" and "ready for GA" respectively. Those markers could be implemented without having to create separate classes, but perhaps as notes on the wikiproject page. (Btw, if you don't like the B+, the last B+ is at GAN anyway.) B-C distinctions are difficult to describe for me, but mainly, they are based on the quality and amount of information and references. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Observation

Amusingly, about 88.72% of our "articles" are not even articles. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, so what? Is this a concern to the project? Are the non-articles really redirects? I have no idea what you mean. See also K Foundation Burn a Million Quid. FREYWA 00:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Most of these are redirects, and most of those that are not redirects are categories and templates. Double sharp (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Period 8 element

Another stub falls. :-) How is it now? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't mav have to buy the house a drink now?

I thought that was the tradition when we turned an element blue?  ;) TCO (talk) 05:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Colours really matter when mulling over drinks.

Oh, you mean we really need a drink? Think sensibly! Mav is in the US and I'm in Singapore! FREYWA 10:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we ought to get Cf on the main page as a today's featured article! Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
If you ever have a layover in Atlanta, email beforehand and I will buy you a drink. :) --mav (reviews needed) 17:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Rare earth elements

  • Cerium length 22.7 kbytes. 11 Refs. A lot of sections lack references. The fact that Cerium(IV) is something special should be mentioned in the chemistry section not only in the compounds section.
  • Praseodymium length 16.0 kbytes. 12 Refs. Several sections lack references. Lead is 1 sentence.
  • Neodymium length 25.0 kbytes. 17 Refs. Several sections lack references.
  • Promethium length 16.3 kbytes. 17 Refs. Several sections lack references. Lead is 2 sentence.
  • Samarium length 52.9 kbytes. 81 Refs. GA
  • Europium length 32.9 kbytes. 43 Refs.
  • Gadolinium length 26.3 kbytes. 27 Refs.
  • Terbium length 16.8 kbytes. 11 Refs. A few of sections lack references.
  • Dysprosium length 25.3 kbytes. 34 Refs. GA
  • Holmium length 14.5 kbytes. 16 Refs.
  • Erbium length 17.8 kbytes. 14 Refs.
  • Thulium length 12.8 kbytes. 12 Refs.
  • Ytterbium length 20.9 kbytes. 21 Refs.

__Stone (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I did some work on europium lately so it might be a C or B now.--Stone (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Lanthanum length 27.1 kbytes. 28 Refs.
  • Lutetium length 17.7 kbytes. 24 Refs (+1 "Guide to the Elements" that is never cited).
Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Book:Nucleosynthesis

I created this early, but I'm certainly no expert on nucleosynthesis. It would be nice if people could take a glance at it (are there missing articles? does the structure of the book make sense? etc...) and leave feedback at Book talk:Nucleosynthesis . Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks impressive. I just know a bit from reading the refs on fluourine, which has tricky synthesis. Also, I went and got a copy of an article that had actual numbers (not just that graph in semilog). Don't think it helps you per se as I'm not planning on working those articles up.TCO (reviews needed) 21:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Color of helium when electricity is applied

See Talk:Helium#Glow color discrepancy --Cybercobra (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Highest oxidation states of elements osmium through mercury

This paper discusses highest oxidation states of Os through Hg (and briefly all other transition metals). The point is Os(VIII), even through known in OsO4, might be also possible in OsF8 (and OsF7 may exist, too — but currently the highest confirmed fluoride of osmium is only OsF6). Highest fluoride of iridium is IrF6, but IrF7 (and IrOF5) is likely, while IrF8 and IrF9 are not. Platinum highest known +6 is OK, but the claim on that Au(VII) exists is wrong and unlikely (as well as Au(VI)) — Au(V) is the highest. It also discusses that Hg(IV) is possible, even through we know it now — the paper comes from 2006. Which is even more, it mentions some Russian papers (which I tried to find but failed) that claim the following are possible: [IrIXO4]+, [IrVIIO4]-, [PtXO4]2+, PtVIIIO4, [AuIXO4]+, AuVIIF7, and HgVIIIO4 (claims on Ir(IX), Pt(X), Au(IX) and Hg(VIII) are intriguing, aren't they?). The German paper (the main subject, which is linked in the beginning) claims they're wrong, but who knows? Anyway, the German and Russian papers maybe worth including in the corresponding articles and/or transition metal and period 6 element. If anyone is interested, here's the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R8R Gtrs (talk • contribs) 19:09, 5 June 2011

Don't archive it now--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

C-class improvement

After the success of raising potassium from C to GA, I suggest we do that again with another element. How about sodium? Similar chemistry, and it brings us one step closer to a GT of Alkali metals. Or maybe nitrogen for Period 2 elements. What do you think? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's get this thing going!
Well OK, let's do both! But nitrogen takes higher priority, because after that goes to GA, the only thing left is the main article on the Period 2 elements. On the other hand, after sodium gets promoted, we wouldn't just need to promote the page on the alkali metals but (possibly) ununennium. What do you think? FREYWA 06:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
It is not certain if Uue is an alkali metal. Remember that Uuq doesn't seem to behave as a poor metal. Besides most of the article would end up being extrapolation as Uue has not been synthesised. So I think there is no real need to include Uue, but feel free to improve it as well. :-) Nitrogen would be slightly easier though since it's already B. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I think we can do both, though. Pick your favourite. (And maybe someday we'll get around to clearing out the Starts in the f-block.) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 08:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't we make a nicer table and move it to the main page?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Humour

Hello there! This post is just for laughs. First, I would like to point to this statement at the References section of the article about the Voyager Golden Record:

  • Originally based on public domain text from the NASA website, where selected images and sounds from the record can be found. However, much of the material from the Voyager records is available in compiled form only to extraterrestrials for copyright reasons.

Now THAT is a laugh. The next thing is that when I copyedited the page on induction motors. I left an Easter egg in the wikitext.

  • ...Many older DC motors have been replaced with THR induction motors and accompanying inverters in industrial applications.

The full stop links to an unexpected page. The same happened in Rydberg matter; those Easter eggs are in the references. Happy hunting! FREYWA 06:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


Please don't do that. That is not appropriate. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sulfur

I have actually added references to sulfur. Can somebody assess the article and check that it is ready for peer review? If not, point out any major issues. FREYWA 02:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Period 7 element

I just greatly expanded and improved Period 7 element, and am wondering if it can achieve start-class status now. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 03:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Database

We might want to have a database for the ratings of the elements (WP:ELEM/PTQ) or the pictures used for the elements (WP:ELEM/PIC), so that we no longer need to manually update them. Then again, it could be argued that this wouldn't show the history of our article development very well, but we do have the image version for that. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Astatine.jpg and File:Actinium.jpg

Are we sure that these are from the Justin Urgitis element collection? Apparently for the weird elements, the Justin Urgitis element collection takes other's pictures. See [14] and check the way-out radioactives like Rn or Fr. If not, then we might want to scan for alternate images.

I was always cautious about those two images and would support removing them, for one reason - I do not know what is shown there and how was it produced and the sources do not elaborate. Astatine is a very rare element with microgram qualities available. This can only be the film target irradiated by ions to produce At, i.e., it is likely some metal matrix with At on top, at best. There is also the question of why it is handled w/o gloves with all its radioactivity. Materialscientist (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Removed, tagged for deletion. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for deleting them so promptly! Lanthanum-138 (talk) 03:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the Fm entry in the periodic table of pictures has been changed to "Redirect" status. Fm metal has not yet been prepared (although it could be). Hence we only really need to worry about Pm and the status of the At and Ac images. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessment proposal

So, it seems to be finally agreed there should A-class that is multi-user assessed. So I propose the following: we'll create a separate subpage, like this (separately from Articles):

   Main        Guidelines & references        Templates        Articles
RC – Cleanup – Report 		       Proposals for reratings        Pictures        Isotopes        Members' area
WikiChem IRC 		     

On this page, I wanted to take care of A-articles, each having a subpage for a review. It's easy to organize and I wanted just to do it, but then I thought to enlarge the idea. I also thought to make all B-assessments clean and kept like GA ones, but for project members only, also there. As well as B → C moves... (I remember that WP:Military history has something similar...I saw it half a year ago there and remembered. But it could be cool to have all Stone's B-class reviews (and similar) of the future in one place, near A-ones, making the assessment more clear BTW (I don't expect it to last weeks like GANs... An hour is enough))

If none disagrees, I'll do it on Friday or Saturday (because then I leave for about a month, well, slightly less).--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's my view of it: User:R8R Gtrs/Higher assessment proposal. Anyone is free to comment. Also, we need A-class criteria. I suggest stealing these from WP:MIL, their criteria are good.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 09:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the current approach of allowing B class, and even Bplus, be up to individual members and w/o a separate page. But A class really should be documented and accepted by more than one person and your proposal is fine in that regard. So a separate page makes sense there as well as a WAR note in the article history. But everything else, B, Bplus, C, start and stub, works fine as is and are really only informal methods of assessment to help workflow. --mav (reviews needed) 02:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
OK. I never thought to insist on B-review, but it was interesting what reaction this could bring. Anyway, released here. --R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Group 12 Element

I've recently decided to further expand and copyedit the article Group 12 element to GA-class and make a good topic out of it. Can anyone else suggest what else is needed and how this article may be further improved? Tarret talk 00:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Terbium

OK, now for my next target. It is the article that is mentioned at the top of this section. Earlier, Lanthanum-138 mentioned that one day we may get around to clearing the Start-class articles in the f-block. There are six such articles there. Of these, the one that looks most promising to me is terbium because it has the largest prose size (1519 words). Who supports me? FREYWA 03:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Cerium doesn't seem that worthy of its rating either. The best lanthanide articles we have are samarium and dysprosium: we could take these as goals...? It looks like a good idea. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it matters until you get to GA.TCO (reviews needed) 22:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Asking me, I don't see a reason to move lanthanides to GAs now... the first thing we should think of is de-starting, to get C or B (optimal). GA is too far away. Take the next element instead, make yourself more useful. To Freywa: yes, do it. Having a GA as a plan may be useful. Go ahead and make it a B, and think yourself what to do next (the best is taking cerium or anything else)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Besides, why is it Start at all? It has some text, structure, and only lacks (greatly) refs--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

A-class review

For your wikiproject's A-class review, do you have to be a member of the wikiproject to participate? Yankeesrule3 (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that limiting to WP's members may be useful. Consider you don't have to, at least because it is not specified. After all, comments from anyone are useful.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

B+ class

For some reason the usage of B+ class breaks the automatic reports, see here:

http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&projecta=Chemical_elements

Notice that Sn, Eu and Ac, which are B+ class, are listed as "NotA Class" or "--- Class".

Also notice that articles at B+ are ordered as the lowest rating, rather than between B and GA. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 07:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the way to deal with this is to phase out B+ class now that A-class has shifted to the usual quality scale. DrKiernan (talk) 08:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Group 3 element

Yet another possible GT we're 1 article away from. Just the problem is bordering: Sc-Y-La-Ac, Sc-Y-Lu-Lr, and Sc-Y-lanthanide-actinide. I myself want to promote the second variant, which was actually why I moved lutetium to GA. However, I realize that we'd better discuss it here, than on the FTC page. So I wish to use my alternative as it follows Aufbau principle and no details. All the long discussions, all the complicated arguments I wish to cut with this, as they would be the "details". I myself can give a ton of arguments why Lu/Lr as a reply on your pro-La/Ac insinuations.

What I want is the policy on this (or just consensus), and maybe help with the topic. Also, shouldn't we add it to short-term goals? Thanks--R8R Gtrs (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

One cannot just arbitrarily choose which set of articles make a topic; all three of your article-sets are possibilities so all those articles in each set need to meet good topic criteria. --mav (reviews needed) 01:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I possibly wrote not what I meant; I don't pretend to. I just gave off my thoughts (I was in a bad mood, but it's no excuse).
Seriously? (Nothing bad is meant, I'm just surprised) So, do we have to include 9 articles (Sc-Y-La-Ln-Lu-Ac-An-Lr + the main)? OK, maybe, but I'm just not sure... Shouldn't we consult guys who focus on WP:FTQ or alike?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Wait, this makes no sense to me. If we mean that all the lanthanides may be group 3 elements, don't we then need to promote all the lanthanides (and actinides) to GA separately, rather than the overview articles? Also, even though it doesn't strictly define so, the main article uses the Sc-Y-Lu-Lr as the main grouping. I don't know.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

GAN of Tin

Is it still ongoing or is it over? The reviewer was awfully quiet in the last weeks.--Stone (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It's stuck. I think I'll overtake it closer to the weekend if there won't be much work on my FAC.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Project steering

Even with my (quite long) leave from Wikipedia to pursue other stuff, some things have not changed. What is there to improve on now? FREYWA 09:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently working on silicon at User:Yankeesrule3/Sandbox. If you have any input for me, please tell me since it is my first article that I am really pushing on. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
One thing which has long been on my to do list is to fix the phrase in the lead on "Silicon is widely used in semiconductors because ..". This whole issue is subject to speculations and can be omitted, but a correction would be interesting. "remains more of a semiconductor at higher temperatures than the semiconductor germanium" is plain wrong - Ge is no competitor anymore. What I've heard is this is not about electronic properties of Si at all, but the technology (of purifying, controlling properties and growing oxide) has been perfected and made cheap. In other words, technology giants don't want to switch, e.g. to GaAs, mainly for global commercial reasons. Materialscientist (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I was planning on saving the lead until I get the rest of the article formatted, but I will definitely do this when I get to it. Thanks for the input! Yankeesrule3 (talk) 03:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not about GaAs, but about semiconductors made of plain old (slightly) doped germanium, in just the way that they dope Si. Probably nobody here is old enough to remember germanium transistors, but they were quite common in the old days-- in fact all the first transistors were germanium. Any semiconductor device will fail if you heat it to a hot enough temperature as there is an avalanche effect around PN junctions. Germanium fails at just 75 C and has a lot of leakage current. [15] Silicon fails at much higher temps (around 150 C) and has less leakage. When it comes to IC manufacture, the oxide of silicon is not water soluble but germanium oxide is, so an important manufacturing step possible with Si doesn't work with Ge, and that's why ICs basically have always been silicon. Anyway, the lede as it was had the right idea. Germanium single semiconductor devices are indeed far more temperature and power sensitive. SBHarris 08:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Correct but outdated and thus belongs in history sections of electronics articles (not lede of silicon). Yes, there was a time when competition between Si and Ge was important (and I still remember that :-) but this does not reflect the situation of the recent decades. Materialscientist (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's a matter of taste. First, ledes do contain history, as a summary of straight history of element discovery. However, ledes summarize questions of "why," so that a straight recitation of facts is not so dry, and sticks in the mind. Gold is extensively used in electrical contacts because it's the cheapest element that is very conductive and doesn't oxidize. Somebody discovered that once, but it's not "ancient history" unless you include the discovery details. The main source of helium is gas wells. Why? Because it's made down there by alpha decay. Somebody discovered THAT, but it's not history unless you say who and when. Semiconductor use IS the largest use for (really pure) elemental silicon. But why? what makes silicon the best stuff for that? Well, it can take far more heat and power than the best competitor germanium, and it has an insoluble oxide. That's not history unless you include historical details.

Incidentally, the lede on Si should include that it's not a semiconductor in the pure state, but only when doped. I meant to fix that. SBHarris 18:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, all correct, but. My point is that Ge is not "the best competitor" to Si. It was just the material available for the very first laboratory experiments on semiconducting devices, and thus made its way to the early industry (SiC LEDs were also mass produced at some point in Russia because of the early research of the 1900s on electroluminescence of SiC). BTW, lab. research on Ge has always been rather limited (dopant characterization, etc.). I don't remember how the pure Si is classed, but you might need multiple references that it is not a semiconductor. Its intrinsic resistance (0.3 MΩ·cm) is somewhere in between. Materialscientist (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I have since seen "semiconductor" better defined as a material that depends for conduction not on conduction band electrons, but rather upon free electrons matched by holes in crystal, all as supplied by thermal energy. So they all have positive thermal conduction coefficients (their resistance drops the hotter they get, whereas the opposite is true of metals). Thus, semiconductors are all insulators at absolute zero, which Si and Ge are, but true metals obviously are not (some metals are superconductors at very low temps, though interestingly some of the best metallic conductors are not). Anyway, yes, by this definition, pure Si is certainly a semiconductor, whether doped or not, so I retract that idea. SBHarris 01:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The trick is that two major effects compete for resistivity in Si: thermal generation across a relatively wide band gap and decreasing with temperature carrier mobility. Thus in some articles, Si resistance actually increases upon heating from 300 K (purity is a factor, as this behavior might depend on the degree of donor-acceptor compensation). But I agree that pure Si is rather a semiconductor than anything else. Materialscientist (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Silicon

I am thinking about joining the project soon, but before I do, I want to get at least one article upgrade significantly. I think silicon is ready to be a B-class article, but I want someone from the project who has more experience than me to upgrade it, simply because I do not have much experience at the moment and do not exactly know what qualifies in this project as B-class. I was wondering if silicon should be B-class now that I cleaned up its many awkward sentences and other grammar, or if it still needs more work in order to be a B-class. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I put a review onto the silicon talk page today. --Stone (talk) 08:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
The things of the review is more like for a GA than for a B-Class, but some things like omissions and missing references in whole sections have to be corrected before we go to B-Class for the article. --Stone (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible vandalism? Legit edits?

Some IP changed some entries in the island of stability article (see [16]). I reverted, out of precaution, but it's possible the edits make sense. I personally have no idea, so if someone could check this and see if it should have been reverted, that would be great. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Slight inconsistency

While looking over Alkali metal, I noticed a slight inconsistence with Noble gas. In alkali metal, it does not include Hydrogen as an alkali metal, but in noble gas, it does include Ununoctium, even though it is likely that ununoctium does not exhibit properties of noble gases. Should this be fixed, or am I missing something? Yankeesrule3 (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed noble gas, leaving alkali metal open for discussion - its lead clarifies the inclusion. Materialscientist (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

redirect pages for isomers

Using the new redlink recovery tool, I stumbled upon a red link to the isomer of niobium, Nb-93m. (The link was in activation product.) I had the tool server create a re-direct page (Niobium-93m which redirects to isotopes of niobium. I am not certain if that was the best thing to do, though. For one I am uncertain about the notation of the m. (I am more familiar with using an asterisk or star.) For another, I am uncertain of its notability, even for a redirect. Whoever composed the table in activation product thought it fit to include it in its limited list, though, which is why I created the redirect page. Your thoughts would be welcome, since I am certain that I will run across other isomers and I would like to know what the best practice is. Thanks.TStein (talk) 03:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

List of important publications in chemistry at AfD

List of important publications in chemistry has been nominated for deletion. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in chemistry.  --Lambiam 22:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sodium and potassium

I edited substantial aspects of sodium and potassium. Sometimes I can appear to be a pushy editor, but if others have concerns, please say something and I will go back and re-edit. Comments on the themes/opinions that I am trying to re-emphasize:

  • The metallic elements are of modest importance (almost none for K), although we all recognize the significance of expounding on the nature of elementts. So while it is understandable if the articles emphasize the metals (this is the only article to do so), we want readers to be mindful of the fact that it is the compounds that are of dominant(!) interest.
  • I tried to slightly prioritize the commercial apps by listing the main uses in descending order. The caveat here is that just because something is used on a small scale does not mean that the item is not notable. The main challenge with compounds of Na+ and K+ is that there are so many uses. Also, if not managed, the apps section can degenerate to the level of ultra niche-y uses. At least in my opinion.
  • solutions of these ions consist of aquo complexes for the most part, not just naked Na+.

But again, if editors are slightly alarmed or worried, then say so, and I will try to address problems I might have introduced tomorrow.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The primary topic page for FE, Fe and fe

Does really Fe have to redirect to Iron? Ca, Hg, or Pb do not redirect to Calcium, Mercury (element) or Lead, for example. —  Ark25  (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. You have a point. Since there are two of us, I'll try to fix this unless we get massive objections from others. SBHarris 02:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Please discuss change in Fe at Talk:Fe. "Fe" might have a primary topic when "Hg" doesn't, for example. If the new consensus is that "Fe" no longer has a primary topic, Fe (disambiguation) will need to be moved to the base name, otherwise it's WP:MALPLACED. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Vote (everybody, please go to TALK:Fe for this.

My redirect of the redirect has been revertd by JHunter. Okay, everybody: iron (element) is now the primary topic for iron. But (question) should iron (element) be the primary topic for Fe? Personally, I say:

  • No. For that automatically makes iron (element) the primary topic for FE and fe also. I think Fe should be handled as are all the other two-letter symbols which may happen to stand for chemical elements, but (in other forms and other capitalizations) may stand for many other things also. Examples given above. The capitalization problem is the root of this discussion. If you make the element the primary topic for the symbol, you make it the primary topic for any two-letter combination. Fe must direct to the same page as FE, so that (as it is) FE and fe must primarily direct to iron (element) also, even though FE and fe are never used as a symbol for iron. I suggest that that is not a good thing. As a policy, for this reason, I think that two-letter wiki pages should NEVER direct primarily to the chemical element, but instead, always to a dab page. SBHarris 20:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Analysis on quality

One slide on WP:elements in the section called "some high importance efforts".

PowerPoint: Wikipedia's poor treatment of its most important articles

69.255.27.249 (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice to read and it makes me feel happy. The blue periodic table is still a good way in the future, the all green one I will observe myself and not my grandchilds. --Stone (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You are a rock! RetiredUser12459780 (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

My views and responses on the subject are here. Much easier for me to make this a link than to cross-post same text to multiple areas! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

RecentChangesLinked

I noticed a problem with the recent changes tab on the top of the page. The category that it links to changes for does not include the supporting articles such as the groups and periods. I propose we instead link the recentchangeslinked to WP:ELEM/PTQ. This would ensure that all articles covered by our project are in the recentchanges. If no one objects to this, I will change it in a couple days. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Why not use this one? Recent Changes. If any page is missing it is easy to add at User:Stone/PSE,--Stone (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Looks great. Changed. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Do you think that we should move this to project space? It could also just serve as a nice list of articles for us to have. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to move it. I created it because some articles in the scope of the project did not show up in the recent changes list.--Stone (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Sample ref 1
  2. ^ Sample ref 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements/Archive_11&oldid=1252148533"