Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Standard PT legends

I am working on standard legends for all of the periodic tables we have. At the moment, they have different appearences. I aim to give them the same look-and-feel. In the near future, on a PT page we can choose from a list of legend themes (category, occurrence, valence, ...). Also, the presence of fields like "Unknown" is optional. One example is in {{Periodic table/sandbox}} (compare {{Periodic table}}). The all-up list is at User:DePiep/sandbox1, with various variants demo in User:DePiep/sandbox1. Any remarks? -DePiep (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Examples:

{{Periodic table legend
|child=no 
|caption=Example legend (black borders)
|theme1=block|predicted1=yes|sa1=yes|eka-sa1=no|unknown1=yes}}

Any comments? -DePiep (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I like the white borders. Also perhaps 'Unknown properties' would be more apt than 'Unknown chemical properties'? Sandbh (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I also prefer the white borders, but am not quite satisfied. I think some improvement could be found by tweaking the three labels in the chart that are not associated with a specific color: metal, nonmetal and inner transition metal. What would be ideal is if these had a white background but had brackets or arrows or something to indicate which subcategories are included. Just a thought. YBG (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed the word "chemical" everywhere as Sandbh suggested.

re YBG: The signing you mention should be clear from the structure first. That is why I tried the black lines: they stress the buildup of the subcategories. Adding more text to explain that (like arrows or brackets) would fill the already crowded block. I don't think that would be a clarification. -DePiep (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

After consideration, I deployed {{Periodic table legend}} to {{Periodic table}} (in Periodic table: article space). -DePiep (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not real stuck on the brackets or arrows, but I do think that having no color (white) for these categories would be helpful. We already have lots and lots of colors here. Whatever the border color, eliminating the color that is not actually used in the PT would be helpful. YBG (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"Unknown": wording and meaning

Double sharp asked me to change back to wording unknown chemical properties with plain argument: [1]. (background: I changed it after this suggestion). I think indeed adding "chemical" is correct as Ds writes. But may I add this: when in "category legend" (metallic trend), we only need the singular: "unknown property", because it is about the category only (so it means like "category property unknown". Am I correct? -DePiep (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Even though I'm not sure if metallicity is a property rather than a combination of properties like ionization energy and lattice energy, I would go with "unknown property" (and also with white borders), as a personal preference.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

In the metallishness details I am out of my depth. But about the grammar: R8R says it depends on multiple properties, and ends up with the singular? Personal preference is not relevant, we should be able to describe it based on a rational base.

About white borders (meaning "occurrence unknown"): I found a white border undistinguishable from the basic table background (a light grey). It looked like the colored cell was just a bit smaller than the dark bordered ones, as a graphic irregularity. So I introduced the "no border" for this. Now the cells look regular in size, and the legend explains it without confusion, I'd say. -DePiep (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, you're right, rational basis it is.

I would call shininess a property even if it is a combination of a few other properties. The chemical property article lists another non-elementary property chemical stability. It seems it's okay that there are general properties depending on other, more elementary problems.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The point of the "unknown" is that it has not been classified into one of the color-coded categories, either by observation (the solid colors) or by prediction (the pale colors). How about "Not classified" or "Not predicted" or "Category not yet predicted" or "Element classification not yet predicted" or something like that? YBG (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

"unknown ..." means: thing is not known at all. If it were unknown, but predicted x, it would have a pale color (e.g., Uue: alkali metal, predicted). Subtly the grey "unknown props" (under discussion) area, is the same legend block as is the perceived "unknown predicted" one. (this may be shorthanded. pls ask if you want it written more explicitly.) -DePiep (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the grey color is great. It seemed to me that the word "property" was making the phrasing a bit difficult, so I was trying to think outside the box, making suggestions that didn't use the term "property", but rather emphasized the concepts of classification or categorization. Do any of these phrasings I suggested sound any better: "Not classified" or "Not predicted" or "Category not yet predicted" or "Element classification not yet predicted" or "Category not known" or ... YBG (talk) 06:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

For reasons of wiki-sanity: User:Double sharp objected with reason (see above), so I have reverted my change: it now reads "unkown chemical properties", as (months or weeks) before. All fine. This discussion may lead to something else. That we will imply. -DePiep (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Chalcogen

So how is chalcogen now? I think that in the chemistry, history, and applications sections there is some decent content that is about the chalcogens themselves, not O,S,Se,Te,Po,Lv. ^King Jakob _C2 22:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried Holleman & Wiberg for the simple compounds? That's where I got all the Po info. Double sharp (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Now I am working on adding information on simple compounds (I am starting with hydrides and interchalcogens). Would an A-class review be a good idea even if FA is not yet? Thanks, ^King Jakob _C2 19:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead.

The hydrides are not really hydrides, except for polonium's; they are chalcogenides. Double sharp (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I set up the A-class review here. ^King Jakob _C2 15:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Reference link posititioning

Please see the infobox at Californium, an FA. The footnote superscripts (references) sometimes have a preceding space. I can think of a reason (keep separate from content superscripts, like in electron configuration), but do we have some standard for this? I found MOS:PUNCTFOOT but it says nothing on this.
While we are at it, I see "1743^[3] K". So not "1743 K^[3]". This is a standard too? -DePiep (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Would prefer 1743 K ^[3], but I'm not sure if it's possible with the current template. Hint, hint: do something about it, please! Double sharp (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Now I see where it stems from. The easy clumsy change is: give each possible footnote its own paramater (like |boiling point K ref=<ref>...</ref>). The better option is using Lua to split the ref from the value. I'll put it on my thinkabout list. And you still want the space I see. -DePiep (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Nitrogen

Please read Nitrogen and let me know what you think needs done to it. I want to improve it and then take it to GA (don't think ready now).TCO (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not likely to make GA-status with all those {{citation needed}} flags; and it failed to make GA last time round on 7 August 2011 for that very reason. The current flags mostly seem to date back to January 2013, although looking at the December 2012 version were flags then going back to September 2010. Pyrotec (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I completely get that. And if anything, I want to go above and beyond. I am not into spiffing things up and then sending to GA. If anything, I want to overdo something before it goes to GA/A/FA, not underdo it. Actually am more into derailing things by way overdoing the content (like why are nylon and refractory nitrides not mentioned)? I guess, I am asking for advice on what content needs to be added, subtracted. And/or major references to consult (other than Greenwood). I probably want to redo the whole article, just asking for advice here.TCO (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If you enable your e-mail, I'll send you whatever Ullman has on that (please leave a note if you decide to/not to).--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Awesome. Will contact you later. Need to do some off wiki stuff.TCO (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried improving it to GA in early January, thinking would be fairly easy...it certainly wasn't. While the info in the article is fine, it seemed that about every other paragraph was uncited, so I added all the tags in sort of as self-reminders to add them, but I kind of forgot about the article, and moved on to other wiki areas...If you need help, I'll help on it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Reignition

What happened in the intervening months between when I last came here (as Freywa) and now? First of all, I became a brony. I took a new pseudonym, Parcly Taxel, which is a play on the mitotic inhibitor paclitaxel. Once I slipped into the fandom, I created accounts on a string of websites, first deviantART, then Twitter and Reddit and Tumblr, all using the new pseudonym. Eventually I went full circle, and changed my username here. I have come back – as an alicorn.

I was the one who applied for our Signpost interview way back in June 2011. Since I left the project has fallen into relative inactivity, although the periodic table has been restored to its former glory after 7¾ years. Where are we now, and what articles need work? I suggest that we work to promote one of our five A-class articles to FA, and I think the most appropriate one of them is berkelium. There are some uses for it, though not a lot, so patching the gaps should be rather easy. The time has come for reignition. Princess Parcly Taxel 02:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Our "relative inactivity" is not helped by my tendency to experience a severe case of wikiwanderlust when things slow down a little :-). I will finish Po shortly for GA. I left Bk a while ago but can return to it (see R8R Gtrs' comments, untouched for some time). I am waiting for R8R to finish commenting on Hs before I start on it in earnest.

On our A-class articles, R8R will not lay down his typing fingers indefinitely (though he may take long breaks from it) until he gets an FA. That much is clear. He is also working on At and 117 (the latter with me). TCO seems to have disappeared from us for now, but come back he will, I would think. Would that they were here, for we seem to be in need of them! Sandbh is working on the metalloids. Bk was suggested by R8R and I accepted (though have taken a long break from it). Therefore it looks like the A-class articles are all taken (and no, I would think it impolite to steal an article someone is working on away from them before asking them.)

Despite chalcogen being a GA, it is in need of serious work, I deem. I would advise King jakob c to really read and mine his sources not in isolation from each other, but together. That way he can understand the subject he is writing on better and can write the whole article much better. (To him: Sincere apologies for talking of you while you are not here, but in this context it is rather unavoidable.) I learnt this myself in alkali metal some years ago. You can check out B+'s arsenic and boron group. The latter is actually not bad, but for its writing style (and its omission of a major section on periodic trends). Double sharp (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Also: we need to resolve that huge "metalloids" discussion above. It's already lasted over half a year here and people are still discussing. That is not a bad thing; let us not rush into a choice. Yet, we really should tie up some of the loose ends. Double sharp (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW, please don't use the Unicode fractions. The more commonly used ones are already hard enough to see and distinguish and as for the rest, let's not go there, shall we? Double sharp (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. MOS:FRAC says we should use {{frac}}, so that is for all of WP. -DePiep (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, Parcly Taxel, Freywa, this is what happened while you were away. First of all, Double sharp and R8R and Sandbh and ST11 and me and others took care of The Elements. None escaped! But we were very concerned about you. For example me, I was longing for your edits -- cannot imagine how I survived without. Already your re-introduction here is a WP joy (self-serving, but alas). The very fact that you did not see a diff between your departure and now, already says you are indispensable. Glad you are back. Now do a contributive edit or shut up. -DePiep (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, this about summarizes the difference between the articles now and two years ago. Nergaal (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Good shot. (comparing is clear when using two tabs). -DePiep (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

What I would love to see (and do, preferably with collaboration): Fe, Cu, Ag, or Au FA. My eyes are on Fe for a group 8 FT (also aiming for Hs FA, but put on hold for Po GA at the moment). Double sharp (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm rooting for you all. You've made element articles awesome. Silver seren^C 04:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, polonium just got promoted, and that's a good thing for the transperiodic highway (astatine is a good article). We only need to promote calcium or strontium to complete it. There are two problems though:

Both of them are C-class, and yet have a lot of uses.
I've got a peer review at iodine with no replies; I put that up in order to complete the highway in case polonium didn't get through. I'm a bit worried that I can't handle the workload I'm anticipating, and with me being the dynamo that drives this project at breakneck pace, what good could happen?

This could be time for a concerted collaboration, every member who's still around and still willing to help actually helping. Princess Parcly Taxel 11:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You are not the only dynamo. :-) Anyone who works on an element article, or even plans to, whether or not their plan was part of a larger organized effort or not, drives the project forward towards another article being improved. Double sharp (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Iodine is an underillustrated article with fact tags. That's where to start. A rule of thumb is not to start a PR in the first place if tags are present. That doesn't explain why the review is inactive, but should make you rethink the whole idea.

I'm (speaking for myself and not the community) against the highway thing, because, well, there are other, more useful criteria (like the topic in general, viewer activity). If it heats you up, okay then, why not. But I don't think it heats up the others (they haven't expresssed that, or I'm missing something). It takes some work, you know that, so the choice gotta be serious. It gotta feel cool!

If you're serious about the idea, though, then Sr is very easy to GA, may be done in even less than a month. As for Ca, I suggest you leave it for a while, unless you want to FA it, 'cause then I can show up and try to do it (if I have luck with F).

As a tip, some other easy GA targets: In, Ga.

I strongly suggest we should try to FA as many period 3 articles as possible. I got me an amazing book on aluminum for the purpose, better than anything I've ever seen.

Tl;dr Sr can be taken easily; Ba may be useful as an example.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The highway thing? We already have a highway. That in itself, to me, is just a coincidence. What is more interesting is that aside from a short detour at Au, it goes completely through period 6 (except for the lanthanides). So I think an Au FA should be a good idea. Double sharp (talk) 12:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I just dropped by here for the first time in about a month and a half, and noticed that the entire column of alkaline earth metals and the entire column of halogens are seriously lacking in comparison to our other articles. I'm kind of busy in other areas of the wiki right now, but what do other people think of focusing attention on these? StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Would love to see halogen FT. It would probably take years. But it would be awesome.

But yes, we should eliminate C-class and below from the table altogether (well for now probably just the main body, minus the transactinides). Once you have a B-class article you have a coherent text, maybe not very well-written at spots or not well-cited, but the reader can actually use it to some depth. Below that, that's not possible. That could be another goal for us. We are ≥86% done with that (haven't checked since July), after all. :-)

About our goal structure: many of our short-term goals are easily doable by someone who has the time. (I don't at the moment, but will by mid-May.) Given about two to three months and average level of work from all users we could finish them all. So I think we should include at least one more difficult goal there as motivation, or alternatively restart a collaboration of the quarter. (A month is too short. You cannot FA an article, particularly an important article in a month barring a complete absence of life or a seriously big collaboration where everyone does the amount of work they would do if they were working alone.) This way we can do something more and get more FAs, which is good (obviously).

But I suppose we're not going to get this done until someone actually starts working on something, even a basic goal. Can we have a collaboration to get Fe (or a coinage metal) to FA? Not GA, please. Cu is super important and a GA was good but not enough. GA should only be a goal in itself, instead of a stop on the road to FA, for Low- (and perhaps Mid-) importance articles. Double sharp (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm signing up for copper. Don't have enough time now, but almost definitely will in June.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

All right, so shall I. Double sharp (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have not followed this discussion in detail, but I think chalchogen would be easier to GT than halogens. Plus we still have the group 1 and period 2 that are very close to completion. Nergaal (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You could try chlorine for the time being. I'm caught up with other tasks on the interwebs, but chlorine has this "common man" quality to it. There's a lot of references out there concerning that gas, which should be easy to mine. As well as that, this was once a GA, so getting it back to GA would be a little morale booster for the teams working on the three A-class halogens (F/At/Uus). Princess Parcly Taxel 11:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I am intrigued by Nitrogen. It doesn't have a clear owner and is B-level. The experience of working on F, gives me some insights about working with a period 2 nonmetal. It's pretty darned fundamental, more so than F really (120,000 views per month). It's the last one in that period that is not a GA. Would be some substantial work to really redo that the way I want it (to A-level). Related articles, Nitrogen cycle and Haber process could be cool too to GA and have high views (80,000 and 40,000 per month).

After getting nitrogen done, would be pretty trivial to improve the period article and create a GT. I'm also intrigued by the idea of doing the period article as an FL, rather than a GA. They really are more arbitrary lists than strong central thematic topics. I mean the similarities of elements in a period are much less than those in a column. There have been some FLs that were collections of short prose sections, so it would not be entirely radicool. You'll also get a better prose go-over at FL than GA.

Chlorine is scary with how central it is. All the PVC and sodium chloride and all that. I guess you could say nitrogen is too, but I donno, chlorine scares me more for some reason. Bromine or Iodine would be easier and then come back to chlorine.

TCO (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Cl scares me too. I don't know why, but I have the same reaction to you about N vs Cl vs Br and I. Probably because N is rather inert in N₂ form and Cl does a lot more things in the body than Br or I. Double sharp (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we should have at least one hard short-term goal, though. Something like a Fe/Cu/Ag/Au FA or a period 6 GT/FT. Double sharp (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Rhenium query

Is rhenium the "most radioactive" of the naturally occurring elements which have stable isotopes? I presume it is since 62.6 per cent of naturally occurring Re is ¹⁸⁷Re, which is unstable and has a half-life of 4.35 × ~10¹⁰ years. Indium and tellurium are the only other naturally occurring elements having stable isotopes that occur in minority abundance, but the half-lives of their majority unstable isotopes are much longer (>10¹⁴ years).

Context is the strange behaviour that appears to occur in going down the group 7 elements: manganese (radical crystalline structure), technetium (radioactive), and rhenium (?); and their f-block analogues: promethium (radioactive) and neptunium (first of the non-naturally occurring elements).

Kind of like a periodic table 'axis of instability'. I presume all of this has something to do with having seven electrons spread across each element's outer two (Mn, Tc, Re, Pm) or three (Np) electron shells, although I've never looked into what might be going on too deeply. There maybe nothing in this if I'm off-track with my question about rhenium; just wondering. Sandbh (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Np does occur naturally in trace quantities on Earth: Es is the first non-natural element on Earth. If you lower the bar from "detected on Earth" to "detected anywhere in the Universe", Fm then becomes the first ([2]).

This pattern has (I think) been observed several times, once (I think, IIRC) by the Noddacks, who noticed that apart from Mn itself, the elements of the Mn group could not be found easily in nature (then thought to be Mn, 43, 75, 93). Double sharp (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Ta. It looks like the Np anomaly is still there? The only naturally occurring Np is from the decay products of other radioactive elements. There is no primordial Np left. The sequence goes: U longest half-life = 4.468 x 10⁹yrs; Np = 2 million years; then back up to 80 million for Pu before dipping down to 7,370 years for Am. What I said about Np being the first of the non-naturally occurring elements is wrong: that honour goes to Tc. But the half-life blip remains. Have to do some reading about the Noddacks. Sandbh (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The island of stability starting at around Th ends at around Cm. Double sharp (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Chalcogen (again )

Can someone contribute to chalcogen's a-class review here? Thank you in advance. ^King Jakob _C2 23:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Sandbh (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Help with defining metals–metalloids–nonmetals

Anyone interested in stress-testing a proposed scheme for defining metals, metalloids, or nonmetals? If the scheme survives (and I stress the "if") I'll submit it to a chemistry journal, including a credit to any stress-testers, or possible co-authors if you'd be interested.

The scheme is inspired by the IAU three-part definition of a planet. It categorises the first 100 elements as metals, metalloids or nonmetals, in accordance with the following:

1. An element is categorised as a metal if it meets at least two of the following criteria:

a. low ionization energy (< 750 kJ)
b. low electronegativity (< 1.9)
c. metallic band structure
d. high packing efficiency (> 41%)
e. high metallicity ratio (> 1.1)

Most elements categorised as metals (63 out of 76) meet at least four of these criteria.

2. An element is categorised as a metalloid if it meets all of the following criteria:

a. medium ionization energy (750–1,000 kJ)
b. medium electronegativity (1.9–2.2)
c. semimetal or semiconductor band structure
d. medium packing efficiency (34–41%)
e. medium metallicity ratio (0.8 to 1.1)

The six elements that meet these criteria (B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te) correspond to the six elements commonly classified in the literature as metalloids. Astatine may also meet all of these criteria, to the extent that its properties have been or can be predicted.

3. An element is categorised as a nonmetal if it meets at least two of the following criteria:

a. high ionization energy (> 1,000 kJ)
b. high electronegativity (> 2.2)
c. insulator band structure
d. low packing efficiency (< 34%)
e. low metallicity ratio (< 0.8)

Most elements catagorised as nonmetals (14 out of 17) meet at least four of these criteria.

In table form the scheme looks like this:

Criterion	Metal: at least two		Metalloid: all five		Nonmetal: at least two
ionization energy	low	< 750 kJ	medium	750–1,000 kJ	high	> 1,000 kJ
electronegativity		< 1.9		1.9–2.2		> 2.2
band structure	metallic		semimetallic or semiconductor		insulator
packing efficiency	high	> 41%	medium	34–41%	low	< 34%
metallicity ratio		> 1.1		0.8–1.1		> 1.1

My worry is that one of the elements doesn't qualify for any category, or qualifies both as a metal and a nonmetal. I don't think this is the case but maybe I can't see the wood for the trees :(

If you'd like to help, let me know and I'll send you a spreadsheet with all five values flagged for each of the 100 elements. Then it's just a matter of seeing if there may be any flaws in the scheme. There are also a few wrinkles we could discuss too, if you're interested, such as the phosphorus problem (white or black). The metallicity ratio of astatine will also need a closer look.

I want to emphasize that nothing may come of this if I've gotten a value or values wrong or committed some other categorisation blunder, or there are some other intractable issues I haven't seen. Sandbh (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Stem sentences for each definition updated Sandbh (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Fluorine

We're moving towards another FA.

To ensure we'll reach the goal, I need your help. See if the text is grammatically correct, understandable, reads good, if the pics are beautifully arranged, anything. I hope each of you guys can help.

Link: Fluorine--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Already a formidable article. Need to say something about fluorine with a positive charge, here. I was astonished when I read of this. Sandbh (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

OMG! This is F(I) formally, right? *goes to add this to List of oxidation states of the elements* Double sharp (talk) 06:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll add it when I have read the fulltext. Asked at Ref Desk. Thanks for sharing!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The document says it's a short-lived intermediate.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I found the abstract to be fascinating, despite being brief and lacking in details of its surprising subject. Having not known much about the chemistry of Fluorine before reading the article recently, I found it to be a very helpful summary that put all that I hade just read into perspective. Perhaps parts of the abstract might inform the lead or some other summary section in Fluorine. YBG (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather not. All I want to say is, it's an intermediate compound (which the absract fails to mention somehow), that is, not a real compound one can bottle. In that weird world of intermediates, say, half-bonds are common. Hell they're fishy. None really talks about them unless hardcore chem is required.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops, it wasn't the abstract I was looking at, but the following introductory text:

Organofluorine compounds have found widespread applications in diverse areas such as polymers, liquid crystals, and agricultural and medicinal chemistry (1, 2). Partial or full fluorination provides distinctive physicochemical properties to an organic molecule that can be attributed to the special properties of the carbonfluorine (C-F) bond (3). Fluorine is the most electronegative (electron-attracting) element of the periodic table, so the C-F bond is highly polarized. The small size and high electronegativity of the F atom gives it a low polarizability. This property makes it difficult for fluorine's electron pairs to engage in hypervalent bonding, as other halogens can do, to form a fluoronium ion, a structure in which the fluorine is bonded to two carbon atoms with a (at least formal) positive charge at fluorine. However, on page 57 of this issue, Struble et al. (4) report strong evidence in support of precisely such a fluoronium ion.

This is the text I was thinking might be useful for us. I agree that the info in the abstract isn't helpful for our article here. YBG (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I see. What do you think we're missing and need to add right now?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I started combing through it and I really love the characteristics section. I cleaned it up and added some hidden comments for where more stuff needs to be added. One thing that did strike me though is the placement of the chemical section. I strongly believe that it should come right after history, followed by production and applications. Before one can talk about applications, production, and even biological roles, one needs to understand the chemistry of it. I will continue working on the article over the next several days. Nergaal (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I have a few questions re your comments.

 -- do you really need to know that? At very least, the liquid density is easily googleable, here, but what's the point of having it?

You talk about the density of the gas, and then you mention hwo the alpha phase is more packed than the beta one. why not give the densities in parentheses then? Nergaal (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Because the gas is what fluorine is in its normal state, and liquid is like very cold, so pushing stress from it. Also, the density isn't what's that important, that's my fair belief. Check also Oxygen#Physical properties for some comparison.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Just because of the way that section is phrased right now, I don't think it would hurt to put their densities in parentheses. Nergaal (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

At this point I usually give up thinking, "well, it won't hurt much anyway," but there's another problem: I don't know the solid state densities. I spent around 10 man-hours last year to find them, but I couldn't. I'm not sure if they have been measured.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

If you have the Xray structure then you have the actual density (mass unit cell/ volume unit cell; mass unit cell = # molecules * molecular weight / Avogadro's number). Nergaal (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Donohue (1982, pp. 393, 395) gives the unit cell parameters of the alpha and beta forms of solid fluorine. On this basis the calculated densities are 1.97 and 1.70 g/cm³, respectively. About the same as sulfur (2.07) and magnesium (1.738). Donohue J 1982, The structures of the elements, Robert E. Krieger, Malabar, Florida, ISBN 0898742307. Sandbh (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Our database has two entries for the beta form, doi:10.1107/S0365110X6400202X and doi:10.1063/1.1725957. Both give Pearson symbol cP64, space group Pm3n (No. 223), Z=8, a = 0.667 nm, calc. density 1.70. Materialscientist (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

For alpha see also (1.966) and doi:10.1016/0022-4596(70)90074-5. Sandbh (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm feeling frustrated. Will add the densities tomorrow.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Wait a second. How could they measure the density of liquid fluorine at 103K (-170C) if the fluorine's boiling point is -188C?

I'm still feeling uncomfortable about these densities. I believe that we should either have densities and more info (conductivity? etc, etc) or none at all, just the mp/bp. I'm inclined to the second variant. Also, what form do you expect it to take?

"Fluorine condenses to a bright yellow liquid (density: 1.37 g/cm³) at −188 °C (−307 °F),[17] which is near the condensation temperatures of oxygen and nitrogen. It solidifies at −220 °C (−363 °F)[17] into a cubic structure, called beta-fluorine (1.70 g/cm³). This phase is transparent and soft, with significant disorder of the molecules. At −228 °C (−378 °F) fluorine undergoes a solid–solid phase transition into a monoclinic structure called alpha-fluorine (1.97 g/cm³)."

This looks fishy to me with densities being too important, I suggest we just forget it, even though I might be missing an elegant solution here, I just don't see it.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

<!--- this is bullshit: Moreover, the bond order in F<sub>2</sub> is actually slightly smaller than 1, because its p electrons' orbitals mix very insignificantly with s orbitals, which do not take part in bonding.<ref>{{cite doi|10.1039/B102094N}}</ref>-->

-- what's your argument?

first, the paper you mention does not explicitly mention this; secondly, the computed bond orders are typically around 0.97 to 0.99, with one value of 0.94. all of these are essentially 1, and nobody in chemistry would call these anything else; thirdly, even if the explanation is true, it is still very poorly explained here; lastly, there are several ways to compute bond orders, and I don't think anybody understands them well enough to call a less than 5% difference notable and give a reliable explanation that everybody would actually believe. Nergaal (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The paper also has a value of 0.73 in the Table 2, which is a significant deviation. (Note the same methodology still says H2 has 1.00). Not said directly yes, but the whole explanation is discussed within the talks on p-block chemistry. But assuming what's written is correct, how would you explain that? Aside from little numeric difference, this seems to be exactly the same as extra bonding in Cl2, which you don't seem to be against (p-d mixing versus s-p). But I clearly mark this is not all that important, saying "very insignificantly." And also, I'm making no stress on it, limiting myself to 1 sentence. (Just for you to know, I'm not trying to convince you you're wrong, I'm begging for more discussion.)

Because adding extra d orbitals to the mix (although not very likely due to the d orbitals being much higher in energy) creates extra bonding chances. The way it is phrased right now it is not even clear if you are talking about 2s or 3s orbitals; if it is 2s, there is no net extra bonding or antibonding being created since they are already filled; 3s are not even close in energy to influence anything. Nergaal (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Now I don't get it, can you give me more details? I mean, I get what you're saying, I don't see why this is your point of opposition against that s-p mixing given we can fix the prose. Again, you're a chemist, I'm not.

<!--- does carbon monoxide react with F2 (CO has the strongest chemical bond known. how about chemical reactivity with compounds? methane is notoriously unreactive. also, do diamonds burn in fluorine!!!!-->

Fluorination of CO is the industrial way to make COF2. CH4 burns in F2. We talk about that asbestos, wood, and water burn in F2, how is this not enough? Diamonds are just carbon, they burn on air as well. Water seems to be more surprising than diamonds. I don't mind if you object, but then please explain yourself.

the section is on chemical reactivity and it tends to only talk about reactivity with pure elements. the examples i mentioned I thought would be interesting to mention. I might have missed the water thing, but I dont think it is mentioned in the chemical properties one. the diamond would seem cool to casual readers; I know that they burn in air,but you need veeery high temperatures; i am tempted to believe that F2 might not require heating at all. The CO reactivity is boring, but perhaps reactivity with CO2? Nergaal (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I'll reconsider.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Your other comments/edits are brilliant.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I went through more of the article and another thing that struck me is the huge length of the compounds section. While as a chemist I love this, I still found myself getting a bit bored of the details, so I can only imagine a casual reader TRYING to go through it. I strongly suggest trying to trim it down to less discussion so it is more easily manageable. I also coped the information to a separate article, and I am pretty sure that that article by itself can be GAed later with the stuff in it. Nergaal (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

True. Just a few days ago, it was 30 KB of pure prose. It's 24 KB now, this is still a lot, I just don't know what to cut. I'm completely open to all suggestions.

Re new article: See the revision as of April, 16: here, notice the huge metal fluorides part. It'll maybe be useful for that compounds of fluorine article, or maybe it should incorporate the whole Structural chemistry of the metal fluorides article]]? (If so, note some refs are missing from it, but can be found in the Apr 16 fluorine revision.)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Trimmed the inorganic part by a few good Ks, but I got stuck at the organic part. Can you give it a quick look before I go into it? I am not sure what some sentences are trying to say. Nergaal (talk) 06:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, what do you have problems with? --R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Along with the low polarizability of the molecules, these are the most important factors contributing to the great stability of the organofluorines.[272] I can't see the list of these factors Nergaal (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The para tries to say, "The carbon–fluorine chemical bond in organofluorine compounds is the strongest bond in organic chemistry. The said C-F bond stability and low polarizability of the molecules containing it are the most important factors contributing to the great stability of the organofluorines."

We'll go with that for now.

Chemical routes. The sub-section on the chemical preparation of fluorine might be able to be expanded a bit, given it's such a remarkable story. Here are some extracts from Christe [plus my comments]:

It hell is. The reasons why it is kept in short are a) the article is already big and b) it's of little practical significance. I wanted to tell more originally as well, but TCO convinced me not to.

'The chemical synthesis of elemental fluorine has been pursued for at least 173 years by many notable chemists, including Davey, Fremy, Moissan and Ruff. All their attempts have failed, and the only known practical synthesis of F₂ is Moissan's electro-chemical process, which was discovered exactly 100 years ago.' (Christe 1986, p. 3271)
'…essentially every textbook stated [and some still do] that F₂ cannot be prepared by chemical means because it is the most electronegative element.' (Christe Research Group).
'The only irony was that both K₂MnF₆ and SbF₅ had been known for more than 100 years [not only 50 years] and even Moissan could have come up with this scheme, had he thought of it.' (Christe Research Group)
We could use that last one, though. I'm unsure if we can cite stuff like this, in general, why not, will probably add later (I would be more comfortable if there was a paper for it)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and the second formula, as given by Christe, is just: K₂MnF₆ + 2 SbF₅ → 2 KSbF₆ + MnF₃ + ½ F₂ Sandbh (talk) 02:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It's my personal non-integer molecules number intolerance. There's no half-F2 even if having it simplifies the math. BTW, not even that significantly.

Cut the article down to 65k from 73.TCO (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I have read the current version carefully. Very good and well-written, now. Also, I read & conclude: flourine is the slut of the preriodic table. -DePiep (talk)

Let me note that File:Sulfur-tetrafluoride-3D-balls.png is too wide. -DePiep (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. many of the subarticles can give us free GAs. Double sharp (talk) 03:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Chalcogen FA

Anyone think chalcogen is ready for FA?^King Jakob _C2 13:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I personally have given it a quick look as of now and found some style problems. I haven't read it yet (can't judge the quality of the text), but style needs to be polished anyway prior to FAC. Like why "oxygen-16, oxygen-17, oxygen-18" but H₂SO₄, H₂SO₃, H₂SeO₄, and H₂TeO₄? Why does the reader need to know them all when he's got a graphic right under this para: "Ag, As, Bi, Cd, Cu, Ga, Ge, Hg, In, Pb, Po, S, Sb, Se, Sn, Te, Tl, and Zn." Vital ≠ nontoxic, we all die even in 100% O2, so it can't be an antithesis (this can be a better one: good in small quantities, bad in large), etc, etc.

I extremely recommend a peer review.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

FA? Get ready to be whacked. ;-) I would extremely recommend everything R8R extremely recommends, and would also recommend looking at FAs of other groups (noble gas, although you may also consider looking at alkali metal for what to include, although it is not done as best as it could be there) and chalcogens (just O at the moment, unfortunately). Double sharp (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

It occurs to me now that the fact that O is the only FA'd chalcogen is very unfortunate as it is not really a characteristic chalcogen! You can still look at Se, Te, and Po (all GAs) for some guidance; it will still do some good to the organization of the article. Double sharp (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, focus at the Characteristics section for while, it seems to be the most problematic (however, to be honest, I simply didn't make it any further yet), and alkali metal and noble gas are worth comparisons. I wanted to give some short constructive criticism, Atomic and physical lacks way too much info: density, color, hardness, mp, bp, etc. Isotopes lacks info about meta states, decay modes, etc. And it's not really important how many radioisotopes you have, the scientists may synthesize another one in a day, but nothing will change, most of them are not useful for anything. Chemical has too many formulas standing for words (way too many, write with words), and prose isn't genuine: "This oxidation number is found in sulfates, selenates, tellurates, and H2SO4 [hydrogen sulfate] or Na2SeO4. [sodium selenate] [and polonium?] [also, why not oxygen? tell the people]" etc, etc. It may be a torture, but it will hopefully pay you back.

And you're describing what separate elements have, while this article is supposed to show similarities. So rather than saying "oxygen has ..., sulfur has ...," say "chalcogenes commonly have ..., with polonium (say) being an exception due to..." as a way to write better texts. Treat the whole article as such.

And watch out for where you may need sources.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, this is the problem I pointed out with regard to our current period articles, which are really bad. Why are they bad? They don't focus on what should be their topic, the period itself: they spend way too much time about the elements. If I want to know about a specific element in the group, I go to the article on that specific element. Readers go to the group article because they want to know about the group as a whole, as more than just the sum of its parts, its elements. So you should give that to them.

(BTW, your organization doesn't quite work at times: for example, why are you mentioning the nonmetal-to-metal trend in the "Atomic and physical [characteristics]" section? It seems rather chemical to me!) Double sharp (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

(Before going on: I sincerely apologize for not being very organized in my comments, but that's probably because I just skimmed through the article. And yet I found this many things to comment on. O_O)

On Dmitri Mendeleev table: note how the elements are alternating to the left and right to each group across periods? That's the A group/B group divide. You should at least mention this; currently you are giving the impression that the A group/B group was a later development. It's not; it's just not marked explicitly here.

You should also explain why chalcogenide does not usually include oxides. (Chemists usually don't group S with O mentally – their behaviour is just too different. The mental grouping is S/Se/Te/(Po if they can afford it). You need to explain something about their different behaviour. You do not make it strong enough. And yet "chalcogen" refers to the whole group 16.)

I think you are focusing too much on the isotopes themselves. What do they imply? Chalcogens are all even-Z, doesn't this have an effect on their abundance? Why is O so abundant? (This level of talking about the individual elements is permissible, but try not to go overboard. Going overboard would be like discussing every element separately when there is no reason to. Hilarious example: March 2011 revision of alkali metal. And to think that I thought at that time that that would pass GA...O blessed naïvety!)

Another point that is missing: why are Se and Te so rare in the crust? They're not so rare in the Solar System. You should explain why in the abundance section, even more so as this applies to the group somewhat (it's due to their volatile hydrides).

Also: "Tellurium is not generally highly toxic. As little as 10 micrograms of tellurium per cubic meter of air can cause notoriously unpleasant breath, described as smelling like rotten garlic. Acute tellurium poisoning can cause vomiting, gut inflammation, internal bleeding, and respiratory failure. Extended, low-level exposure to tellurium causes tiredness and indigestion. Sodium tellurite (Na2TeO3) is lethal in amounts of around 2 grams." You mention so many severe effects of Te poisoning and start the paragraph with "Tellurium is not generally highly toxic"? To an uninformed reader, this will look weird, to say the least. I know what you're trying to get at, but all the same, you should try to fix this. Mention how much Te you need for acute Te poisoning, at least.

On the very next paragraph: surely there are more isotopes of Po than just Po-210? I know that's the famous and most common one (Litvinenko) but there are more isotopes. Po-208 and Po-209 are even longer-lived, surely there must have been some studies done with them? Even if not, at least mention them somehow. Double sharp (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

To add to your pain, the image of the CdTe array belongs to the U.S. Department of Energy contract-operator of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and is therefore probably not a "work of the federal government" and is therefore probably not in the public domain. Unless you can establish that it is, it will get bounced during the FAC process. See here. Sandbh (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I commented out the file for now. ^King Jakob _C2 22:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

If it is from the DoE, isn't it covered under {{PD-USGov-DOE}}? Double sharp (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Only if it was taken by DoE employee as opposed to an employee of a DOE contractor-operator. Sandbh (talk) 09:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Where the article stands

Done

Remove the chemical formulas from wikilinks (not counting isotopes)
Move the section on classification to chemical properties
Add info on isomers and decay trends
Address the comments R8R Gtrs left in the article (some of them)
Get rid of the mention about all chalcogens having even atomic number-useless and obvious
Find a citation for livermorium's configuration
See if I can find anything on polonium-208 or polonium-209 toxicity
Fix the inconsistencies on tellurium's toxicity
Explain "chalcogenide" not including oxides

To do still

Ease the primary focus to the actual element group. I have a bad feeling that this requires a substantial rewrite. Partly done (chemical properties and isotopes sections done and starting work on applications section)

^King Jakob _C2 17:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Yay, I fixed almost all the issues (but the biggest one still remains, I'll save it for last). Questions/comments/etc welcome. ^King Jakob _C2 13:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You have fixed the inconsistency on Te's toxicity, but have not actually added the data. You mention acute Te poisoning, and only give a figure (which is not even stated explicitly to be an LD50 or toxic threshold, only implied very weakly) for annoying effects of Te. A reader will probably be more concerned with toxicity than annoying effects, so give them what they want.

Lv's status as a chalcogen is not certain, and you should not talk about it assuming it was one of them without comment. Give a section of extensions talking about what the chalcogens beyond livermorium are predicted to be (by various people!) and state some stuff about their properties. The papers I posted links to (and Haire's book) in the "Metalloids" section above are very good sources.

I would not call the fact that all chalcogens have even atomic number useless or even obvious. It does have rather deeper consequences – for example, their abundancy (and this is something you should write about, as I stated above. Talk about why O is so common and why Se and Te are so rare in the Earth's crust). Don't stop with what I tell you here. It is not really a good thing to dump the content of an entire article into a comment. Find out more. At the very least, read the articles on the individual chalcogens very closely and hunt for info. (Please do more than what group 4 element does. That is just the sort of article you will have to write when there is not much homology or info. There is a lot more on the chalcogens.)

Chemists do not lump O with the rest of the chalcogens in their mental categories. This is why you will not usually see the term "chalcogenides" encompassing oxides in the absence of a special reason to do so. You should thus explain why.

Here is a really useful ref. Mostly O and S, and doesn't take into acount FOOF (O₂F₂) in its discussion of oxygen halides, but very good as a source to mine. (I've been mining their alkali metal page for info for two years and it still hasn't completely run dry of info!)

If you want my help with anything, ping me on my talkpage. Double sharp (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Also: start a separate section on chemistry. You can cover the main points in the Chemical characteristics subsection and save the details about chalcogen chemistry in this new section. Double sharp (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Presume you mean like this? ^King Jakob _C2 15:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, something like that. Double sharp (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I am currently working on Chalcogen#Chemical actually about chalcogens. It's getting there.^King Jakob _C2 18:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It's still kind of disorganized and doesn't follow compounds in a structured sequence. You could talk about their most basic compounds first like I do in alkali metal (I perhaps wrote too much on them, but you should consider giving each one paragraph at most – give it some coverage before you jump into the deep end of thioketones and chalcogenols that the average Wikipedian probably knows nothing about. Start with the simplest stuff.) Double sharp (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

About easing the focus to the primary group: you can keep most of the material you already have. But you should explicitly link it somehow back to the main topic, or we may go off course, or at least appear to, which is not good. If a reader wants to go off course, that's what hyperlinks are for: this is hypertext, after all. I talk about a lot of peripheral things in alkali metal in addition to the core info everyone is looking for. That's OK though, since I explicitly tie it back to the main topic and show how it is relevant. Double sharp (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I've worked on the chemistry section (as I mentioned above), but because about 500 pages of a certain Google Book are not open to public viewing I have to find another source for info on simpler compounds. In the meantime, I have found a decent source to fix the applications section. ^King Jakob _C2 13:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If you need the source, you can always wait a while before apparently your recent browsing of the book is "reset" and you can access different pages of the source again. Of course, doing so requires you to heavily mine the pages you visit first for the article, since if you want to maximise efficiency, you can't go to the same pages again, and they will be inaccessible once you mine some other pages. However, the behaviour of Google Books in terms of what it will let you access seems to depend heavily on exactly what sort of book you are reading. Double sharp (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Flerovium loose end

See above. Double sharp (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I would wait to color it until some paper publishes what (current or not) category they think it belongs in, as we see that its properties are fairly different from other known elements. So far, it doesn't seem to fit well into any of our current categories. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

If I had to colour it at all, I would give it the poor metal colour, since newer papers indicate that it's not a noble gas, just a very noble metal (and aren't Bi and Po noble poor metals too? Granted not to this extent, but it is a precedent.) Yet, everyone seems very uncertain on this element.

I would advise prospective commenters who haven't already seen many of these papers to visit Talk:Flerovium and also do a Google search on something like "element 114 chemistry" (don't use flerovium. Hardly anyone calls it that. To this date we still have respectable researchers calling hassium "element 108"; what would you expect them to do for the much more recently named flerovium?) Double sharp (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Differences between metals and nonmetals?

I happened upon an old cyclopedia (De Puy 1881) with an entry for Met′als, Met′aloids. Among the properties listed for metals were…

4. Metals are remarkable for their opacity and, with the exception of gold, do not transmit light, even when they are reduced to extremely thin leaves.

7. Great differences are observable in the hardness, brittleness and tenacity of metals.

8. It is a remarkable property of the metals, that none of them are capable of being dissolved without undergoing chemical change. Sulphur, phosphorus, iodine etc., may be dissolved, and after the evaporation of the solvent, may be re-obtained with all their original properties; but this is never the case with metals.

…as well as…

[A] The metallic oxides are, without exception, solid bodies, insoluble in in water, and usually present a white or earthly appearance.

[B] In consequence of their strong affinities for the metalloids, the metals are seldom found in a free or uncombined state, even in the inorganic kingdom, and never in animals or plants.

Details of the cyclopedia are: De Puy W H 1881, The people's cyclopedia of universal knowledge, James & Coffey, Sydney

Property 4 is nothing new but it prompted me to wonder about the opacity of nonmetals. It seems that all solid nonmetals are translucent, either in bulk or in thin pieces. Property 7 was probably partly influenced by, in those days, brittleness in some metals being caused by impurities whereas at least some of those metals, when highly purified, show better ductility. Even so, it reminded me that some metals are brittle and nearly all solid nonmetals are known in either malleable, pliable or ductile forms (i.e. C, P, S, Se). Property 8 was a new one for me. I assume they are referring to volatile organic solvents. Anbody know if it still holds true? Property A I'm not so sure about: are there no liquid or soluble metal oxides at room temperature? Perhaps A is more of a generalisation rather than an absolute. Property B, at first glance, appears to be right. 10 of 17 nonmetals are often or always found in a free state: C, N, O, S, and the six noble gases. I doubt if nearly 60 per cent of metals are often found in their free states and possibly this is also the case if you exclude the noble gases, in which case the percentage falls to just under 25 per cent.

There are a few other differentiating properties I've read about but haven't done much more with, and I therefore don't know if they're true or are instead 'textbook errors'. These are:

[C] Powdered metals, except for aluminium, are black whereas I assume (with the exception of graphite) that powdered forms of solid nonmetals—with the exception of selenium, which I guess would be red—would retain their coloured appearance e.g. bulk and powdered sulfur both have a yellow appearance.

[D] Solid metals (with the apparent exception of lead) are sonorous—they ring when struck, whereas metalloids [?] and solid nonmetals are not.

Any observations on the above welcome. Sandbh (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

4. Transparency

The non-transparency of metals has to do with their reflectivity, which arises because of their free electrons (they interact with light and cause reflection).

In general insulators (e.g. quartz, tin oxide) are transparent because they are wide bandgap insulators. I guess you can still make them non transparent with color centers or other defects. But you can't really make a (bulk) metal transparent.

Of course graphite is sort of a 2-d metal electronically so it is shiny. Not sure about the semiconductors, why Si is shiny. Figure it is from something about a smaller bandgap. Iodine is kind of shiny too and is low band gap. I don't really understand all this stuff and just sharing my little impressions. Like I wonder why liquid F is yellow. (What is the absorption? No free electrons right?)

Very thin films of any metal are transparent (gold is the most notable). But aluminum in your popcorn microwave bag is a very thin film that is specified in terms of its optical properties (about 50% transmission). Thin films stop to show the bulk characteristics and behave more like a semiconductor so interacting a little differently with visible light (they also stop reflecting the microwaves and have some absorption when in such a thin film.

That's odd. I had read that metals, no matter how thin, would not open a band gap and hence would retain metallic conduction rather than becoming semiconductors? [Not sure about a semimetal like bismuth.] I know that strange things happen at the nanoscale (e.g. small clusters of metal atoms are nonmetals) so when someone says. 'Metals are remarkable for their opacity and, with the exception of gold, do not transmit light, even when they are reduced to extremely thin leaves', that holds true as far as I know for bulk metals but it may not be the case at or near the nanoscale. Sandbh (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

7. Variation of some mechanical properties: makes sense with what we are used to. Even for a given metal, you can see transitions based on temperature (e.g. brittle fracture of steel pressure vessels or even a famous ship). If you will allow me an alloy as a metal.

8. I think this has to do with the bonding. Metallic bonding versus molecular. I think they mean conventional solvents (water, hexane, carbon tet, etc.) Not mercury or some weird crypt chelating thingamachig.

A. The alkali oxides and maybe a couple alkali earth oxides will dissolve. They are a bit more "salt like".

B. Most of them are attracted to make compounds, but not with the metalloids per se. Often with nonmetals (O, S). Seems to make sense in terms of iconicity and electronegativity and such. The noble metals are a bit of an exception (not sure why).

P.s. I have avoided the metalloid talk since I thought it was a big categorization debate and Wiki annoys me when we spend more time on categorizing topics than developing them. but it seems like you are more just trying to think and learn about the physical intuitions.

P.s.s. I think of the metalloids as more like nonmetals close to metals, rather than the converse. Because they are formally insulators (a semiconductor is an insulator formally, in terms of Fermi surface). Yeah, you have the one semimetal (Sb), but its still a direct band gap, even if indirectly the bands cross. Also when discussing their compounds, it seems to make more sense to compare them up the column rather than down (and yes even below the metalloids, sometimes the trends continue in main group metals...but still, makes more sense to compare up than down). TCO (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2013‎ (UTC)

A. Solid oxides
That all metal oxides are solids is very close, but not quite right, as far as I've been able to determine. At the IUPAC standard temperature of 0° it holds true, but at room temperature Mn₂O₇ is a liquid since it has an mp of 5.9° C. The oxides of the metalloids are all solids; oxides of the nonmetals may be solid, liquid or gaseous. Overall, it's an interesting assertion but it needs to be carefully elucidated. Sandbh (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Periodic table with alternative element names?

Is there such a thing anywhere showing the names and symbols of the elements, in the event that the first claim of discovery for each new element, together with suggested names and symbols, had actually been proven and adopted? That would make for a head-turning alternative periodic table. Sandbh (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

eh, what is your first example? As you know, I've been straddling & struggling monthts just to get the current names right! I'm interested. -DePiep (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

LOL. My first example, based on a quick bit of surfing and hence I don't know if this is reliable both in terms of its accuracy and if it was the first claimed discovery, is element 43 technetium: 'As early as 1877 the Russian chemist Serge Kern described his discovery of a new metal, which he named Davyum, named after the famous English chemist Sir Humphry Davy. He placed the metal between Molybdenum (42) and Ruthenium (44).' Another google hit I got on davyum says the proposed symbol was Da. Sandbh (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This is way off topic, but talking about alternate names reminded me of this graphic and this brochure announcing "a new element" for the US government employees' Thrift Savings Plan. It is fascinating how the periodic table, even its format, has crept into popular culture in a completely unrelated area. And no, I'm not suggesting that we create a "Periodic Table in popular culture" section. YBG (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

:) Going back on topic: I'm looking at elements 1–10 and thinking maybe Be 4 = Gl glucinium, and N 7 = Az azote, but I need to do more reading to be sure. Anyone else like to do 11–20; 21–30 etc? Sandbh (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I presume such a table would be called the Periodic Table of Originally Named Elements—PTOne? Sandbh (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem with element 43 in this sort of thing is an embarrassment of riches... Double sharp (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No and yes, I think. No, in that the aim is to only record the name proposed by the person (or team) who first claimed to have discovered or recognised the element in question. Yes, in that for some elements, e.g. the lanthanides, there may have been many claimants and it may be hard to track them all down in the literature. Sandbh (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

So far I think I have:

s-block

1 H Hydrogen	2 He Helium

s- and p-block

3 Li Lithium	4 Gl Glucinium	5 B Boron	6 C Carbon	7 Az Azote	8 O Oxygen	9 Ph Phthorine	10 Ne Neon
11 So Sodium	12 At Austrium	13 Al Alumium	14 Si Silicium	15 P Phosphorus	16 S Sulphur	17 Cl Chlorine	10 A Argon
19 Po Potassium	20 Ca Calcium	31 Ga Gallium	32 Np Neptunium	33 As Arsenic	34 Se Selenium	35 M Muride	36 Kr Krypton
37 Rb Rubidium	38 Sr Strontites	49 In Indium	50 Sn Tin	51 Sb Antimony	52 Te Tellurium	53 I Iode	54 Xe Xenon
55 Cs Caesium	56 Pu Plutonium	81 Tl Thallium	82 Pb Lead	83 Bi Bismuth	84 Po Polonium	85 Ab Alabamine	86 Nt Niton
87 Rs Russium	88 Ra Radium	113 Ja Japonium	114 Fl Flerovium	115 Uup Ununpentium	116 Lv Livermorium	117 Uus Ununseptium	118 Gh Ghiorsium

d-block

21 Sc Scandium	22 Ti Titanium	23 Er Erythronium	24 C Chromium	25 Mn Manganese	26 Fe Iron	27 Co Cobalt	28 Ni Nickel	29 Cu Copper	30 Zn Zinc
39 Yt Yttrium	40 Zr Zirconium	41 Cb Columbium	42 Mb Molybdenum	43 Da Davyum	44 Ve Vestium	45 Rh Rhodium	46 Pd Palladium	47 Ag Silver	48 Cd Cadmium
71 Lu Lutecium	72 Jg Jargonium	73 Ta Tantalum	74 W Wolfram	75 Re Rhenium	76 Os Osmium	77 Ir Iridium	78 Pt Platina	79 Au Gold	80 Hg Mercury
103 Lw Lawrencium	104 Ku Kurchatovium	105 Ns Nielsbohrium	106 Sg Seaborgium	107 Db Dubnium	108 Sg Sergenium	109 Mt Meitnerium	110 Ds Darmstadtium	111 Rg Roentgenium	112 Cp Copernicium

f-block

57 La Lanthanum	58 Ce Cerium	59 Di Didymium	60 Nd Neodidymium	61 Fl Florentium	62 Dc Decipium	63 Eu Europium	64 Gd Gadolinium	65 Er Erbium	66 Dy Dysprosium	67 Ho Holmium	68 Tb Terbium	69 Tm Thulium	70 Ny Neoytterbium
89 Ac Actinium	90 Th Thorium	91 Bv Brevium	92 U Uranium	93 Bo Bohemium	94 Es Hesperium	95 Am Americium	96 Cm Curium	97 Cf Berkelium	98 Cf Californium	99 An Athenium	100 Ct Centrium	101 Mv Mendelevium	102 No Nobelium

Sandbh (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Sandbh (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that such a list could be better presented as a table, listing the elements by atomic number with their present names, and then including in the next column all the previous names. That way we could include not just the first rejected name or discovery, but all of them, and could also be clear about elements that never had this kind of issue (e.g. lithium). Double sharp (talk) 09:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I like this. It would be more work, but it would be appropriately encyclopaedic. Sandbh (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, the current official name can be there? Why not? So Z=7 lists: N = Nitrogen / Az =Azote (&tc.). By the way, this will be a new article, right? -DePiep (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a very good new article. So when element 119 is synthesised the discoverer can go to our article and look up if there may be a potential historical conflict with a previously suggested name or symbol, as occurred with the proposed Cp symbol for 112 copernicum, which had previously been in limited used for 71 cassiopium, now lutetium (Lu).Sandbh (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The above PTOne could serve well as an illustration at the top of the finished list, BTW. Double sharp (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Q: what's the main criterion for a name? Say, moscovium was talked about, but never officially proposed (I don't even know the official spelling in English). Alabamine and many others weren't discovered (false discoveries). Phtorine never was isolated (fluorine was).--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

What was the original Cyrillic spelling? That should serve as a guide, though I suppose they will want to anglicize it for the formal name. (starts attempting to pronounce 114 as [flʲɵrəfiəm]) Double sharp (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

For the article suggested by Double sharp, I suggest all the names suggested for each element including false discoveries. For the periodic table of originally named elements the criterion I had in mind was the name preferred by the first person or team who claimed to have discovered the element, whether or not their claim was upheld. So alabamine etc pass muster. Unfortunately I'll need to replace moscovium with livermorium as, in looking back at the history of 116, livermorium was in fact the first name put forward even though the research team later withdrew their claim. Fluorine was the name first suggested for fluorine but Ampère changed his preference to phthorine (anybody know how to pronounce that? "thorine" with a silent "ph"?). Sandbh (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

And what do we do about elements that never existed like carolinium (proposed to be an impurity in thorium)? Are they not counted for collisions by the IUPAC rules? (Its symbol was Cn, after all!) And fluorine used to have symbol Fl, IIRC. (It appears that they only check for current uses, e.g. Cp for cyclopentadienyl? That would certainly make more sense.)

From a quick look, only the apparent atomic weights of carolinium and berzelium were given, with no attempt to suggest where these supposed new elements might fit on the periodic table. I suggest we collect the details of these shooting stars as they surface, but file them, for posterity, in a lost elements annex or whatever we want to call it. I should think they would not be counted for IUPAC collision rules (don't know for sure). Sandbh (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, the irony! It seems as though the collision with cassiopeium is referenced and the collision with cyclopentadienyl has no actual first-hand reference from IUPAC! I sense profound illogic; how many chemists actually call Lu "cassiopeium" anymore? (P.S. Should it be in your d-block table? Or does it postdate the French suggestion of lutecium?) Double sharp (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I found this early ref for the name phthorine: [3]. Sandbh's pronunciation would probably be what most native English speakers would produce, as [fθ] is hard to pronounce for us! Double sharp (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Re pronunciation: doubt if it helps, but in Russian we say just [ftor], so maybe the ph is voiced. My point regarding the name was that the name didn't survive for long (say, wasn't used in 1886), but I see now it doesn't matter much. In either case, this may help: (in Russian, too, but you can use Google Translate). You'll surely find it useful unless dealing with GT makes it too complicated. I strong recommend translating names separately (again, open GT, paste a name and click the button labeled "Ä" within the textbox). Lemme know if it's any useful. I could help, but lack the time right now. Maybe later in June if you want me to.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, English does have significantly stricter constraints on consonant clusters... :-) I would guess [ˈ(f)θɔəɹiːn] as a workable English pronunciation, analogous to [ˈklɔəɹiːn] for chlorine. Double sharp (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW: element 108 sergenium (Sg). Double sharp (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Extraordinary! 1970! Sandbh (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Please always state Z=. Unless: when uncertian - state that is fine too. -DePiep (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

f-block table please? And did any purported superheavy discoveries of period 8+ elements get named? Double sharp (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Lanthanides done Sandbh (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Ditto actinides Sandbh (talk) 08:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. (BTW, surely the alkali and alkaline earth metals should be in the s-block table under H and He, as far as you're dividing by blocks?) Double sharp (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Re block nomenclature I had in mind those periodic tables that stack themselves vertically rather than horizontally, but I didn't get my labels right, as you noticed. Now fixed I think. Sandbh (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Akin to the one Jensen mentioned in J. Chem. Ed. (of course that one had in the s-/p-block table group 2 split after Mg into 2A (IUPAC 2) and 2B (IUPAC 12), and a d-block consisting of just 3-11), right? (I think it's cited at Group 12 element.) Double sharp (talk) 07:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Compounds of fluorine

What do you think, can we GA this one as is, or what is needed (other than to fix the cn tags)?

Also, can't we archive the big Metalloids discussion above (just move it elsewhere with a possibility to edit from right here)?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No bold words in the lead. -DePiep (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed^King Jakob _C2 21:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Note MOS:BOLD: "If the article's exact title is absent from the first sentence, do not apply the bold style to related text that does appear" and also "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it". Double sharp (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I knocked down the archive timer to 45 days, so Metalloids should go away shortly. DMacks (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

...and we still haven't finished all of the small sub-discussions, which will shortly (after Metalloids disappears) get separated into much smaller subtopics that will get posted to the bottom and will probably not get overly long. Double sharp (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

From "Nonmetal fluorides": "other hexahalides of the elements do even not [sic, BTW; should be "not even"] exist" – WCl₆, ReCl₆. Not sure if there are any others; would suspect not. Double sharp (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Also; seriously needs a prose check at some points. Double sharp (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I intended to say hexachlorides etc of chalcogens don't exist. Changed the to these.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Once you need a GA reviewer, ping me on my talk page and I'll review it. Oh, and while I don't agree with archiving that metalloids discussion, I would recommend moving it to a separate subpage, as it nearly makes this talk page unreadable. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Especially as (on my screen) it takes up 2/3 of the whole page... Double sharp (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, look out for subarticles of alkali metal. Coming soon to a free online encyclopedia near you! (Still working on group 2? I hate to see it lying there looking unfinished, but (1) I've left group 1 in similarly unfinished states before and (2) I am loath to just show up and take over someone else's article (figuratively speaking), at least not without permission or a retirement notice...) Double sharp (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather pick a random reviewer to have a chance it will be a person with smaller knowledge of chem (it helps to achieve more accessibility, which is an important thing). Your reviews are of quality and I don't have any reasons other than the one I just mentioned.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

There is also the chance you can seduce some newbie into working in this area, helping you in the future, etc. I thought Russians were sly and sneaky and would think of things like that. Unless...this is something where I am being a gauche American and stating the obvious. Well...we are so crude and literal. TCO (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Bagging Emsley

Here. Sandbh (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Electronegativity of lead

it:Discussione:Piombo#Elettronegatività This discussion is interesting (in Italian, use Google Translate). Does anyone have an idea (Sandbh?) what's going on? Double sharp (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

see page 192, the table. It is the only thing one should really rethink, having different OSes for different elements. Kinda makes sense, after the impression I just got after re-reading the electronegativity article (tl;dr "Electronegativity, as it is usually calculated, is not strictly a property of an atom, but rather a property of an atom in a molecule.").

I don't know how to react. Maybe add a few words in each article with different OSes, like "Normally, thallium is cited as having a Pauling electronegativity of ??. As a relatively low value, it along with its tendency to form monovalent compounds, served as a basis for a suggestion that it may be an alkali metal, before Mendeleev's periodic table finally placed thallium under indium (see below section History). However, it has been suggested the clear difference between Tl(I) and Tl(III) compounds can also be reflected in their electronegativities; namely, the Pauling electronagetivity for Tl(I) is ??, and for Tl(III) is ?? (see below section Chemistry)."

That is, if none has problem with the source. Does anyone? (If only we had the original publication of this data)

Yeah, Sandbh, your opinion would be welcome.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Like R8r said, it has to do with the oxidation state. Yeah, Pb+4 is rather electronegative and Pauling used the +4 as the oxidation state of the element. Greenwood for instances uses 1.9 which [I think] is from the 2+ state. And the fact that lead has more tendency to be +2 oxidation state shows it being reasonably metallic. IOW, it's not just comparing the like-for-like +4 to +4, but that the +2 is favored itself as you go down the table.

I'm not sure which you want to display in the infobox, but you could add an explanatory note to discuss the value. In article text, you could discuss it even more. There are an awful lot of sources that use the 2.3, but still some decent ones that use the 1.9. I'm torn, since the 1.9 seems more chemically intuitive, but the 2.3 is more commonly used. I would maybe mildly favor the 1.9 (I am very high on Greenwood and it just makes more sense). But, I don't care either. Definitely add the explanatory note, though.TCO (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's a start on this question. It's odd that there doesn't seem to be any more recent work on it. If there is it must be buried deeply. Relativistic effects may play a role in Pb(+2) v Pb(IV), judging by some other comments I encountered.

This is from Huheey (1972, p. 624): 'The electronegativity of lead is still a matter of considerable disagreement. On all counts the data available for calculations for lead are poor. Exact values for its radius, effective atomic number, ionization energy, electron affinity, and bond energies are much more difficult to obtain than for the lighter elements. On the basis of other work, Alfred and Rochow suggested an even higher value than that derived from bond energies, 2.45! Many workers, including Drago, could not accept such a high value (yet note that even the "conservative" Pauling scale gave Au a value of 2.4, 0.5 unit higher than Ag, and both Hg and Tl were given values higher than their lighter congeners). In support of a higher value for lead (not necessarily as high as 2.45) it may be pointed out that both the ionization energy and electron affinity of lead are greater than those of tin as might be expected as a result of the addition of fourteen poorly shielded protons across the lanthanide series. The controversy has not as yet been completely resolved.'

In his fourth edition Huheey (1993, p. 885) only says that all the elements from about Pt onwards are more electronegative than would be otherwise expected.

Wulsberg (2000, p. 338) says that the change in EN with changing oxidation state is usually not great enough to justify listing separate values especially given the values have uncertainties of + or – 0.05. As well, where such data are available, the variation is not much greater than 0.2 even over a range of several oxidation numbers. He goes on to say there are two exceptions: Tl and Pb. Their EN values are apparently very sensitive to their oxidation states. He adds a note (p. 354) saying that 'Faulty thermodynamic data will, of course, lead [sic] to faulty electronegativty values; this is thought to be the case, for example, with lead (IV).'

I'm still mostly in the dark about what's going on here. Sandbh (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Huheey JE 1972, Inorganic chemistry; principles of structure and reactivity, Harper & Row, New York
Huheey JE, Keiter EA & Keiter RL 1993, Inorganic chemistry; principles of structure and reactivity, HarperCollins College Publishers, New York
Wulfsberg G 2000, Inorganic Chemistry, University Science Books, Sausalito, CA

There is a paper by Kaupp and Schleyer (1993) that appears to address what's going on. It seems that the influence of relativistic effects on lead's 6s and 6p orbitals not only destabilize lead (IV) inorganic compounds but also shorten the bond lengths, which would presumably give a higher EN figure. This is only the case with bonds to electronegative elements (F, Cl, O); it does not happen with e.g. organic lead (IV) compounds. Hence, in contrast to lead (II) compounds, lead (IV) inorganic compounds are either unknown, or unstable transient species, or are highly reactive. Whereas organlead chemistry (C being less electronegative) is dominated by Pb(IV). Same goes with inorganic and organic Tl(I) and (III) chemistry. Apparently one can also see something like this going on the chemistry of In, Sn and to a lessser extent Ge, but not in group 15. This is my reading of their paper. It would be good to get other views. See also: Relativity powers your car battery. In conclusion, the EN of lead is probably better listed as the lower figure of 1.87; and that of Tl as 1.62 Sandbh (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Kaupp M & Schleyer P v R 1993, 'Ab initio study of structures and stabilities of substituted lead compounds. Why is inorganic lead chemistry dominated by Pb^II but organolead chemistry by Pb^IV?', Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 115, pp. 1061–73, doi:10.1021/ja00056a034

Done Changed the EN value for Pb in the elementbox to 1.87. Tl's EN was already given as 1.62. Double sharp (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Pauling (1960, p. 93) gave values of 1.8 for the EN of both Tl and Pb. Just under his periodic table of EN values he said, 'The values given in the table refer to the common oxidation states of the elements.' He does not say what these common oxidation states are but it is common knowledge that the most stable oxidation state of Tl is +1 and Pb is +2. When Allred (1961) updated Pauling's values using more recent thermochemical data he published a periodic table of ENs showing Tl as 2.04 and Pb as 2.33. He added a footnote to his table (p. 219) saying the oxidation state is specified at the top of each group. For Group III including Tl this was +3; for Group IV including Pb this was +4. On the next page he lists ENs of some elements in different oxidation states, and shows Tl(I) as 1.62 and Pb(II) as 1.87. Googling around I see that EN Tl is sometimes quoted as 2.04. Possibly the Allred values are sometimes quoted at face value, without an appreciation of their context. Sandbh (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Allred AL 1961, 'Electronegativity values from thermochemical data', Journal of Inorganic Nuclear Chemistry, vol. 17, pp. 215–21
Pauling L 1960, The nature of the chemical bond, 3rd ed., Cornell University, Ithaca, NY

Presumably we should update the revised Pauling EN values in the electronegativity article, and add a note to the table saying the EN values are for the elements in their ~~most~~ common oxidation states. Sandbh (talk) 11:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Someone can now email Jim Clark with an explanation for the weird electronegativity trend in group 14. :-) Double sharp (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

GAR Rn

Radon, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

GAR Li

Lithium, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep on with what you are doing...it helps the articles a lot...(and be sure to GAR some of the transition metals: some of them have problems far beyond citation needed tags, as they were promoted too long ago...) Double sharp (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

And thanks for going slowly so editors have a chance to work on one at a time (rather than a bulk nom and everyone getting spread too thinly or burned out in a week). DMacks (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Isotopes in infobox

I just realised that the infobox doesn't currently state which are just theoretical predictions (other than the implications of the > in the half-life, but even that could be genuine if you just observe one decay). Any ideas what to do about this? (It's caused some editors some confusion; see the history for Mercury (element), where ¹⁹⁶Hg got listed with the radioisotopes in the "Isotopes" section until I came and fixed it back...) Double sharp (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Like this?: write ¹⁹⁶Hg^* in the data row (|sym=Hg*) and add |isotopes comment=* = predicted below the isotopes subtable (that parameter exists; adding the footnote when already in use is possible). I see only this problem: when the isotope name would be linked (using |link1=mercury-196), the asterisk now is part of the wikilabel: ¹⁹⁶Hg^*. To prevent that, it would require a parameter addition to the six isotopes-subtemplates (e.g. |fn1=*). -DePiep (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Would rather not use *; it usually means an excited state in this context. Footnote numbers can be confused because they look like an intrinsic part of the nuclide notation with their formatting and positioning, which they are not. Italicisation could work with a note saying "italicised half-lives and decay modes are predictions"; the latter is especially helpful for ⁴⁸Ca, where one listed decay mode is experimentally observed, but not the other. So that's my suggestion. :-)

BTW, can we make the use of EC/ε consistent? (I mentioned this before.) We don't actually see both in one infobox, but we should really have consistency across infoboxes. (Also, "ECEC" for ¹³⁰Ba – yes, it does happen, though β⁺β⁺ is far more common – looks just weird compared to "εε" IMO.) Double sharp (talk) 09:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

We only should disallow exact similars, and allow other notations. So, if I read you well, these are bad footnote links: ...* and ¹⁹⁶Hg^[1], right? That could leave the option ...^[a]. Really, if ¹⁹⁶Hg^[1] (or: ...^[a]) is not a standard writing form within isotope world, we can use it for footnote (I am not into scientific notations in this, so pls check me). And next: using italics to mark something (other than: word accentuation) I do not accept, because a reader does not get the footnote association. Nowhere in wiki pages that marking is recognised. (In ELEM we also use brackets like "(Uus)" meaning predicted -- another weird jargon thing).

re EC/ε: that could be ε everywhere. If only my WP:AWB functioned, I could sweep the infoboxes for this. -DePiep (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding: anything similar about "IT" as in Scandium isotopes; "SF" in Dubnium? -DePiep (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

IT and SF can stay as they are. (BTW, just a side note: γ is different from SF, as in gamma decay the decaying isomer does not have to be metastable). Double sharp (talk) 06:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. alphabetical footnotes are a very good choice. Double sharp (talk) 06:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Changed EC into ε for Lr. No more EC in infoboxes.

We might choose a consistent format for "β+ (96.9%)" vs "96.9% β+". The % is added in some 20? infoboxes. -DePiep (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Would personally prefer putting the more basic info first, i.e. decay mode before percentage. But can see it work the other way too; that's like English having adjectives preceding nouns. For me the only important thing regarding that is consistency. Double sharp (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: "EC" is used elsewhere too [4]. -DePiep (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

That can be changed too. Double sharp (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree 100% that the most important thing is consistency. Having said that, I think it better to have % first, then the space between the '%' and the decay mode could be omitted. My biggest concern is to try to keep the information compact so as to avoid unnecessary word-wrapping within the cells. There is a lot of information in a small chart, and adding the percentage makes it more difficult to squeeze everything in. At any event, if % is first, the cell should be left justified; if it is 2nd, the cell should be right justified; if it is missing, the cell should be center justified. YBG (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

As for widths and wrapping: I agree we do not want two-row texts in this. We can do: a. {{nowrap}} input (may make the box wider) and/or b. remove brackets around % value. This last think looks better when we put % in 2nd position (also my choice for being topic-before-detail; also helps visual vertical aligning). When % then left-align. Unanswered: always add the % value? -DePiep (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would support adding the % value throughout (but only when it is known, naturally). Decay pathways with sufficiently low probabilities (feel free to suggest something suitable? < 10⁻⁶%? < 10⁻³%?) may be ignored altogether. Double sharp (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Either of these lower limits would work, but I think we should consistently report the percentage in the form ##.#% or #.#%, i.e., a precision of 10⁻¹%. If the probability is less than 0.1% but greater than the selected threshold, I'd suggest using the form "<0.1%". IMHO, greater precision is not important enough to merit devoting the extra infobox real estate, but feel free to disagree.

To promote what I think is a pleasing visual appearance, I'd like to (a) align decimal points and % signs vertically and (b) have white space on the edges of the cell. Together, these two criteria lead me to prefer displaying the percentage to the left of the decay mode, with a leading fixed space before probabilities from 0.1% to 9.9%. YBG (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. Double sharp (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Me too.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Waiting to be implemented. The variable alignment might be a nut to crack. -DePiep (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, what are we going to do about decay energy? Should we keep it in there? Should we add nuclear spin to the infobox (possibly knocking out decay energy to make space)? (I think we last discussed this in around October 2010 when I was not even hanging around here yet! That ended with Nergaal stating that he was going to do it. *flash cut* Quoth the narrator: "2 years and 10 months later...") Double sharp (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Hydrogen#Missing data, article structure

Several good and action-on-able (I insist! though I grudgingly accept "reliable") points and requests. Double sharp (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Is anybody looking here? Double sharp (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Heat capacity ambiguous with gaseous elements -- add Cp?

A talk started at Template talk:Infobox argon: [5]. The editor pointed out that we should add "C_p" to the data. Here is the original post, I copy:

"For a gas, the term "heat capacity" isn't specific enough. Constant volume and constant pressure heat capacities differ greatly, and there should be an indication of which heat capacity is given. It turns out that the number listed is at constant pressure, but I had to dig to confirm this. Perhaps the link to "heat capacity" should lead to an explanation that is directly clarifying, or the annotation (C_p) could be inserted. I’ve inserted (C_p) in the entry here. Something similar should be done wherever this issue arises. Harold f (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)"

I have no opinion, I am just moving the talk central here for all elements. I'll notify the posting editor. -DePiep (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I strongly suggest adding the C_p label, also an archived talk suggests a "calculated" label could be needed.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The heat capacity should be labeled. Cp is probably the better one if you have both. Cp and Cv are convertible via some equation.TCO (talk) 04:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you both mean by "label"? In WP code, it can mean this: [[Mercury (element)|Mercury]] ("Mercury" is a label for the link). It can also mean this: in the infobox, there is an infobox label: the "Molar heat capacity" text (that is: the lefthand column text). And maybe, 3rd, you mean to add "C_p" to the (righthand) value (which is not a label, we agree)? Wikitechically, we can do all crisp requests. So please make it crisp. -DePiep (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

3rd (not a label, but (sorry, R8R!) R8R (mis)used the term, not me!), like how we do it for superheavy elements (e.g. {{Infobox rutherfordium}}, {{Infobox hassium}}) with "(predicted)". Is that clear and crisp? Double sharp (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

But note that it should only be done for gases (H, He, N, O, F, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn). Double sharp (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Chalcogen

Two things about the chalcogen article:

As I have addressed many of the issues raised at Talk:Chalcogen#A-class review, can someone take another look at it?
Since Chalcogen#Compounds is getting massive and unwieldy, should it be split? ^King Jakob _C2 20:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

As always, as I say: look at Alkali metal (shameless plug done). Seriously, it has flaws, but I think the idea to divide compounds by type is a good one. It obviously doesn't work so well for the chalcogens, but do consider implementing it. It will make it look a whole lot less massive. Also, more pictures there, please.

Also: I finally responded as to why Britannica is unacceptable here. Double sharp (talk) 11:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

archive index

anyone know what happened to it? hasn't been updated since March! Double sharp (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Last archive action was July 30. All current threads here are from June/July, so within 45d range (defined 'active'). You can see the archives in the note "Archives for the WikiProject Elements talk page" in this page's top. I see no issue. -DePiep (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Not that page; this page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive index. Double sharp (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I see: User talk:Legobot/2013#Indexer task. Though the first days of June have long since passed, so I wouldn't hold my breath to wait for it to start working again. Double sharp (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

On what I finally did with the archives

After some indecision, I decided to try to keep as many links working as possible, so the huge metalloids discussion got archived to its own archive (#15). Newly archived entries will go to #14 until it fills, upon which they will skip straight to #16 (provided we don't have yet another huge discussion to necessitate such measures to prevent browser meltdowns at much higher than 320K...). Double sharp (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I just set the counter to 16, so next archiving will be there. Keeps threads in time sequence nicely. -DePiep (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Chronology was already completely screwed up with archive 15 starting in mid-2012 and ending in mid-2013 even though it's just one thread. Can see where you're coming from though: let's not make it more screwed up than it already is. But then archive 14 (ends June 2013 for now) already extends past archive 15 stops (May 2013), so not really sure what to do about it. My proposal is thus to just treat #15 as a "special case" that doesn't fit into the chronology for this sort of reason. Feel free to move it outside the usual numbering sequence ("Archive Metalloids"?) if you think that makes it clearer. Double sharp (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes we leave Archive 15 alone. With chronology I mean archive bot chronology: threads are added based on their latest edit timestamp. I only wanted to hack that any future additions are in #16, not #14. -DePiep (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we can add the closing talks (currently active here) to Archive 15 too. Would keep it together. -DePiep (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, that would make sense. Double sharp (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Any further debates on this subject of our alkali metal–noble gas categorization will just be quibbles on individual elements (e.g. 171 – thus returning the discussion to whence it came, a debate on whether Po was a metal or metalloid!), and have no bearing on our overall categorization of chemical properties. State, natural occurrence were not part of that discussion. Archive 15 is now closed (at over 390K, incidentally! But I don't really want to split it). Double sharp (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Bonchev and Kamenska newer (1981) ref for predicted properties of Z=113–120!

I finally found one more recent than Fricke and less recent than Haire (who mostly copies from Fricke) :-). You can find it by searching "element 119 melting point" into Google: it's on researchgate.net and should be on around the third page of results. Stay tuned for an infobox update! Double sharp (talk) 05:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Irritatingly it seems to write its error bars as ranges. I have given the full ranges; let me know if you think not doing so would be a better solution. (Also, it gives no boiling point for E115; I'll keep the old one.) Double sharp (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

@DePiep: got any solutions to deal with colliding en dashes and minus signs (e.g. {{Infobox ununoctium}}, {{Infobox flerovium}})? Double sharp (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We see: Melting point −23–−13 C and we are not happy. Background: per MOSNUM, indeed the negatives must be by "unary minus sign" &minus; (never the hyphen) and no space between the minus and the digits. For the range, an ndash without spaces is basic by MOS:NDASH. So the current setup is correct at first. But there is an escape:

Solution per MOS:NDASH: If negative values are involved, an en dash might be confusing. Use words instead: −10 to 10, not −10–10.

I add: "to" is a bit lax about the borders right? If we need to include the borders explicitly (scientifically), we can write (also per MOS) between −10 and 10. -DePiep (talk) 07:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes but it is an infobox and we are cramped for space and I don't want to put anything much wider than "to". I suppose we only use it when negative values are involved, right? When one unit goes negative but others do not, there is no need to use "to" for all of them, just for the one that goes negative, right? Double sharp (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I proposed to use them in all (C, F, K) ranges once just one is needed: to the reader's eye a single pattern is more recognisable/readable. The "cramped for space" I find less important, since infoboxes are larger than screen already, and in this melting point case it generally does not add an extra row. -DePiep (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

And we should technically also have a note saying that this means the sharply defined melting point is somewhere in this range, and not that it melts over this entire range!!! (The original sources use the en-dash notation, but then again they only give Kelvin, which doesn't go negative normally.) But do you consider it a real problem? I think it should be OK. Double sharp (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I hope the sources points this out too. As with other notes we talked earlier (isotopes predicted it was?) we need a system for these in-template footnotes. Todo-listed. -DePiep (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yup, it was isotopes predicted half-lives.

No, the sources don't point it out: I'm guessing that that's because they're aimed at an audience which already knows very well that elements all have sharply defined melting and boiling points. Unfortunately, we are not, and so we should explain it to avoid ambiguity. Double sharp (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

What I did at E118 may be controversial. My excuse: these guys are predicting, not extrapolating, and in a region like this filled with relativistic effects I'd trust the former much more. Note that they make E118 gaseous, not solid (though still with quite a respectable density! I assume they mean the liquid density there?) Double sharp (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

About using colors or grey for "predicted" properties

Note: this subthread is about using "predicted" colors or just grey in our element tables and infoboxes. Separated from the more source related B&K thread above -DePiep (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

About the phase font color. We use font color for the phase (Hg is 80). Once an element phase is stable in their prediction (that is, not under discussion here), we should adjust our periodic table templates in this. Now there is used both grey (unknown) and explicit (phase stated) over the templates. We should apply only one rule: either "predicted so grey" or "follow the prediction". We have no separate colors for "gas (predicted)" &tc (I hope noone will propose either). Compare: {{Periodic table}}, {{Periodic_table_(large_version)}}, {{Periodic_table_(extended,_large)}}. -DePiep (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- We should make our infoboxes and periodic tables consistent with each other. Now the infoboxes use blue for liquid and green for gas and the tables use green for liquid and red for gas! (I would personally prefer the former, as it's much easier for red-green colour-blind people.) Double sharp (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I never ever noticed this! Open a thread #Font color for gases and liquids. Much easier after the option 10 change is through. -DePiep (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

- My proposal: follow the prediction in the element articles and infoboxes; predicted so grey otherwise. Because that way you use the prediction in the element article where the predictions are the main topic (you really wouldn't have any content about chemical and physical properties otherwise!), but when it is not the main topic you just grey it out. To logic that out we should also put in (predicted) fill colours in the Mt, Ds, Rg, 113–118 infoboxes but not the compact periodic table template. Double sharp (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
- It is also possible that I am not being logical, in which case feel free to scold/trout me appropriately. Double sharp (talk) 08:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Good angle. That would be: only infoboxes use "gas (predicted)" to set font color explicit, but not PT templates (they use grey font color for all "predicted" phases). Maybe there are some specialised templates and articles too for explicit colors, but I canot think of one now.

In the future, I'd like to make the "large" template cells really large adding more data (like the printed wallpaper PTs have); then there may be space for this detail too. Future. -DePiep (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

We ought to change {{Periodic table (extended, large)}} to Pyykkö (how did we miss that?). Then it would include predicted phases. I suppose we can live with "all phase information for elements beyond element 103, lawrencium (Lr) is predicted" for now. Or you can just use mildly muted blues and greens (I'm sorry, DePiep, but I like this better! It's more in line with what we do for the fill colours, after all...). Double sharp (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Change to Pyykkö as you like. That is not related to the legend/classification issues discussed here at all (we might think about a good visual representation for the Pyykkö effect wrt dislodged numbers, in all these Pyykkö pages, but that is a different topic). -DePiep (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Muted font colors: ok, proposal then to be developed in #Font color for gases and liquids all right. See there. Added now, in short: phase gas (predicted) can be used now in {{element cell}}'s, and for now produces same font color as "gas". so you can use this in templates; a future switch to a lighter color can happen. -DePiep (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Did you change tack in grey/color rule? I thought you meant: only use "gas predicted" where explaned (i.e. in element articles & infobox); otherwise use grey for predicted. Fine. Now you write to do introduce these fontcolors in templates (either mute or dark)? Confused. -DePiep (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Only because that is an extended periodic table template, and so would claim it is explained (sort of) by virtue of being extended. For otherwise why do we use the muted fill colours there? Of course we don't do that for the standard non-extended periodic tables. Double sharp (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

why do we use the muted fill colours -- that is the original question: to use or not to use them (see even the Bard was pondering this back then -- talking about an old thread!). (Now do we actually use them? In {{Periodic table (extended, large)}} all elements 104+, inluding periods 8 and 9, use the non-predicted colors). Working forward, about consistent use: agree to expand the rule into: "use (predicted) colors, font and bg, 1. in element articles & infoboxes, 2. in extended PTs (also compacts)". (Now that mini-PT we use is to be reconsidered for this). -DePiep (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

About {{NavPeriodicTable}}, the micro one. See its /documentation examples. IMO, it already is fine: greys in group 7 when standard, colored with lights in group 7-8-9 when expanded. Same for the mousehover texts. Isn't this what you described to expect? -DePiep (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Implemented this for fill-colours also, so now all element infoboxes have either full or muted (predicted) fill colour (that isn't the Unknown chemical properties colour). Double sharp (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

... you propose, I understand. If I am correct, we already can enter "transition metal (predicted) to produce that lighter post-transition color. Same principle than: everywhere, or only where that "predicted" is described (basically in element article and infobox).

Note: please do not squeeze in option 10 outcomes, however reasonable, because they are not decided yet. We better do that in a sweep afterwards with dedicated single-topic edits. -DePiep (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you think should be done with the mini-periodic table header in the infobox? That really should be on a case-by-case basis, but would be interested to hear your views (the cases are: "element is only known really from predictions" and "otherwise"). Double sharp (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The mini PT does not have fontcolors. Nothing to change. If you mean to change their bg color (do you?) like into "transition metal (predicted)" from grey, I'm doubting. The 6px cells are very small to show a recognisable subtly different color. Can do in sandbox easily, for starters. As for "case-by-case': bad I say, disturbing (distroying) the visual recognison over the infoboxes.

The micro looks OK already. See some thread above (about coloring extended PTs). -DePiep (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

And what do we do for flerovium when the prediction is just "solid or liquid"? That's rather awkward... Double sharp (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like our logic says: undecided, so grey. Its article can have a section about these two predictions. -DePiep (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

One can set the legend in mousehover/title text for that cell using |legend=my own text. See {{element cell/doc}}.

One can set the font color for that cell using |style=color:#ab34ef;. However, this font color won't be the legend (so basically a meaningless decoration, unless noted somehow). -DePiep (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

@DePiep: But at the very least we should not show the "unknown chemical properties" legend in {{Compact extended periodic table}}, since it is not used and looks way too similar to the predicted post-transition (later read: poor) metal colour. Double sharp (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. -DePiep (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Same for {{Periodic table (extended, large)}} it is an option switch in the new legend: [6]

To be more precise about my remark "please don't edit before option 10 is done":

Bad: use (proposed) new category names polyatomic, diatomic nonmetal and poor metal (or their ... (predicted) ones).

Bad: Introduce or even discuss ;-) new colors outside the option 10 ones. E.g. for gas, gas (predicted), also for {{infobox element}} (discussion is postponed)

Good: change some extended PT into a Pyykkö layout

Good in category (position 6 in {{element cell}}s). Change category into a valid name (today other nonmetal, other nonmetal (predicted) are valid!).

Good in phase (position 5 in {{element cell}}s). Change phase into a valid name (today unknown phase, gas, gas (predicted) are valid). So the new options gas (predicted) &tc. can now be used, and do not disturb option 10. Effect: 1. the word "(predicted)" appears nicely in the mousehovertext. However, for now its font color is the same as non-predicted, and that color may change after option 10 is done into stability.

Hope this helps. -DePiep (talk) 08:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

@DePiep: We also need solid (predicted) (e.g. for Rf) and liquid (predicted) (e.g. for 119). Double sharp (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

These are already there, just as gas: gas (predicted), solid (predicted), liquid (predicted). Can be used in the {{element cell}}-x templates (extended PTs). For now, all three have the same color as their measured phase. -DePiep (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

On Fl, I would not mind just making it "solid", as though it is an older prediction, it is at least copied without comment by Haire (2006)... Double sharp (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It does seem as though these guys are extrapolating from past periods and doing some corrections for relativistic effects. Give me some time to make up my mind on this matter. Double sharp (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I won't set anything for Fl, it's just that there are options for a split source opinion. A smart footnote may solve it (in a few templates). -DePiep (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's a bit of out-of-the-box thinking for you guys to mull over and adopt/modify/reject as you see fit. For predictions of category and/or predictions of phase, we could use the same non-descript grayish color, but include something like "Liquid (predicted)" or "Metaloid (predicted)" in the mouse-over text. I can readily see this idea has pro's and con's, but I offer it to help get the creative juices rolling. YBG (talk) 06:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure is an option. Technically possible already in {{element cell}}s. (Anyone needs wikicode examples?).

Roundup. Importantly, we want consistency over all templates (PTs). So far, this subthread has stabilised on the following guideline:

Rule on "(predicted)": The "x (predicted)" names, both for category and phase, are used in articles and tables (PTs), when there is clarification at hand. When used, background color and font color are also explicit (the lighter shade*). Otherwise, "unknown" is used twice. Whichever term is used, each term used is in mousehover and in legend explanation, so either "unknown" or "x (predicted)".

* "phase (predicted)" colors, all three, for now are same as their darker master colors.

That clarification can be in the element article text. So all element infoboxes can have that x (predicted) legend + color. Of course any "prediction" must be sourced. Also, all extended periodic tables imply such clarification (after all, "extended" already is "predicted"). So they appear in articles and tables about Pyykkö and superactinides and periods 8-9-10.

The option YBG notes may be required when sources are split, like in Fl. That could require a singular exception, still used consistently over Fl mentionings.

The option YBG points to could be applied to the greys in period 7, when not an extended PT -- consistenly everywhere then. Personally I think we do not want that nano-information semi-visible in a place where we have decided that it is not important. After all it clarifies something into "unknown (predicted)". -DePiep (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

note: Fm, Md, No, Lr should be changed to solid (predicted) (I will do this soon) Double sharp (talk) 05:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Done Double sharp (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Font color for gases and liquids

Post from elsewhere: [7] We should make our infoboxes and periodic tables consistent with each other. Now the infoboxes use blue for liquid and green for gas and the tables use green for liquid and red for gas! (I would personally prefer the former, as it's much easier for red-green colour-blind people.) Double sharp (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Good point. We want them to be the same all over. Blue not green gives better contrast with the background, but they are usually near a blue wikilink too. The contrast issues need to be calculated and addressed first, because that is a major issue with the category background colors.

I request to let this rest until after the option 10 change is through (or dropped). First two bg colors will change (new contrast calculations), and second because the infobox header is a bit fixed on the old situation (e.g. "nonmetal" meaning "other nonmetal"; it can be made more flex & smart after the change). Third is that however obvious maybe, I want such a change to the iconic PT view discussed between, not imposed upon, fellow ELEM editors. As said, plenty of time after the 10 change. -DePiep (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Added; (predicted). For now, gas (predicted), liquid (predicted), solid (predicted) are recognised too. So can be used in {{element cell}} &tc. as a "phase" like one uses "liquid" now. Maybe later these prediction colors may differ from their parent color. -DePiep (talk) 10:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The words "gas (predicted)" will appear in the cell title (mousehover text) too. -DePiep (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

About contrast calculations. Readability of colored text on a colored background depends on the contrast of the colors. Black on white is good, red on red is bad. How about blue on green? W3C has published rules on how to determine this [8], as part of accessability in general. The two colors should have a minimum contrast ratio.

Now when we choose bg colors and font colors, we should only use color combinations with the right ratio. For example, our dark alkali red background color likely will do bad or fail this test. If we introduce new colors (bg or font), we'd better check for this accessability. It is a straight calculation, but also a bit difficult calculation. We need outside websitesfor this. -DePiep (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Some cool UHE predictions

Element 184 should be able to reach +12: [9]. (This article is really quite cool with the details about 164's chemistry. Any free .pdfs online?)

Also, I finally found B. Fricke's first name: it's Burkhard ([10]).

More cool Fricke papers: [11] [12]

For reference: the original two Fricke papers I linked to are at [13] (basics) and [14] (detailed).

Absorption of Cn onto an Au surface: [15] Double sharp (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I also read they once tried to make element 184. Maybe an article can be made on this? ^King Jakob _C2 11:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It has (1) synthesis attempts and (2) lots of predictions on chemical properties by various authorities and (3) is a magic number, suggesting an island of stability (which Fricke mentions – changed from 164 to 184). So yes, I would say it is now pretty notable. The only trouble is that it's very problematic to display it without a position in the periodic table, because that totally screws up the elementbox! We do know from Fricke_theoretical_1971 that it is expected to be in an "eka-superactinide" series that starts at 173. Give me a few minutes and I'll start making yet another fake template for you. Double sharp (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Fake template made:

But I would advise you to wait until the whole option 10 edit-frenzies are over and the new scheme is settled in, to avoid causing havoc!

(BTW, unhexquadium (Z=164) may also be notable this way. In fact it seems that it could be possible to create some more of those elements. We could have 119, 120, 121, 122, 124, 126, 127, general superactinide article (121–155), 154–172, 184. Nevertheless (1) let's not do it now and (2) some of these are borderline, especially 154–163 and 167–170; but it's not nice to have gaps. 123 and 125 really don't have ANYTHING at all interesting, but these have one or two pieces of stuff. I may be more lenient towards them; after all, they have 1 piece of interesting info rather than 0.)

You know what, we could try this scheme. Then I might reconsider on 123 and 125 and 128 just to have an unbroken initial series. 129–153 can then be redirected to superactinide. Interesting tidbits exist for 132 and 144, but that's all they are. Then 154–172 would have their own articles, 173–183 would redirect to eka-superactinide (possibly a section of superactinide), 184 would have its own article, and the redirect-here superactinide article would have a note about the absence of predictions for elements 185 and above.

Now I think the notability criterion for UHEs should be "Can you fill up at least two nontrivial non-electron-configuration infobox entries?" What about e-conf? Should that count? And should we make it one? That way we again have all articles exist until 172 (and also 184), but at least it's reliable and correct info there. (E-conf is admittedly nontrivial.) Double sharp (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Above, near the end of this thread, I have noted that certain edits are OK even before option 10 [16]. -DePiep (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. Could you help me insert 173–184 in the way shown above into the real template? (use the old eka-superactinides colour; the term is OR-y but we don't have anything else better). Double sharp (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Working in {{Compact extended periodic table/sandbox}} now. Will be back here with questions. -DePiep (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

See the sandbox. Steps are noted in the es. Notes: check my 117 and 171 of course (mousehover 117!). What I wrote about 50/50 Frevolium today: we can construct color and mousehover text, but that is not catched in the changeover. I used {{element cell}} where possible. eka-superactinide color is our legend color & name indeed, and we will not change that before option 10.

If you think it is OK now, you can put the sandbox into live, asap! Tweaking 117 and 171 can still be done afterwards. When option 10 arrives, we'll have to visit all these templates and check for the words.

Suggestion: if you want to sort 117 and 171 out before option 10 (good reason you have), just ask Sandbh to pause the option 10 closure. We don't want to be time-pressed. -DePiep (talk) 10:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Two questions: (1) Astatine is also a halogen/metalloid (more of the latter really), yet we mark it as halogen (as long as we still use that category) because otherwise it gives the mistaken impression that halogen and group 17 are two different things (OK, colloquially in science they are different, but officially IUPAC sez they are the same thing, which is another reason I'm in favour of getting rid of it) and that At is not a halogen (which it is). 117 has the same situation, so I made it halogen (along with At). You saw my edit to the infobox, didn't you? It's really more of a metalloid, but I can't really call it just that until option 10 finally comes and we kill off the halogen category.

(2) You have a double-asterisk with no corresponding reference to it just before 173. (And technically placing it on a PT like this is very strictly speaking OR because the sources just describe it without giving a figure!) This is why I included a blank period 10 with a ** just under the * in period 8: these are period 10 elements (Fricke states that period 9 ends at 172). As it stands, they're not shown to be in any period. Doubtless things would be less confusing if the predictions had gone further! Double sharp (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

edit: rëadded period 10. Double sharp (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh BTW, thanks for figuring out how to make it clear that 121++ and 173++ are probably not homologues of each other without ending up with a gigantic whitespace of doom between them. :-) Double sharp (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit as you like, it's yours. I completely forgot that I was copying category names from new style (here) to old style (the sandbox/live), so I broke the logic. Unless it's table technical, I cannot do much more I guess. Do the lower rows need to be repositioned?

Again, if you think it is OK in old style (adding 173++), put it into live I'd say. From then, we can edit the sandbox into the new category scheme, which is perfectly good practice. -DePiep (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it's fine. We can bring it to live. :-) Double sharp (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

...and

Done. Double sharp (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

{{NavPeriodicTable/sandbox}} (when extended), you expect 173++ there too?
- Yes. Double sharp (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I am preparing this one for option 10. Group 17 will be colored as in the PT here I assume. -DePiep (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Double sharp (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment (not about the science): (1) we should have a different label for 173++, maybe a double dot instead of a single one; (2) we should have some space between the superactinides and eka-superactinides as they may not be precisely homologous to each other. Double sharp (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Pls take a look at the sandbox. If you Okay, I can easily put the 173++ row into live right now, leaving behind the option 10 changes for later.

double dot: as it is now in the sandbox, can we do without? If a marker is needed I also might try something else (cross or triangle).

The micro PT links to the element page like Unsepttrium. For the 12 eka's, they Redirect to 2 pages (IUPAC sys name or Ext PT). We could also change all names into Superactinide (they are used for the link & mousehover only), but that would delete the systematic name completely. -DePiep (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

{{Periodic table (Pyykkö model, large)/sandbox}} is candidate too. -DePiep (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

This one could go live now (it is all old style). My linking & naming might need a check though. You can edit & put it live as you please. -DePiep (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

looks good. still feel it may need a clue that these are period 10 but would not insist. Double sharp (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Well it says "10" in the leftmost column. I do not get which information you want to add. Do you mean adding asterisks or so? Where to whould that point? With lanthanides we usually point to a place in the table, and elsewhere they point to a footnote. As for positioning of the row: I added half a column to break the vertical group suggestion, and a white row to separate. Anything more? -DePiep (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

oops, sorry, wrong place. i'm talking about the navperiodictable one. Double sharp (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, NavPeriodicTable then. There none period has a number. You want it moved close under period 9, the breakout superacts below? An other horizontal position? I'm afraid we cannot put in more information or any footnotes. Once in the extended PT, the reader should be willing to find some unexplained details. -DePiep (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The large Pyykkö table now is live with period 10. I also made some layout refinements. -DePiep (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

would it be possible to have the two-dot marker just under the period 8 one-dot marker? basically like the compact one, except the period x labels are gone, just the asterisks are there, Double sharp (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

{{Compact extended periodic table}}, I see. What to do with "121++ and 173++ are probably not homologues of each other" (as you wrote above)? I did the horizontal shift (half a cell), to break visual column suggestion. The compact one might be too small for such a subtlety. (btw, in template space I had a horizontal browser slider to scroll the width -- gone now. Article page is OK. Can you scroll this wide template?)-DePiep (talk) 08:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Struck. I am confused, will rephrase my question. -DePiep (talk) 08:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Back to square 1. About presenting 173++ in extended PTs.

We have three PTs showing extended rows (not counting the block-colored PTs like {{this one}}):

{{NavPeriodicTable/sandbox}} (micro)

{{Compact extended periodic table}} (compact)

{{Periodic table (Pyykkö model, large)}} (Pyykkö large)

Do I understand: 1. the Pyykkö large is OK now, and 2. you prefer the micro to be like compact one (row sorting and using a double asterisk/dot in there?

Another change could be: in the compact one, shift the 173++ row half a cell to stress that "121++ and 173++ are probably not homologues of each other" (as you wrote above)? This subtlety is not possible in the micro PT. -DePiep (talk) 08:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Would be like {{NavPeriodicTable/sandbox}} (micro). Also check whitespaces (hor, vert) please. DePiep (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

yes, the navperiodictable should be like that.

also yes, feel free to unalign 121++ and 173++ in the compact extended PT. Double sharp (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

@DePiep: Actually, please, please, do it now (I do not know how). People are already adding their own personal uncited speculations [17]. Double sharp (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Done the micro navbox and the compact one. Finally I got it. I understand this issue is finished for these three templates. -DePiep (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

(still wondering if 173–184 can have the same width as the rest despite being staggered, but even if not it's fine) Double sharp (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thats the compact one I think. To be tweaked indeed. Btw, any plans to restructure these other extended PTs, that are colored by block not by category: {{Periodic table (Pyykkö model)}}? -DePiep (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Pyykkö doesn't go past 172 in his paper, so I would rather not do it on his model. Also, can we outlaw block colouring from extended PTs? I mean, I always found it one of the most unuseful chemistry terms (I mean, chemically the elements in a block are just way too diverse for them to be treated as unitary blocks), and it just gets worse with SHEs with block-blurring (superactinides: 5g/6f/7d/8p_1/2; eka-superactinides: 5h/6g/[7f]/etc. etc. etc.). Double sharp (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I dunno what's the reason

but those extended large PTs seem to be attracting a lot of nonsense edits from IPs who have no sources and yet want to impose their personal (probably wrong FYI) predictions on WP. I dunno, what's the reason? Romance of being an explorer of unexplored PT territory? Double sharp (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The last sentence, minus the question mark, would be a great name for a blog, or somesuch :) Sandbh (talk) 02:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks. Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Done

I am now wondering who put that "Done" template down, and what its implications are. If it was me who put it down, it was a mistake. But maybe...just maybe... Double sharp (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Infobox colors for 113-118

They are colored now with the (predicted) colors. Used not to be. Why was the change done? After all, everything about 117's chem (and, likewise, others' except 114) is speculation. For 119+, it's okay, since the very existence of them is speculation (we haven't observed, but suppose they should be able to exist and demonstrate the said properties). But for 113-118, we keep the observed-elements-only PT and color them as (unknown chem properties) therein. No speculation in those articles, since we've observed them. Why do the infoboxes stand out?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to take the blame for doing it. :-)

Second of all (I notice you don't complain for Mt–Rg, I think it's because the speculation is not too surprising, right? :-P), we do have chemical speculation in the articles. In the main PT, we don't use predicted colours, because we are not discussing the predicted properties of superheavy elements in detail. Yet in those articles, we are discussing precisely that, and I figured that if the phase colour shows in the infobox, then so should the background colour. For Mt-Rg and 113-118, it's more of "we have observed, we know they exist, we don't know if they demonstrate said properties but they should". So, yeah, that was basically what was running through my mind when I did it. Feel free to revert and discuss. Double sharp (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I simply forgot about the three :) Everything's valid for them as well.

Here, I see how to justify what I feel: When we talk about a speculation, we treat it as such. And we can't treat a color as a speculation. Sure, it's lighter, but I don't normally see the difference unless I'm pointed out.

Besides, at least three elements tricky to color: 114 (p metal/noble gas), 117 (halogen/metalloid), 118 (noble gas/whatever else).

since you don't mind, I'll undo for now. I'm open to further discussion.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

On 117: Halogens are gone as a coloured category from our present periodic table. On 117 as a metalloid, well we do have to colour it something (to my mind), and while the sources don't explicitly call it a metalloid, they give enough predictions that it's a metalloid beyond reasonable doubt. OR and synthesis maybe, but very defensible to my mind (IAR; and I always felt that the spirit of OR was to really to avoid vandals or well-meaning fantasizing users from adding plausible but really BS content to a page, not to disallow people from using periodicity and general qualitative stuff to derive the likely element category of currently nonexistent superheavy elements when such things can be easily derived from the sources and there's no other route Sandbh, I side with you on using WP articles as sources. In fact to my mind that's even more justifiable as it doesn't even give any info which is not directly derived from the sources except the graph which isn't really referenced by the metalloid article. Here endeth the irrelevant off-topic parenthetical rant on Wikipedia policies. Quoth Double sharp.)

On Fl: Düllmann (I think) et al. called it a metal in their recent paper from Talk:Flerovium, so latest experiments wouldn't really support calling it a noble gas (besides, Fl is more reactive than Cn, according to Kratz!) And using predicted electron configuration (since we don't have a real one), it's in the p-block, so would have to be coloured as a poor metal.

On 118: The difficulty here is that since we didn't use the reactive nonmetal scheme, we presently cannot call it anything other than a noble gas (and as much as relativistic effects are cool and shake up many cool things, I just don't see them allowing 118 to form diatomic or polyatomic molecules in the gaseous state. MO theory disallows it for every known noble gas; 118 has the expected electron configuration; why should it be different?) So noble gas (predicted) will have to do for now. (Rn already shows some cationic behaviour; our trichotomy of the nonmetals is kind of on the verge breaking down around here!)

So, shall we make the state colours the unknown one in the infoboxes of elements from Fm up, applying your logic rigorously? (I would not mind.) Double sharp (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Other languages

Why do we maintain other language PTs?

Now we need to translate "diatomic nonmetal"! -DePiep (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It might be getting useful when the symbols of many other scripts (cyrillic!) are in there.

And some other PT forms I might put up for discussion:

Template:Periodic table (vertical) (not used, and a screen format variant really)
Template:Periodic table (wide) (soo much overlap this variant adds close to nothing)
Template:Periodic table (text only) (are we supposed to supply this HTML-variant)

Later on I will build the arguments. Just allow me this to-be-checked list for now. -DePiep (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The solution for this will partly come from the wikidata feature, which ultimately will hold infobox and other information that will be useful in any template, in any language, so that one data statement can be used across all language wikis. It's already being used to hold information on language links, so if you click on the little "edit links" feature on the left lower page, under languages, you get a page with a link-list of all the other wikis in other languages that link to the one you're in (that's how they get the "view in other languages" feature you've seen on WP handheld versions this last year). But this feature is capable of a lot more-- it acts like a full database. Example: if you click on "edit links" at lower left in the "languages" section on the WP page for The Simpsons Movie, you will be sent to wikidata [18], where you get not only the language links, but also a list at the top of logical "statements" like the director, cast, and all the other info that you would get at IMDb. They are waiting to be used.

Okay, I don't think this has yet to be incorporated into infoboxes on the film in any wiki, but clearly that is coming. And it will be the place to store data for infoboxes and templates in chemistry, too (it's like wiki COMMONS, but for data, not images). At some point, if you change an element atomic weight on the wikidata page, which is used in infoboxes and templates and so on, it will simultaneously change that value for every wiki in every language that uses that value, which is linked to the wikidata page.

WP itself could be one giant database, but if they tried that now, the system would probably crash, as MediaWiki is written in PHP and data-based at the back end with MySQL. A real database containing even all the hyperlinked info on WP in all languages, would probably need a great deal more power. You see that the wikidata thing has been funded by Google, where they DO that that much server power and database mining power.

Ultimately some form of database-searchable WP will eventually be hosted on servers owned by Google. Google, Skynet, the Singularity-- you can see it all coming. The only question is when. And how evil they will be. S B H arris 01:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Chinese is useful because it's the only East Asian language that has created new characters for new elements, making it actually quite notable on en.wiki. Am ignorant about Hindi. Double sharp (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. So they have an ideographic character for element name. Brings up the question: what do they use for symbol? And, ahem, how about Element 118? zh:Uuo. -DePiep (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

They use the Latin-alphabet symbols like us (and, really, everybody). Symbols are not defined for unofficial elements (113, 115, 117 and up): the name zh.wp uses is just the symbol, but personally I would use the Chinese equivalent of "element XXX" or "element no. XXX". I do note that the systematic element name concept could translate well into Chinese: just make up a character with the left side being the "metal" radical (which you see in all the names for the metallic elements, similarly to how we have "unseptunium" and "unseptbium" and not "unseptunine" and "unseptbion") and the right side the three characters for each digit stacked! (Pronunciation is a problem though. Anyone for reinstating the polysyllabic Chinese characters?) Double sharp (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I was partly joking, since we talked about 'what symbol to use (Uus or 117)' earlier. Chinese could stay I'd say, for the interesting "element=character" argument. A PT including Chinese characters would make nice wallpaper PT too (this no joke: once we have fed Wikidata, we can print every cell size with all info - walls will look like highschool again). Birmese could be up for AfD -- which will generate arguments from outside. OK with me. About the three format variants: I'm thinking about their future. -DePiep (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Polonium image non-free use review

Our polonium image has been listed for a non-free use review here. I've had a look at the policies quoted as a basis for querying the legitimacy of the image however I remain unclear as to what the concerns are. Sandbh (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Because the concerns don't make sense, maybe?? :-) Our promethium oxide image got whacked a while back, feel free to see that discussion. I fought for it, as you can see! :-) I would advise people who think that there's a free equivalent to perhaps go try to get some Po or Rn themselves. This is not a common or stable element or compound that you can get from your favourite chemical company. Double sharp (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

naming section in history

Not yet complete for all the infoboxes. Does anyone want to try doing it? If not I'll attempt an edit spam within a few days (watchlists, brace yourselves; ye have had fair warning!) Double sharp (talk) 06:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead, for me. Weeks ago I did those systematic, scientist & place names, but no activity since in this. -DePiep (talk) 11:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge PT (metals and nonmetals) into pages Metal and Nonmetal

In June 2013 three pages were tagged for a merge. So far no discussion has been opened. I now open the centralised talk here. The pages to merge are:

Periodic table (metals and nonmetals) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nonmetal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The proposal is to merge #1 sections into #2 or #3. #1 would remain as a Redirect.

Related pages are:

4. {{Periodic table (metals and nonmetals)}} (edit talk history links # /subpages /doc /doc edit /sbox /sbox diff /test) is the template used. It is a PT simplified into three categories: metals–metalloids–nonmetals.

5. {{Periodic table (metalloid border)}} (edit talk history links # /subpages /doc /doc edit /sbox /sbox diff /test)

6. {{Periodic table (dividing line between metals and nonmetals)}} (edit talk history links # /subpages /doc /doc edit /sbox /sbox diff /test)

-DePiep (talk) 09:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Added: #8 page. -DePiep (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Added mergto tag to pages #7 and #8, discuss here. -DePiep (talk) 08:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose for now. My own thoughts about this are, first we should explore another solution (keep not merge-&-redirect). I get the impression we really do need a page on the metal–metalloid–nonmetal trend. Even more, that page also should include #7, Dividing line between metals and nonmetals, about the border issues.

So this way we'd merge #7 with #1. The resulting page could have a better name though, maybe like metal–metalloid–nonmetal trend in the periodic table. Also, as a consequence two border templates #6 and #7 should merge into one (supporting that page). -DePiep (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC) (added the dot to start my separate contribution/opinion) -DePiep (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I found and added page #8. For its topic, it could/should be merged too in #1 and #7 (the trend page). -DePiep (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Now it could be that merging these three content pages may be too big for one encyclopedic topic. Trend is the overview (talking period-wise), border issues is the detailed view (per element). This might be a natural topic separator, leading to two pages (likely with a {{main}} topped section in each, for cross-reference). The original merger proposal is still denied this way. -DePiep (talk) 08:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose merger. Now that nonmetal has been improved and expanded, it seems that a merger is unwarranted. I agree with DePiep about merging #7 and #1 and think his proposed improved name is better than anything I can think of right now. YBG (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Partially oppose merger. #1 needs to go into our periodic table article. Our coloured PT is featured right up the front of that article yet it has little to say about our categories, the most fundamental of which are metals, metalloids and nonmetals. The subcategories and border issues need to form part of that discussion. Once the PT article has been expanded accordingly, and includes these links: See metals; See metalloids; See nonmetals; and See dividing line between metals and nonmetals, then I wouldn't be able to see much value in keeping #4. The other items—2, 3 and 5 to 8—all play specific roles and should be retained as is. Sandbh (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Occurrence and abundance

It occurs to me today that we do not have occurrence and abundance in the {{element infoboxes}}. Is that intentionally? -DePiep (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

good idea, but abundance in where? atmosphere? sea water? crust? Double sharp (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Element occurrence is a heavily used element property, as we know (in about every PT cell frame). I only added 'abundance' here because it is one of the regularly mentioned element data. Should not take two rows in the infobox very often, but we could surely mention the spectacular & extreme ones whenever present for an element (universe, earth, crust -- hey, 'rare earth' we do use already, H He O presence). Data disputes however (e.g. like with say metal/nonmetal border), we should not add to the infobox: they are for article text. -DePiep (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the giant table at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth%27s_crust. Not only do the values vary widely from source to source (and of course from place to place-- consider veins of ore), but this is just for the the very top of Earth's crust. Most elements vary widely in abundance between Milky Way, solar system, Earth as a whole, average crust, etc. It's just too complicated. Neon is very common in the universe, very rare on Earth. Even "rare earths" aren't rare-- there's not a single one as rare cadmium, mercury, or bismuth. The first four are about as common as copper, cobalt, and lead, and then they get rarer as the atomic size shrinks and they aren't as compatible with crustal rocks, but still aren't as rare as mercury or iodine. That's the kind of problem we're dealing with. Peruse the article on Abundance of the chemical elements and tell us how we could possibly get that kind of stuff all into infoboxes. S B H arris 21:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Please be fair to me: I just asked, not pushed. I did notice data variance. Now that you both have given reply, I happily conclude (because clear it is): abundance is not for infobox consumers. I add, the replies were nice reading to me. Your time spend is well received on this side of my screen (screens abundant near the crust, but rare in cyberspace). So far for abundances. -DePiep (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Occurrence in the element infobox anyone? -DePiep (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any real objections to that one. ;-) For me, you can go ahead and add that one. Double sharp (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Holyday please

Proposal
Now that option 10 is introduced and sitting down nicely, let's take a holyday from Big Topics. Four weeks, I suggest. Every, every edit is still fine, but I am too exhausted to start talking & thinking another grand operation. I myself have stalled ideas too, yet to be exposed to the benefit of WP:ELEM an WP -- but no, not yet.
So until Saturday 14 September 2013, four weeks after Option 10 got live, I a not available for these Big Topics. -DePiep (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

All right, holyday expired! :-) Double sharp (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

element 119 new Russian experiments?

Can anyone confirm this (http://hainanwel.com/en/unusual-world/1057-new-chemical-element.html)? (link is on the site blacklist for spam, but this is a rather legitimate use) Double sharp (talk) 11:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Or, of course, deny this? I have not found anything reliable about this; I only brought it up here because if it were true, it would be super cool (inappropriate pun not intended). Double sharp (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't checked up closely, but I remember seeing something like that before.

Also, from JINR site (in Russian): "An attempt to synthesize element 119, the first among of these [period 8 elements], is, of course, among others [experiments], planned sometime soon." (I am a very poor translator, but that's the point.) It's a March 2011 article.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If they can get enough ²⁵⁴Es for a decent target, they are pretty much certain to get E119! Double sharp (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Filamentous carbon

I'm working on the radiocarbon dating article, and saw a note in a source that the form of carbon prepared by most AMS labs is "filamentous carbon", which "is commonly referred to by AMS labs as 'graphite'". I'd like to clarify this point in the article, but I don't have anything to link "filamentous carbon" to -- it's not really an allotrope, as far as I can see; the source is just referring to the physical shape of the carbon. But what allotrope would this be? Is it filaments of graphite? Any clarification would be appreciated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I've heard of carbon wires and as far as I can recall these were made of nanotubes. I've tended not to say much (if anything) about nanoscale materials simply because the rules change so much at that level e.g metals become nonmetals etc and probably any property you can think of that is uncharacteristic of the element in question could be found. The other informal guideline is that I tend not to think of nanoscale materials as being 'bulk' materials the properties of which so much of chemistry is based on, including the standard states of the elements. Anyway, that's my approach. Having said that, the AMS folk may have been referring to graphite wires, which could be worth looking into again and there is also this—carbon nanotube wires of 1mm thickness, which I would count as a bulk material, worth writing up, and very cool. Sandbh (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

AMS may also have been referring to carbon (fiber) which is never AFAIK 100% pure carbon. Sandbh (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The carbon is prepared by catalysing the reduction of CO
₂ in the presence of hydrogen, typically with a cobalt or iron catalyst. I don't know what form of carbon that would produce. The paper I was reading cites "Baker RTK, Harris PS. 1978. The formation of filamentous carbon. In: Walker, PL, Thrower PA, editors. Chemistry and physics of carbon. Volume 14. p 83–165" as a reference for the statement about filamentous carbon; I don't have access to that, unfortunately. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The IUPAC Gold Book has an entry for filamentous carbon, saying it is, 'A carbonaceous deposit from gaseous carbon compounds, consisting of filaments grown by the catalytic action of metal particles.' The description 'carbonaceous' gives the game away straight away since carbonaceous materials are impure forms of carbon. That is, FC is not a pure allotrope of carbon, in the same way that many so-called allotropes of boron are in fact impurity-stabilised. Harris (2009, pp. 6–7) says that FC has been known since 1890(!), that the filaments are tubular in structure and that all carbon nanotubes produced before 1991 were contaminated with catalyst particles. Sandbh (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Harris PJF 2009, Carbon nanotube science: Synthesis, properties and applications, Cambridge University, Cambridge

That's useful; thanks. What would be best would be a link from the term "filamentous carbon", but I don't think we have a natural target for that, do we? Perhaps I should just red link it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

There seem to be some sources discussing filamentous carbon. I could write up an article on it, if anyone wants that. ^King Jakob _C2 22:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be great. Mostly I just wanted to be sure that it warranted an article, before redlinking it; if you think it is likely to get one sooner or later I'll go ahead with the red link. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to start working on it today. ^King Jakob _C2 12:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

@Mike Christie:@Sandbh: Wait, is filamentous carbon just carbon nanotubes? The fine metal particles catalyze the formation and growth of filamentous carbon (carbon nanotubes) ^King Jakob _C2 17:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

That is my understanding of the situation: impure CNTs. Sandbh (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

@Sandbh: So does that mean that my draft would or would not pass WP:A10? ^King Jakob _C2 17:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe so as the CNT article has nothing to say about FC. Personally, I'd like to know some more about FC given it's supposedly been around since 1890. Could be a bit of a research challenge. Sandbh (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Created, see filamentous carbon. You'd be welcome to help with adding some of the more obscure/technical information that's out there. ^King Jakob _C2 19:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Period 1 electron distribution

Resolved

have been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. We already have equivalent images (already in the infoboxes), so deleting these should be fine. Double sharp (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Article for deletion: Periodic table (wide)

Resolved

-- both article and template are deleted. -DePiep (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Up for deletion: Periodic table (wide). Its template to follow. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Periodic table (wide). -DePiep (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

TfD

Nomination for deletion of Template:Periodic table (wide)

Template:Periodic table (wide) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -DePiep (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Article for deletion: Periodic table (text only)

Resolved

– deleted (both article and template)

-DePiep (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Up for deletion: Periodic table (text only). Its template to follow. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Periodic table (text only). -DePiep (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the template itself didn't go down with it. So (sorry to bother us, DePiep):

Template:Periodic table (text only) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

DePiep (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Article for deletion: Periodic table (vertical)

Resolved

-- both article and template are deleted. -DePiep (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Up for deletion: Periodic table (vertical). Its template to follow. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Periodic table (vertical). -DePiep (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Voted delete on all of them so far. Double sharp (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think 2 of them can be added to Alternative periodic tables as templates. Nergaal (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Do not canvas. Canvassing itself can make the outcome against your point. Just argue at the AfD page. -DePiep (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

== Nomination for deletion of Template:Periodic table (vertical) ==

Template:Periodic table (vertical) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -DePiep (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

on electron configuration images for SHEs

Bad U electronic config graphic

I've been having an interesting discussion with DePiep at his talk page (User talk:DePiep) on how to best represent electronic configuration for superheavy elements. Please go there and take a look. :-) Or maybe move it here, since it's quite relevant to the whole project... Double sharp (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Will move the discussion here. -DePiep (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Polonium.jpg and Radon.jpg

file:Polonium.jpg and File:Radon.jpg are up for non-free content review. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

They were up since last month, but thanks for reminding us (I've popped back in and commented further). Double sharp (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Our goals

I have a problem with that page.

Specifically, it's that they are too easy.

Take the short-term goals. They basically tell us to get B+ to GA and complete some GTs with boilerplate group articles. And they tell us to get some stuff to C (which should never really be an end IMO. A passing place, sure.). The only actually reasonably important and wide-reaching thing they ask us to do is to GA sodium and arsenic. And even then, for elements as important as this (Na for body function, As for history), I'm not sure this is a good thing to do instead of take it all the way to FA.

So, what is to be done?

I suggest we start aiming much higher and always keeping one hard and good-for-the-reader goal on the short-term list. Something like FA'ing something massive like iron. Few might dare to take it on alone otherwise.* As a collaboration, it may not seem so threatening.

Why not have a short-term goal list like "FA iron", a mid-term one like "FA all VAs", "FA all actinides" or some other group like that with similar properties (for VAs, it's mostly great commercial importance or great history), and then long-term goals like "FA everything in sight". (Seriously, that's our ultimate goal, isn't it?) Ambitious? Certainly. But our current goals – B+ really sticks out, nearly-complete GTs and FTs really stick out. Our current goals will get done even if there is no concerted effort or official goal to get us to do it.

Just some thoughts. Double sharp (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

*I've been intending to do it since 2012, about since I started thinking that this was a problem, really. This is obviously getting nowhere. Ah! the siren call of the seventh and eighth periods of elements that are so beautiful and interesting to contemplate but nobody else really could care less about! It is long since I have left you to do something more useful, perhaps finish up alkali metal :-P, full of more fun elements (starts raining on and on about that article. Explosions happen.). Well, maybe after FA'ing Hs and Fl and actually rewriting Lv and 115 (115 is like the most viewed SHE article now, largely due to Lazar's nonsense. WP shall step in.). Double sharp (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

To change the wording does not change anything. If you write: Only goal is to make sodium a FA. Sodium will not be a FA in 2020. Get people together and start working. Ask somebody for help personally. Ask a few questions at the talk page. The most important thing is that a few do change the goals page and wait for others to do what they think should be done. A few months ago there was a short discussion on the fact that nitrogen should be improved. I started with a few edits and nobody from the discussion joined, so this makes working less fun. We had also a few discussions on the steering of the project, but most people do not want to be steered in their leisure time. I do it because it is fun and being steered is for me not fun. If somebody wants to steer it has to be done with fun and cooperation and good words for good work. So if --Stone (talk) 09:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Naturally. I agree with all this. That is how one gets things to happen. What I am asking for is a change not in how we get things to happen, but in the things themselves that we get to happen.

Na FA? N FA? All good starting points. (They both complete GTs, for all the collectors!) I only selected Fe because it is a really vital article. It describes a very useful metal (sorry Au! you're pretty and noble but that's about it. And Cu looks decent, it's harder to get people to work on something that already looks decent – that is another thing that has to change!) And Fe is apparently the metal with the most compounds known. Double sharp (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

request periodic table view

Could someone make me a table (for viewing, not edit warring on placement) with the following scheme:

Reviewed high quality: blue, GA/A/FA getting darker with betterness.

medium quality: green, C/B/B+ getting darker with better-ness

low quality: start and stub (maybe red/orange)

71.127.131.41 (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

~~{Periodic table by article quality}~~ Double sharp (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I want GA to be more visually differentiated. make it similar to A and FA, not to B and B+.71.127.131.41 (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Why? In my experience GA is by far closer to B and B+ than to FA. GA – see Hs, you can get away with shallowness, missing stuff, lots of technical terms that are never explained (just linked), etc. As long as what you have looks nice and isn't immediately suspect, you will get it. Really. (Not that Hs was that bad, it's just that it looks OK if you don't know the stuff in depth. I'm remedying that now.) So while GA is not bad (just as B and B+ are not bad), I tend to not take it as a good end goal.

Also, we don't actually review our A's. It's just like B's: formal criteria exist, reviews sometimes happen, but mostly it's based on what someone drives by and sees.

And if GA visual differentiation is what you don't like about that table: originally GA really used too close a shade of green to B and B+. Now we have a very dark green, showing that it tops the series of pretty medium-quality polished articles.

Basically, on the road from Stub to FA, once you get to B or B+, you have two choices: fix the style first (heading to GA), or fix the content first (heading to A). Both choices then lead to FA. In practice it's slightly more complicated in that the two goals get achieved at about the same time, so that you get both GA and A and you have a nearly FA-worthy article like At.

Finally, GA being green (not blue like A or FA) is a standard colour throughout Wiki-land. All we did is change the shade to make it visually distinct from B+. I think that's an argument to not change it for fear of misunderstandings. Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

(P.S. Examples: See the history for hassium and other superheavies, where I took the GA-first route, and alkali metal, where I took the A-first route. Neither of them are FAs quite yet, but they're getting there. Double sharp (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC))

(P.P.S. Some incomplete GAs for elements that I know something about i.e. heavy metals: Tl and Pb.) Double sharp (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'm curious: are you TCO? (I ask because of your recent fluorine edits, which just made me wonder. No intention to harm through SPI or anything like that. If you aren't, or would rather not answer, please don't take offense.) Double sharp (talk) 07:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. And I'm not hiding or pretending. You couldn't make me lie with a 1911 or torture. So fucking drop it with SPI. It will make me think of arb/admin/checkusers not turning in Geogre/Law/Ponderevo and other lying hypocritical shit from people who want to play tin god on the fucking Internet. And that shit is just a total downer. Just write the fucking articles. Or go get a workout.98.117.75.177 (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Huge round of applause for you! You know I wouldn't do that (SPI), ~~given my history till 2011 here~~. Just making sure you wouldn't suspect me! :-) Double sharp (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Am I supposed to spend time on this? -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

"burning"

FYI, there's a discussion at WT:PHYSICS on the titles of stellar nucleosynthesis articles and the use of "burning" -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Overenthousiastic archiving

Resolved

I disagree with the over enthousiastic (that is, too early) archiving by Doubele sharp, last week. For example, the Afd/TfD for {{Periodic table (wide)}} is not resolved yet. If the archive term really is to be "2 weeks" or so, we should change the bot setting here (btw I oppose that). And I do not want to argue about exactly which pieces I want back here. They just should be here still. -DePiep (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm? Oh, I see what you mean. But still I think those should be archived since they only have links to the AfDs. The TfDs seem not to have started for the wide and text-only periodic tables? Double sharp (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If someond sants discussion tk last nger please do. Much more a priority thN tidy talm page. People can scroll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B01C:B244:A93C:DB3A:77AB:2FB (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

@anon: It was not so much a discussion as a link to a discussion (already over). The discussions DePiep mentions have not even started yet (no TfD notices on those two periodic table templates). That's why I chose not to restore them.

As for the discussions I archived – originally this talk page was about twice as large as you see it now and many of the top threads were pretty much dead (I had tried to revive them, but everyone scrolls to the bottom to check new stuff – I do that too sometimes), so I cleared them off. If I or anyone else feels the need to reopen the discussion, they can start a new section here and link to the archive. Double sharp (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The TfD notices were to be expected and announced. But they were archived within days not even weeks. If you think archiving is to be done earlier (much earlier even) than the set bot period, open a talk on that. This is not the metalloid thread. -DePiep (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

They were posted on 20 August and archived on 14 September. That's 3 weeks (and I think we should move the bot archiver down to 1 month, at most). But I've un-archived them (you can now see them at the very top of the page. That should be more visible than in the middle). Double sharp (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Archieving is always based on the last edit time, not the op edit time (for logical reason). In this case, the AfDs were closed on 13 Sep. -DePiep (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking that once the AfDs were over they were no longer relevant. It now appears I am wrong. Sorry for the inconvenience caused: the sections are back! Double sharp (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

OK so. Simply: it was very frustrating. Let's consider resolved. -DePiep (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Fricke again

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/225672062_Superheavy_elements_a_prediction_of_their_chemical_and_physical_properties/file/3deec517f644db1bc2.pdf Double sharp (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Isotopes in infobox updated again

Going through the remainder of the predicted-to-be-unstable stable isotopes. Is what I've done so far OK? (Affected infoboxes: Ar, Ca, Cr, Fe, Ni, Zn, Se, Kr, Sr, Zr–Mo, Ru–Nd, Sm–Pb. I may save SF until later, thus skipping Nb, Rh, Ag, In, Sb, I, Cs, La, Pr, Tb.) Double sharp (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Note to self: never...do...this...manually...again... Double sharp (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I decided not to save SF until later, and am plowing through in atomic number order. Double sharp (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I finished it! :-D To all those who have all the element infoboxes on their watchlists, sincere apologies for the inconvenience caused. Double sharp (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hot articles bot

After several months of showing the same hot articles all the times on our project page, the hot article bot is up and running for us again.--Stone (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Adamantium

Or how to make metals 500 times stronger. Sandbh (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Unofficial trivial names for group 14

According to Jensen, "adamantogens" has been used as a "traditional name" for the carbon group. Though I haven't actually seen this used anywhere, this citation of a name is much better than the one we have for crystallogen: beautiful as this name is, it seems to be attested only in its French form cristallogène. (I wonder why.) Double sharp (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The word is popular in dentistry, so I could only find teeth with that stuff, but as it is not used we should not start this trend. There is no credible source for this name except Jensen.--Stone (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not proposing that we move the article. It could be mentioned as a very rarely used alternative name, but no more than that. It absolutely should not become the primary name here. Double sharp (talk) 08:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Jensen only says it is a "traditional name" (in table 2), anything from his sources? If it is traditional, there should be some more search hits. -DePiep (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

todo: d-block page title

d-block page title really should be lowercase. There is a wiki-trick for this (like for eBay)).

-DePiep (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Done Double sharp (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Why do we use weird names like "unbiseptium"?

Since we don't use those symbols in the extended PT anymore, it seems reasonable that the same should be implemented for element infoboxes.

Instead

  Os
  ↑
  Hs
  ↓
(Uhn)

we get this:

  Os
  ↑
  Hs
  ↓
(160)

(with or without parentheses)

Anyone against the idea?

Also, why do we use those IUPAC names in first place? It seems they are used only by IUPAC and non-expert fans. Not to mention "unbiseptium" and "element 127" mean the same things, that is, element 127. The former just pretends to be fancy and to find out the number behind the name, you need to know a key (un=1, etc), and even if you know it, you still have to take to a second first to decipher it. Which is why the latter is used among those who work with them, and (not always, but often) the news.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

How did you get more drunk than I am?

You mean to say we get rid of IUPAC names? (I get the examples are from the Hs infobox).

weird names like "unbiseptium": unbiseptium is not a weird name. It is the IUPAC systematic element name.
Since we don't use those symbols in the extended PT anymore. Que? No 'Ubs' any more? Since when? Enjoy our current best and greatest: {{tl|Periodic table (Pyykkö model, large}.
Please study the diff between 'symbol' and 'Z'. I had to.
But ah, there is this one point you can win: what do these (...) brackets mean, so unexplained?

Other current topics, today,are visible in: {{NavPeriodicTable/sandbox}}. -DePiep (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Now back to my 1st question please. I could use something ;-). -DePiep (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

What I intend to say was, even if they're IUPAC systematic element names, they're still weird. Re symbols, I meant the three letters symbols formed from those names, twist of the tongue has always been my worst curse. Re we switched from them, I meant the compact extended PT (see ununennium, for example, in the bottom of the page).

Uhn is the symbol for "unhexnilium," element 160, the element directly under hassium in the PT as expected from complicated relativistic computations. 160 is the proposed symbol. Parentheses show it is expected to be there, but we haven't synthesized it, so we don't know for sure yet. Yes, this is from the Hs infobox.

P.S. I've been to a museum today ;)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with R8R...(113) or just 113 is really the symbol you will usually find in science, not Uut: e.g. (113)F⁻
₆ and not UutF⁻
₆. Change it. And you will have plenty of sources agreeing (off the top of my head: Haire, Fricke, Pyykkö). The symbol only becomes usual once you have a permanent name like flerovium or livermorium.

Do you intend to change the article titles too for complete consistency? (e.g. Ununtrium → Element 113). Can see justification for that too. The systematic name may be official, but in practice nobody really uses it. Quite different from aluminium spelling etc. when people do listen to IUPAC. I would support this, personally. Double sharp (talk) 06:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to change the titles.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This would imply (if I understand it well), we use "element 119" as a name every where, and "119" as its symbol

Move page Ununennium to Element 119

All other pages like Template:Infobox ununennium, isotopes of ununennium, etc.

In {{Infobox ununennium}}, |name=element 119 (lowercase) and |symbol=119

Basically the systematic name & symbol are not used any more here. Maybe a minor mentioning in the lead.

-DePiep (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. But we have to wait, for maybe a week to see if opposition arises.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Just trying to get a grip on the consequences. For templates (automatic text manipulation) I hope there never will remain a diff between page name and element name! (Mercury (element) vs mercury is bad enough). I've made made a change to the infobox: |systematic name= and |systematic symbol=. See {{Infobox ununoctium/sandbox}}. -DePiep (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

While this may be reasonable do not under any circumstances eliminate all mention of the systemic names or symbols, especially on periodic tables (where they are highly standardised) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Why?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Because suppressing information is really unhelpful? Particularly when every periodic table I've ever seen printed off-Wikipedia uses the systemic names and symbols. It's being confusing for no reason whatsoever. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't really think we suppress info by that (we'll discuss that later if you want), but anyway, what do you suggest? (And why do you embolden your writing?)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The terms are used. It's pointless to not include terms in use, thus unnecessarily making people looking for those terms land on an article without any mention of them, causing confusion. It's fine to say that the article on the element (and most cuses elsewhere) should use "Element 126". It's ridiculous to say it shouldn't include any mention of the official name of the element. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

There may be a misunderstanding. I intend to mention the unun- names in the lead section as well as in the infobox (just name them per IUPAC) and discuss the name a little bit in the Naming sections of each article. However, the elements will be referred to as "element 117," in this article and elsewhere. Is it okay for you?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that's fine. Although the periodic tables should use the systematic name symbols, which it currently does not, making up a new convention I've never seen in a periodic table. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I have seen that before - can't remember where exactly: will post a link when I find it. Even the IUPAC official periodic table doesn't have any unun- elements on it (those being not officially recognized by them). Bottom line: I cannot think of a single serious scientific paper or source where the unun- symbols or names are used, except when systematic names are themselves the topic. One presentation by Cody Folden (it's a ref on alkali metal) even states outright something like: "Note that we use (element?) 115 instead of ununpentium. Nobody uses that nonsense (or was it "Everyone hates that nonsense"?)." Double sharp (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I do question. That would make ₁₁₉119 formal. Has there been any wp article been forced to write "Uun" for "119"? -DePiep (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

@DePiep I believe this would not occur outside out of the ununennium article. In the article, ³⁰²₁₁₉Uue is hardcoded.

@Adam First, just to give a different perspective on things, in my home country, the cells for elements like 113 (synthesized, but not yet recognized) normally don't have any symbol nor name in. Just atomic number and square-bracketed atomic masses (actually, everything that is present in cells of elements like hydrogen or selenium minus mame and symbol). Maybe they use the proposed nomenclature somewhere.

(disclaimer: I try to use what I call "common sense." It won't probably be a strict proof, but give it a try) Normally, those who deal with the matter (using the widest definition including people like us, who just sit @home and talk about it, occasionally writing WP articles (optional) are common with both nomenclatures. For them, 113 would be better than Uut, since it's easier to find. Just think of it, 154 is easier than Upq on a table, esp. given it's not where you would look for it (d block in normal thinking and f block in relativistic, which probably is the real one).

When introducing these names to students or whoever need to be able to repeat them in future (students, etc), this naming is normally explained. regardless, they maybe will be frustrated for the first time if they hadn't been introduced the "element 113" system, but they'll get used to quickly and then use the advantage (for example, just to think of the name for element 154, I had to recall that, while "element 154" is much more natural).

To those who won't ever deal with the system, the "element 113" system will be simply easier. For example, one can relatively easily memorize a three digit number, but never heard before names, many people memorize just approximately. So, when looking at a table, some people may be like, "unun-- there are more than one such name? aha! ununpentium! or wait, was it ununseptium?"

I believe that these reasons are why they are abandoned in real science. Also note news normally use both names, but (from my reader experience) the "element 113" system either is the only system used, sometimes with variations ("113th element"), or the main one, with the IUPAC name also mentioned, but no more than that. Maybe it is mainly used because you (and the readers!) don't have to operate with unknown unun words, they at least recognize words "113" and "element."

Note: The unun names are not official. They are IUPAC official. Wikipedia does not recognize IUPAC authority over itself and when it uses IUPAC nomenclature on anything, it's been decided in each case. Wiki doesn't follow IUPAC rules when there's a better (according to editors) system.

tl;dr The non-IUPAC system is much easier to use for (almost) everyone.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

We should really change that to ³⁰²119. Then we don't need the atomic number listed. Except in equations, when Uue probably has to stay. Double sharp (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Even chemists and related science professionals don't necessarily follow all IUPAC standards. The1970 IUPAC recommendation to use the term semimetal instead of metalloid, for example, was widely ignored and usage in the literature actually increased, dramatically. Sandbh (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I was going to say the only reason the weird names were invented AFAIK was to enable the symbols (and names if there was enough room) to be shown on periodic tables, post discovery of the element in question and pre-official acceptance and formal naming. And we all seem to have arrived at the same conclusion. Sandbh (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, if these symbols are not used in professional literature (papers), they should not be used for the article names on WP or as symbols on the various tables around (although we should certainly mention the systematic name prominently in the lead of the articles, and have redirects). StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The element 118 lead already says, bold in source: "Ununoctium is [...]. It is also known as eka-radon or element 118, and ...". -DePiep (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The reason this is so weird and unnatural, is that it is another product of Dweebs from Planet Fubar. You know-- the guys who brought you Windows Vista and (even more recently) Windows 8? These people aren't like you and me. Some of them are aliens, and not aliens from India. Others are programmers who live in the basement, and stay there, due to the chain around their ankles. They all talk like Sheldon Cooper and have glasses like Leonard Hofstadter. They play MMRPGs and speak Klingon and Latin. They do not believe in beta testing, except on each other. IUPAC has a big infestation of them, and have not been able to fumigate with methyl bromide due to ozone issues, and (alas) some of these people have rebreathers and others (mostly the space aliens) can actually tolerate sulfuryl fluoride for short periods of time.

So what happened at IUPAC, while these people infested the naming committees? There was really no problem in referring to elements by temporary names like "element-118." The problem came in coming up with a symbol for these temporary element names. Rather than follow the natural idea of resorting to E118 as the symbol for element-118, and then having isotopes follow in the natural manner of C-12, for example E118-302, or perhaps even ³⁰²E118, the Dweebish Monks at IUPAC resorted to Latin, and came up with some Jesuitical numerical stuff for the full names, that then could be turned into fully-alphabetic symbols. You know the rest.

It's sad, and the real beta-testers said so, but since IUPAC isn't a business and doesn't actually NEED to sell their ideas like Microsoft does, they haven't been listening. Ha! And then, they wonder why I don't put anything in the donation plate, at IUPAC mass.... S B H arris 23:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL! I nearly fell off of my chair, but my wrists are firmly chained to the keyboard down here in my dungeon. This sounds like it has the makings of a good April Fools article, except that only dweebs like us would understand. Sigh. One caveat: while I appreciate the sarcasm and find it hilarious, unfortunately, I think it is highly unlikely that it would convince anyone who wasn't already convinced that Uub and the like are weird. YBG (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Great description, to the point indeed, Sbharris. Now I understand this more. But still, but still. I remember with horror when, some six months ago, I tried to add the element names to our basic PT. No microsoft or big bang people involved, but editors you and I know. Arguing about: habits & I'm-used-to. And they are all better physicist/chemicists than I am. This is to say: without microsoft we need a check too. That is what made & makes science great. I am still not happy with stating Symbol=119. -DePiep (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I don't like the symbol "118" either, but it's better than the present IUPAC Lovecraftian Latin abbreviation horror (yes, there are people who wear sleeved T-shirts that say Cthulhu Rules, and even know how to pronounce Cthulhu...). The problem is that the natural fixes, the generic Exxx, or Elxxx or El-xxx or (Elxxx) were never officially suggested, and all are better solutions for the temporary name symbols (we've already using the natural fix for the temporary name, which is "element xxx"). As with the case of nuclear power plants, we froze the design too early. But hope remains in my heart. Did we not decide the symbol for torr should be Torr? We swallowed, and we did. We renamed the muon and neutrino from their original names, did we not? Pluto (gulp) is now a dwarf planet. So there is some plasticity left. I'm always reminded of Rutherford's remark that scientists can be divided between physicists and stamp collectors (how he would have rolled his eyes at rutherfordium). Here, we have a perfect stamp collecting issue. Or comic book collecting issue.... ;) S B H arris 23:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Quite simply, defining Symbol=E118 would be great an could happen in the future. What I object to is defining the symbol to be 118. So far, there is no restriction or problem: on can use the atomic number in formulae. Write 118, all fine. But don't make that number the symbol. Use it as a number, even in symbol places. -DePiep (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Would E118 be a better symbol? That is at least used, and isn't completely a number.

(Based on Lovecraft's description, I would pronounce Cthulhu as IPA [ˈχɬʊl.ɬuː] or IPA [ˈχθʊl.ɬuː]). Double sharp (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

E118 would be one more format. I say: Using and writing 118 is OK already (and done in sources). But don't declare it to be the symbol (It's still the Z number, without confusion). So there is a deviation in formal vs. writing here. We could keep both (formal: name=IUPAC, symbol = Uuo, Z=118. Writing: "element 118", in today's ²⁹⁴Uuo, would be ²⁹⁴118). About page names: if very common usage already says so, we could move pagenames into "Element 118" indeed. All this would be in a projected WT:MOSELEM style. Do the WP:CHEMs agree? -DePiep (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You have my vote. Have the articles at least "Element xxx". If somebody can figure out how to spell unbiseptium, it will redirect. And of course all the alternate names will be in the lede. As elements are formally named, we'll move the page numbers to their formal names, as with flerovium for element 114.

'Doofus!' said I, `thing of evil! - Doofus still, if trick or devil! -

Whether tempter sent, or whether tempest tossed thee unnunhexium,

Desolate yet, all with no label, on this periodic table -

With these names by horror haunted-tell me truly, I implore y'um

Is there-is there balm in Gilead?-some term to buy in an emporium?'

Quoth IUPAC: livermorium.

S B H arris 22:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The IUPAC's decision may be bad. It doesn't, however, mean that Wikipedia should violate the conventions for periodic tables, or suppress the IUPAC names.

As I said, show me a periodic table anywhere that isn't Wikipedia that 1. includes one or more elements without non-systemic names, 2. Does not use the IUPAC symbols for these elements.

If you can't, the whole argument is original research, and forbidden by Wikipedia policy. Now, this is for periodic tables. In discussion of fission and fusion, it's not uncommon to use the atomic number as the main way of identifying an element, and, as such, there's an actual, good convention that can be cited for using the numbers outside of periodic tables. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

In all honesty, this only really affects Template:Compact extended periodic table at the moment. Now, it may well be that including both the number and systemic name will help there. Also, elements 113, 115, 117, and 118 are presented inconsistently with all other periodic tables on Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The topic is about unnamed elements only (113 and up, excluding Lv and Fl): use atomic number or symbol? That issue also present in PTs: {{Compact periodic table}}, {{Left Step periodic table}}, {{Janet left-step periodic table (with shell filling sequence)}}, {{Janet periodic table (compact)}}. We also need to be clear about running text and formulae. This is even more pressing, since in text we can only use one form (symbol or number). That form, once decided here, should be consistently used over all articles & PTs. -DePiep (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's one: [19] (slide 9). And I have no doubt that there are many more. (This is from 2011, when the systematic names had long been existent). Here's another (from 2009). This one even has this statement on slide 14: 'Note that we just use "115" rather than "ununpentium". (Everyone hates that nonsense).' Double sharp (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

There are several different environments in which unnamed elements may be mentioned in WP, and the WP:Elements style could conceptually have use a different style for each one. The environments in which a style decision should be made are:

(1) article titles
(2) lead paragraph
(3) paragraph text
(4) chemical formulas
(5) navboxes & other tables
(6) periodic tables

The possible style choices for each environment (using 127 as the canonical example) are:

(a) Element 127
(b) Unbiseptium
(c) UBS
(d) E127
(e) 127
(f) (127) (added later by Double sharp)

Here is a list of the proposals gleaned from the discussion below:

(1:a), (2:a+b), (3:a), (4:d), (5:d), (6:e) First try at summarizing discussion YBG (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

(1:a), (2:a+b), (3:a), (4:f), (5:f), (6:f) per DoubleSharp below YBG (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of what has been suggested is (1:a), (2:a+b), (3:a) (4:d), (5:d), (6:e), but if I've misunderstood, please feel free to correct me. Also, if the list of environments or list of choices needs to be modified, please just go ahead and add items to the list. By the way, once a decision is made, perhaps we should formalize it someplace in the WP style guides. Anybody know where the correct place would be? YBG (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not like the idea of making 4, 5 and 6 be different. To my mind, what you give as the symbol and how you identify an element in the PT should be the same thing. Otherwise there is needless confusion ("does the E mean anything? Is it an element??" quoth the general reader). Would use yours, but with 4 and 5 modified. Just plain 113 is even more common than E113 in actual science. It may be a number, but I don't really see how that's a problem: At, Be and No are also words, and we have no confusion. Is there some sort of bias against non-Latin-alphabet symbols? (Has anyone decreed that all symbols for officially named elements should be in the Latin alphabet, I wonder? Not that people are going to do otherwise, but it still would be interesting to know.) 113F⁻
₆ (without the space) could be confused with 113 F⁻
₆ (with the space), so option d is out for our purposes; thus I suggest using (113) with the parentheses (make that option f), where even that is not possible (e.g. (113)F⁻
₆; (164)(CN)²⁻
₂). Double sharp (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I have listed above my understanding of what you are proposing. By the way, I'm not advocating that 4, 5, and 6 be different -- just suggesting that they are separate decisions. I agree that it would be ideal if they could all be the same, but still want to have a system that can capture all possible ideas. YBG (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A bit too complicated. Will recap below. -DePiep (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yea, you're right. Your recap is much clearer. Thanks YBG (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Also; we do not even need to use the systematic names in any periodic tables. Just give the name as "Element 118" (for example) and the symbol as (118). We can relegate the systematic names (which frankly nobody in serious science uses) to the real article on the element. To my mind, if an official convention is being rejected actively by those in the field it was made for, I do not think we should be following it. Let's reflect the full breadth of the serious scientific sources we have. The vast majority (99.99999%) use the atomic number alone primarily. Double sharp (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

More simple. IMO, these are the topics so far:

1. About all elements without formal name (113 and over except Fl and Lv).

2. Name to use: "element 113" or "ununtrium" (lowercase in itself, in text; uppercase only when title or sentence spelling requires so).

The first half of this talk seems to show consensus on "element 113".

3. Symbol or atomic number to use where named elements use their symbol: "Uut" or "113". That would be in formulae, like "²⁸⁴Uut" or "²⁸⁴113", and anywhere else where regularly the symbol is used. Whichever one we use, it should be done everywhere (no difference between a compact periodic table and text)

3a. ( ) brackets: the number is bracketed: so (113)F⁻
₆, except in particle descriptions like isotope ²⁸⁴113.

3b. Refined: current usage is: {{Nuclide|Ununtrium|284}} (see page Uut). Would that be: "²⁸⁴
₁₁₃113
" or "²⁸⁴
113
"?

3c. Consider this a proposal to use atomic number as described (even though it says neutral "or").

4. When name, symbol or atomic number itself is the topic, we should use both (e.g., element page lead, its infobox, explaining Systematic element name). Also in large PTs (there is space for the information), we can use both. For clarity: so in large PTs the systematic name "Ununtrium" is used for name, "113" is there big, and the word "element 113" does not appear (as is today).

Note that 2 and 3 (name and symbol/number) are mostly independent decisions. -DePiep (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I refined the text (esp. 3a, 3b). -DePiep (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with 1, 2, and 4. (Please add my proposal for 3: "(113)" with parentheses. Thus (148)O₆.) Double sharp (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with 1, 2, and 4. Re symbol, I would expect it to be (113) in chemical formulas and everywhere, except for isotope writing, where it should be 113 (so (113)F⁻
₆ and ²⁸⁴113). I'm not sure how to code this.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with 1, 2, and 4 completely. For 3, the choices are either

(w) always use bare numerals, or

(x) generally use bare numerals but add parens certain specific situations, or

(y) generally use parenthesized numerals, but omit them in certain specific situations, or

(z) always use parenthesized numerals.

I think the key has to do with the relative importance placed on cleanness (w or x), or on consistency (w or z), or on avoidance of ambiguity (anything but w). I lean toward x or y. An is there any point in considering the use of square brackets like this [113]? YBG (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I refined 3: added the R8R bracket remark as proposal, and the Z effect in the isotope demo. No 3 was an "or" statement, but we read it to be a proposal to use the number. -DePiep (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Question 5: What do we name the isotopes? Isotopes of ununtrium (today) would become Isotopes of element 113?, and the individuals like Ununtrium-278 would become Element 113-278? -DePiep (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes to the first one. The second one is ugly. Nobody writes it out in full, so here is another point you win! :-) I suppose we can use "element 113-278", and just avoid spelling it out completely?! Or we can use a name like "278 isotope of element 113", which is probably closer to what someone would say? Double sharp (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

re YBG. I think (x) and (z) are too rigid. Ds and R8R already gave examples where brackets are welcome/not welcome. We have found one exception, so we could use (y) "brackets unless...". If we find more exceptions needed, we can add them. Is outside world any guide? And we do use them for both saying "predicted" and to prevent ambiguity, right? (If for "prediction", Fl and Lv would have to follow this rule too).

About [ ] square brackets. What is common practice in real world? I cannot browse the paywall sources. Note that in electron shells we use like [Xe], with a meaning. I hope we do not have to make a split using both () and [] brackets. -DePiep (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Nope, no square brackets anywhere AFAIK. Those tend to be just used to enclosethe formula of an entire polyatomic ion, so you might see [(113)F⁻
₆], but that's not inconsistent.

Yup, good catch, R8R: I was thinking of this from a chemical perspective. Would agree that parentheses should only be used in the chemical formulae. (There it can even be explained as being the same sort of parentheses usage as you find in compounds like (NH₄)₂Cr₂O₇; to delimit areas of a formula so that ambiguity does not arise.) Double sharp (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Question for Double sharp about this above: you still think "Uut" should stay in equations, as an exception? -DePiep (talk) 10:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Only if our highest priority is consistency, because (a) ²⁸⁶
₁₁₃113 looks weird and (b) ²⁸⁶113 is inconsistent as all the other nuclides involved in the equation would have the atomic numbers listed. But I suspect you will find (b) in most scientific contexts, even if it would be inconsistent with the presence of the atomic numbers in their usual place in the other elements, probably because the atomic number is treated as being the only symbol for the element, and thus it doesn't need to be stated again. Or at least, that is my attempt to explain that line of reasoning. So I would support option (b): When the element has no trivial name, the atomic number shall take the place where the symbol normally goes, and the slot usually left for the atomic number will be left blank. That at least reflects what actual scientists tend to do.

P.S. And let's define option (c) as what we currently have, ²⁸⁶
₁₁₃Uut. Double sharp (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

A very interesting discussion. -DePiep (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

To speed up talkpage loading, this first part of the discussion will be archived in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 14#Why do we use weird names like "unbiseptium"?.

The talks continue at WT:ELEM (part two) (to appear in the archive later on, here). -DePiep (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

new: Template:Navbox elements data

I just started Template:Navbox elements data. Base page is List of data references for chemical elements. Current live testpage is Boiling points of the elements (data page) (is not boiling point). The list in the navbox can use some ordering and grouping. -DePiep (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

These data pages need a lead, really, -DePiep (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

For those interested: I am making a pilot page out of Boiling points of the elements (data page) (see also above, #Sourcing data in the infobox). -DePiep (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you considered putting this information in Wikidata? That seems to be the natural home for this sort of data. YBG (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I have. These were my thoughts. Even a simple data point like "boiling point of an element" has three sources here at enwiki, not always saying the same. OK. So this is a very simple topic. Then, I have read a page or two at & about wikidata. I have not read a single paragraph that explains how/why "b.p. of an element" should be in wikidata. Even though I understand the concept, I don't feel invited by wikidata to contribute. No one ever explained how & what I can contribute to wikidata. (compare: wiki commons). Wikidata makes me feel I'm stupid. -DePiep (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

And there is this. Say we put this fact in to wikidata. How to get it out? -DePiep (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Good questions. I've inquired at d:Wikidata:Project_chat#Chemical_elements. YBG (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Now your point is in archive [20] overthere. I've read it. Looks like this issue is on hold, waiting for a "number" data type at wikidata. OK. I get that we should always supply a source, maybe straight from the infobox input too (add parameter boiling point ref= -- but this is not simple). Also we are thinking about automated source adding to infobox (link to the datapage, as the b.p. examples here do). -DePiep (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)