Hi! I've been working over at WikiProject Chemistry on adding occupational safety and health data to chemboxes, and in that process have come across exposure data for certain elements. Is there a place for this in elements articles? I know there is a very specific format for elements and I don't want to step on any toes, hence asking here first. Thanks! Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
As we both know by now ;-), the NIOSH hazard data PEL, REL and IDLH are added to {{Chembox}} eg ethyl acetate. {{Infobox element}} though is a different beast. It has little real-life chemistry data (so far that is; it's a culture too of course). It has the science & chemistry facts.
I don't know what to do with the scores of other chemical data that {{Chembox}} handles. Hazards, medical issues: not in this element box now (while phosphorus and lithium are great and interesting candidates). For now, I'd say No to this --US-specific-- detail. I do foresee the need of a "data sheet" template, taking it's unlimited and useful space at the bottom of the article page. For all chemical articles (elements, chemical substances, drugs, illegal drugs).
About {{Infobox element}}. I have made changes to have the "(at x °C)'" qualification show the same over multiple parameters (= rows). Changes were done in: Speed of sound; Thermal expansion; Electrical resistivity).
In general, the (SI) pattern is: 1140 µm·m−1·K−1 (at 25 °C)[61]_comment.
Just niticed: the cell-padding in tables has been increased (more whitespace around text). In the infoboxes, the isotopes-table is pushed wider. Now the whole infobox is wide-body. It appears to me that there are fewer line-wraps needed in the infobox, which seems OK. Any comments? -DePiep (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, @DePiep:, for fixing the Neptunium chain in conjunction with your work on Astatine. Any chance of you finding time to fix the others? I have added the Uranium series to the gallery above, not because it references "Poor metals" but because it is the 4th in the series, and it has a somewhat different format which might be improved by converting it to match the other three. YBG (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
BTW, why not try yourself? 1. download teh file. 2. in a simple text-editor: search for wrong text like "poor metal" and edit (texts like "#poormetal" are internal identifiers; may be changed too). Then upload. Must say, the scheme is not very clear to me, because of the upward arrows (to keep same-element in one row apparently). Maybe that should be horizontal, so in thorium flow we see Pb → Bi → Po horizontally. -DePiep (talk) 11:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I've modified the two .svg files as @DePiep: suggested. Not sure whether I have to do something to get the .png renderings to be adjusted, so I marked them as {{Partly done}}. YBG (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Congrats. In general, png-copies should be abandoned & deprecated. As in: don't worry about them. Sure we will not use them in enwiki articles. svg is preferred always. -DePiep (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I have recently been following the Dawn and Opportunity missions and have now returned. Of course, with all the formatting changes and style tweaks going on now, one thing's been left out: the period 3 elements (excluding argon, of course). I plan to work on one of these in the near future – calcium with its recent RFC may be the first target but sodium and sulfur look more appealing to me. ParclyTaxel19:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
What, I didn't actually pose any question, I was just seeing if the group was still alive (which it still is). All the period 3 elements except argon are C-class – in some sense "critical" – and I want to see which one of these is most in need of improvement. Looking at the book report for the entire gamut of chemical elements the clear loser is aluminium with four maintenance tags. Maybe that should be our next project? ParclyTaxel07:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Parcly Taxel, you first posted a lot of illegible stuff here, then after I questioned that you cleaned up [3] and then you play dumb saying "what was unclear?", as if I am the one distracting. Next time, do better and don't smear others. Come on. -DePiep (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The main two avenues of yellow running through the PTQ are period 3 and the halogens. I think period 3 would be nicer for most people; it's less monotonous. K will be a good model for Na, and F will be a good model for Cl. Mostly I've been working from the bottom of the table upwards, so periods 6 and 7 are getting tantalizingly close to all GA and above; the only problem is that that isn't going to get me very many famous elements, whereas period 3 contains celebrities. (Gold, radium, thorium – uranium and plutonium were brought to FA long ago).
P.S. If anyone still wants a goal from me; I think that while the goal for any randomly considered heavy element should just be GA, if it's not a celebrity like Au, the first 20 elements should be stuck with to the FA: they are just that important. (Thinking of doing Li or Be.) Fair shall the end be, though long and hard shall be the road! Say farewell to yellow! But say farewell also to ease! Say farewell to the starts! Say farewell to your transactinides – more still shall we make! Journey light. But bring with you your refs! For we will go further than [insert editor], endure longer than [insert editor]: we will never turn back from article improvement. After the stars to the ends of the 'pedia! Copyedits shall they have and reviews undying. But when we have conquered and gained the blueness we have long sought, then behold! We, alone, shall be the lords of the pure blue Table, and masters of the building blocks of the Universe! No other FAR shall oust us! (as Fëanor absolutely did not say). XD Double sharp (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Double sharp. When I showed that quote to my 18yo son who thinks what I do on WP is a total waste of time and in general disparages the sciences in favor of lit - especially certain favorites, he actually appreciated it! YBG (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Haha! One day I might actually bring Fëanor to GA; that would be cool and he is definitely notable – AFAIK he's the second-most-mentioned character in The Silmarillion, behind only Morgoth, and just above Túrin, Eru(!), and Sauron. I kind of cheated by only including the part I could make relevant: we are not (Let's not swear any oaths, though. That rarely ends well. That is rather a pity because I could make references to "transactinides yet unsynthesized upon the particle accelerators".) Double sharp (talk) 06:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree, Double sharp, but in my template-space-time continuum there are no FA stars to be earned. I cry. btw, here it is. -DePiep (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
It appears that a complete set (all those known: Z ≤ 99, with a few exceptions) is available at commons:Category:Atomic spectra (the ones ending with "visible": note that they used the old spelling protoactinium for Z = 91). Can they be added into our element infoboxes? (As an example, promethium is done). Double sharp (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Why not if they're free? (I do remember some years ago you wanted them out, remember ;-) ). Let me know if somewhere a third image is needed. Any central formatting? -DePiep (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Hardness of elements
In the infoboxes, we quote Mohs, Brinell and Vickers hardness from webelements, which supposedly use the 1968 book by Samsonov. The book seemed obsolete, and the some data significantly contradicted to newer sources. This has long bothered me (I couldn't find a single source covering the whole Periodic Table like Samsonov did), and this post was the last straw.
I've downloaded Samsonov's book ([4] in Russian), and found that it is actually very detailed and reasonable, and its values are listed by many recent books (often without mentioning the source). Samsonov did understand that hardness of pure metals depends on many parameters (sample preparation, structure, purity, etc.) and is always a range of values. Unfortunately, webelements and many others don't understand that, and have cherry-picked single numbers. Their source for Mohs hardness is uncertain (Samsonov does not list Mohs hardness; I guess webelements interpolated Brinell and Vickers tendencies onto the Mohs scale) and this is our unresolved problem. I went through the infoboxes and Hardnesses of the elements (data page) and changed Brinell and Vickers values to ranges. I know that Brinell and Vickers values are often given in HB and HV, but Samsonov and many others convert them to MPa, thus I'd bear with that. Materialscientist (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
atomic weights, box format
A question/opinion for the box format:
first format:
|atomic mass=4.002602
|atomic mass 2=2<ref name="IUPAC">[http://www.ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm 2013 Standard Atomic Weights]. [[Commission on Isotopic Abundances and Atomic Weights]]</ref>
second format:
|atomic mass=4.002602(2)<ref name="IUPAC">[http://www.ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm 2013 Standard Atomic Weights]. [[Commission on Isotopic Abundances and Atomic Weights]]</ref>
|atomic mass 2=
Result for both:
Standard atomic weight 4.002602(2)[1] like in the Tamplate helium box
What can be the prefered format?
If we prefered the second format, so we needn't the atomic mass 2 parameter.
Alchemist, I'd prefer using |atomic mass 2= for the precision-number (as it was), because this allows us to use and format that number for its specifics. Also, bot readers do not have to break down the all-in-one number. I note that there is |atomic mass ref= which is specially added for the reference. So for {{infobox helium}} it would be:
|atomic mass=4.002602
|atomic mass 2=2
|atomic mass ref=<ref name="IUPAC">[http://www.ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm 2013 Standard Atomic Weights]. [[Commission on Isotopic Abundances and Atomic Weights]]</ref>
|atomic mass comment=
... so your first format would produce the wrong result: 4.002602(2[1]); well you already rejected it. Another advantage for the split input is that the reference is not entered together with the number. In Lua, it is impossible to strip off the reference to get the plain number(s) for whatever extra usage. So preferably not mix it in the first place. I propose you apply this input format in future additions. Of course sourcing this is a great addition. -DePiep (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Just to make this description complete: |atomic mass comment= can have any text you like, including reference(s). This is to solve any remaining situation as is needed. If in hydrogen you want to write "(1.00784–1.00811)[1]", then you can enter |atomic mass comment=(1.00784–1.00811)<ref>... the reference text here ...</ref>. The comment always has a space prefixed, and no further formatting. -DePiep (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
But ... the atomic mass of hydrogen has a range of "(1.00784–1.00811)". The IUPAC or CIAAW don't prefer a average value. Similar to a lot of other elements, like boron, carbon, lithium, ... And now? What can I do? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep going, I guess. I only meant to inform that you can position a reference in two places: 1.008[1] (1.00784–1.00811)[2] (in |atomic mass ref= and in |atomic mass comment=; the comment is an anything-goes input field). Depending on which data you want to source, you can pick one. (if I understand this topic right: the IUPAC reference better follow the range because that is what it sources). I won't edit that unless you ask me to. -DePiep (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Alchemist-hp and others, a side topic. Do we have a good link or explanation for this "(2)" addition we use? I'm working with it a long time, but I still don't know what it actually means. More so for our Readers, I guess. -DePiep (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
That (nonsigner) would be me. Thank you for assuming the best, it is much appreciated. I usually remember to include ~~~~, but I guess I forgot. No surprise to me, as I'm a fully self-aware mortal. Sinebot, however, assumes that that since I have >800 edits, I must know what I'm doing. Well, I don't, at least in this case. But it just goes to show you that the bot also knows to AGF for experienced users. Anyway, I've manually added above what Sinebot didn't, in a Coltonesque form of flattery.
I think we can choose between two options for the uncertainty link, see the demos. Notes: I kept the link to uncertainty bracket notation, we can fill & redirect that as we like. The brackets are underlined too. The label-side link will not appear when the (#2) number is not present. All other input is unaffected (mass, ref, comment).
I can add variants if you like. Votes & notes?
Opinions
label-side. To follow SI rule, derived: a quantity specifier belongs with the quantity (lh-side here), not in the value itself. -DePiep (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
ambivalent. No strong opinion. I do think in would be nice to also include something that would cover the case when the entire mass is in parens -- a note to indicate that it is the mass of the most stable isotope of elements that do not occur naturally. Not sure how that would be accomplished in terms of parameters and the like. After you've cogitated on that a while, if you figure out a way to do it, that may lead me to have a more definite opinion. Thank you DePiep for your hard work on these picky little details, it is very much appreciated. And I am truly disappointed that there are no FAs to be earned in your template-space-time-continuum. YBG (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The comment parameter is there for all non-standard input inclusive references and wikilinks. Any situation where this is would not be enough? -DePiep (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, one other thing. Why does it say 'standard atomic weight' but link to 'relative atomic mass'? No big deal about standard/relative, but I don't you think it would be better to use 'mass' than 'weight'? YBG (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
In {{Infobox element}}, there are four parameters for atomic mass:
|atomic mass = 4.0026
|atomic mass 2 = 9
|atomic mass ref = <ref name="IUPAC">[http://www.ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm]</ref>
|atomic mass comment = The comment can be any text, and have its own reference.<ref>[www.example.com]</ref>
The first three are treated systematically for what they are. For example, brackets are added always around param #2. The fourth param is for free text. This one is added with a preceding space, and no further formatting. Technically, one can use the first one |atomic mass= with any text, and it will show OK. However, following the pattern can help future handling. Also, external bots prefer the structured input. And as said, the comment (fourth parameter) is unstructured and free. This together should allow every situation. -DePiep (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree. One detail not explicitly mentioned is that using all four parameters as they are intended will make it much easier to convert things to get all the information from wikidata. YBG (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I only invite alchemist to use this all (invite, not command ;-)). His contribution (adding sources) is way more important, whichever way. Bonus link: this picture :-) -DePiep (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Looks fine. One note: I'd leave the link (2) out, just have (2) there, because we will probably add that in the template (for all). See section above. -DePiep (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
We should also include something to explain the other use of parentheses. I've offered one suggestion; others are welcome. At this point, I'm thinking only about appearance, not implementation. YBG (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes: the only ones with articles are E119 and E120, both of which have a "predicted" note after their standard atomic weights ([315] and [320] respectively, per Fricke). Double sharp (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Pix in Trans-X articles
I've turned on hovercards and I quite like the feature, but it shows a few inconsistencies in our articles.
Since trans-Pu and transactinide (yes, I have seen that term used by IUPAC) are all subsets of trans-U, why not dispense with creating short stubs and instead have a single picture with different colours or backgrounds for trans-U alone, trans-Pu (but cis-actinide – I wanted to say "sub-actinide", but I got worried about keeping the cis-trans pair from Latin), and transactinide? Double sharp (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I see. That would be three colors then, beyond U. Would remove the An color (while we use the cis-An description ...?). A 32-column PT is most useful here. Looks obvious we can add the symbols for U and Pu in the cells. Maybe also add arrows, from X to the right? -DePiep (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe a fourth colour should be added, for the actinides: Ac, Th, Pa, and U aren't transuraniums but are often discussed together AFAICS. Don't use "cis-An", I made that term up. It's a correctly used Latin prefix, but nobody uses this combination. I like your ideas re symbols and arrows. Agree that 32-column is most useful, although we might want to show how it folds into 18-column (as that fold unintuitively places the transactinides above the lighter actinides). Double sharp (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I do not see any advantage in deconstructing this to a 18-column form, indeed that being "unintuitively" does not explain anything. It is simply a linear issue, with some stations (elements).
Todo: let's get a good form (graphics) to show what we want to say. Do not worry about micro-fixings (such as fontsize). I don't get the four-color solution, because it would overwrite the actinide color (purple) - we'd throw out existing crucial information. OTOH, throwing out all other bg category colors can be done, if that helps.
Here's my idea as a table (with just the last row):
Adjustments needed to change this table to what I really have in mind:
Ignore the horizontal white lines
The blue/green/red lines should be replaced by colored arrows that span a series of cells, starting with a dot in the left side first applicable cell and continuing to an arrowhead on the right edge of the final cell. The trans-uranium arrow goes at the top so that it is above the Pu; the trans-plutonium arrow goes in the middle, and the trans-actinide arrow goes at the bottom, below where the symbols would be. (By the way, DePiep, the middle line makes it better to only include U and Pu symbols in the PT)
The colored arrows (→→→/→→/→) should be replaced by short, medium and long colored arrows
Thank you, Double sharp, for your idea of having a pic that shows all three; it is MUCH better than my lame idea of having different stubs with three different pics. YBG (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree, three-stubs-in-one is better. I note that somehow/somewhere the keys like "Trans-uranium elements" must be written in text (with the arrow, or below). YBG, should we enlarge the period 7 row (make higher)? The whole PT? -DePiep (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it needs to be expanded; there should be enough room above the Pu to fit the trans-uranium arrow and provided we don't try to show all of the symbols, there should be no problem displaying the trans-plutonium and trans-actinide arrows. I had to make the cells in my demo bigger just cause I was trying to do it with table markup. With long, narrow arrowheads (like MS-Office arrow size 3) I think we can avoid having to expand the rows vertically, but I reserve final judgement until after I see an example. Another trick would be to use a shortish squat font for 'U' and "Pu'. But if we are forced to expand the row to fit in the arrows, I think I'd prefer to expand just the period 7 row rater than all seven rows, but again, I'd reserve judgment until seeing an example. In summary:
First, I'd like to see an example with standard row height, the standard font and narrow arrows. If it looks OK, fine; otherwise
Then, I'd like to see an example with standard row height, short-squat font, and narrow arrows. If that looks OK, fine; otherwise
Next, I'd like to see four examples, (all tall rows -or- only row 7 tall) × (standard font or short font)
Somewhere in there I think we'll find something that looks good. By the way, I laid out the legend so that U, Pu, and the Actinides are on separate lines, each one lined up vertically with the corresponding area of the PT. I'm also open to giving up this vertical alignment if they all would fit on a single legend row, but I do rather like the vertical alignment. YBG (talk) 07:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I just thought of another idea. Mark each of the trans-X groups with concentric elongated ovals. With the right color chice, it might even be possible to include the atomic symbols in the PT. Then a legend at the bottom would indicate the names of each of the groups. YBG (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
This I like less. Ellipses do not have a starting point. While we want to say somehow: from Uraium ...'. That is what arrows can do, greatly. -DePiep (talk) 06:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Recently, a hatnote was added to astatine, saying as of now:
The chemical symbol for astatine is At. It is not to be confused with arsenic, As.
Can someone possibly mistake one for another, or is it just overthinking the problem? If the problem is real, then we may have to rethink iridium/iodine (Ir/I), californium/calcium (Cf/Ca), all of elements that start with a "C", "O", "N", etc.--R8R (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there is any problem for any of them except Mg and Mn (which is a common beginners' mistake, because both of these elements are reasonably common). Double sharp (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Saying this is "rediculous" is a rediculous remark. The addition makes sense. Now my opinion is: as symbols, As/At are just as confusing as Mg/Mn (confusing element names is another issue). -DePiep (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I think an average reader could confuse As with astatine, but not At with arsenic (no t in arsenic). C, O and N are very common elements which "everybody" knows, but its common to confuse Co with CO. Christian75 (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Is there a secret sixth pillar that tells us to see readers as "idiots"? And how does that help us improving? -DePiep (talk)
Stable isotopes in infoboxes
A long time ago I tried to suggest this but nobody had the energy to do much about it. Currently, the infoboxes are a bit on the too-much info for (usually useless) unstable isotopes (like DE and DP). On the other hand, there is essentially no info other than abundance on the stable isotopes. I think for elements past lead a status quo is fine, but I would prefer some improvement on elements like carbon. Nuclear spin would be a must (instead of say DE) and perhaps more? Also, isotope of X tables should really have some more fields like this. Everybody seems to care about DE of atoms they will never even touch, so how about actually useful stuff? Nergaal (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I have no opinion on this, but I'd like to support this discussion. Nergaal, when you write "isotope of X tables" do you mean tables in article isotopes of carbon? That could be in a different (sub)thread imo. -DePiep (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC) no comment -DePiep (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
VERY few people checking the article on carbon would care about 11C, and only a few about 14C, and the 0.96 and 0.156 numbers are 100% useless here. 14N is possibly the only remotely interesting DP in all the infoboxes before Bi, while 11B is not really useful. Saying 12C and 13C have 6 and 7 neutrons is not particularly useful either. However, having their nuclear spins (useful for both EPR and NMR) and possibly their gyromagnetic ratio (which gives the Lamor precession for NMR) and the quadrupole moments would be much more useful IMO. Nergaal (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I think if 13C would look like this would be much more useful:
iso | abund | spin | quad mom | gamma | hl + DM |
12C | 1.1% | 1/2 | 0 | 6.73*10^7 | stable with 6 n |
We dont know why people come to the page. But I think that carbon-14 is very important, and maybe more people know about carbon-14 than about carbon (because of Carbon-14 dating). But that said, I like your sugestions about new data. The current "12C is stable with 6 neutrons" sounds like 12C could have more or less neutrons. Christian75 (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe that earlier iterations of the elements contained this material and I would have no objections to its return. My only qualm is that it may beg the question of what "stable" means in this context. --John (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Pronunciation in infoboxes
The ongoing FAC has raised a question whether we really need the pronunciation part of the infobox (like /ˈæstətiːn/ or /ˈæstətɪn/ as-tə-teen or as-tə-tin). I don't really know, I'm fine with this either in or out. I'm also not sure if there is a place for a wider discussion... what do you think? Whatever the decision, the best would be to apply this not to the infobox astatine, but to the whole infobox element. (Which is easy to do, but some agreement first would do us good.) --R8R (talk) 09:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Of course changes must be applied infobox-wide.
See WP:PRON, eg #Placement. It is not absolute in this, but it says: "Several info boxes, such as many of the biography boxes, provide for a pronunciation entry. In such cases there is generally no need to repeat it in the lede, as at Alice Liddell." I myself find IPA in the opening sentence distracting (at least), so I prefer having it in the infobox. {{Respell}} may be added 'legally', which doubles the argument to put pron. in the infobox. -DePiep (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The question is not really "lead or infobox," it's more of "do we need it at all." I checked some articles with titles, just like in this case, meaning a very certain thing and not being real English words, but still not starting with a cap letter. Maglev, laser don't use it, but maser does.--R8R (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't get all of this. Sure, if pronunciation is unambiguous the pron can go. Would there be five elements for this? Your statement plus its examples are unclear. The examples may be wrong (in that, they could use a pron. key). What does the cap/noncap mean in this? -DePiep (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I picked three articles with technical names. Maser does feature a pronunciation key ("A maser (/ˈmeɪzər/) is a device..."), while the other two don't. "Cap" is "capital," I was just too lazy to type down the whole word, English is relatively flexible at that; those titles are words not requiring a capital letter. When there are differing pronunciations possible, we do feature them all, astatine is an example. (So are, say, antimony, molybdenum, and surely others.) So, I guess, we can let it go and abandon the pronunciation parameters altogether, but let's wait another day to see if there are any objections.--R8R (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
1. No, we keep the pron in the infobox. No changes are concluded here. 2. I understand capital=uppercase first letter, but again, what has that to do with pronunciation? 3. The examples do not define whether we should add the pronunciation, they are useless for this. 4. Not only should we mention multiple pron options, we must also mention the pronunciation when there is only one good pron, but wrong others (eg, bad stressing). This is why I expect no more that five elements that would not need a pron at all (only one unambiguous single pronunciation possible). 5. Pls be clear, you want to remove the pron completely, or move it to the opening sentence? -DePiep (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Oops, I see you already answered #5: remove completely. Well, up to you to prove that pronunciation is not needed at all. That would mean IMO: pronuncuiation is clear & unambiguous. For individual elements or maybe even for all. Go ahead (proving, that is). -DePiep (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
2. Such words, names of things but not proper names, probably may pose some difficulty with pronunciation for those who are not common with them. At least, they and astatine (and most other elements) are in equal positions at this. That was why.
3. And I didn't mean to say the opposite. Was showing the fact there are different approaches, that's it. This doesn't define anything, but is worth noting anyway.
4 and 5. Aha, I got it. But really, five would be too easy (tin, lead, mercury, gold, silver), and differences where they arise (as it seems to me) mostly come from where the speaker lives, or, in the case of non-native speakers such as myself, how they learned it. There may be no correct way as in "this way and no other for all of the Earth" for some of them. Wiki does seem to neglect this, for example, the Americans are prohibited to say "aluminum" (the word written in their dictionaries), and the British are not allowed to use the "sulphur" spelling (written in their dictionaries), but that's clear overdoing things, let's not follow this path. I am sure all of the British (or a vast majority) will pronounce the name of any element in the same way, whether it's nitrogen or praseodymium, and will not have an unbearable difficulty with this. I clicked on the names of around 15 elements in the lower half of the table, pronounced it, and checked if I got it right. I always did. It's easy for me (a non-native speaker) and it should be easy enough for anyone. Those IUPAC unun- names may make an exception, but well, there may be difficulties with those synthetic elements (like you need to be able to pronounce German to know the "s" in "darmstadtium" is actally pronounced as "sh"), but among the more natural names (at least the first 100) things should be fine. I'm still okay with them either in or out, but I need a rationale to defend either position (I need it for the FAC), and this one seems easier to defend. And in return, it makes me think that maybe that's what we should follow.--R8R (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
re re 2: we can not use the capitals for pronunciation, let's end this subtopic.
re re 3: background illustration then, but not leading to an outcome in this.
re re 4, 5: I'm not native en speaker either. As a reader, no IPA/Respell at all makes me insecure. For people like you and me, there is hardly an intuitive knowlegde, esp in English (Finnish is better in this ;-) ). More reply at John's post, below. -DePiep (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I was the one who raised this at the FAC. I am not against some elements having a pronunciation guide (astatine, darmstadtium and the like); I think that there are also many elements (gold, silver, iron, tin, zinc, mercury (element), oxygen, carbon etc.) which absolutely do not need one. My point was that there are no elements which need two rival pronunciation guides side-by-side as in /ˈæstətiːn/ or /ˈæstətɪn/ as-tə-teen or as-tə-tin and this seems to have stealthily become the default on element articles. It looks ugly, achieves nothing and I think we ought to change it, unless (which I doubt) a positive rationale and consensus can be established for it. Having carbon glossed as /ˈkɑrbən/ KAR-bən is ridiculous. --John (talk) 10:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I just replied on the FAC page. In short: Respell is by MOS: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation; and no they are not "rivals". As for removing obvious pronunciations (IPA and so Respell): this might be possible, and I can imagine that tin is a candidate. However, this should be done based on IPA & pronunciation knowlegde (let me ask kwami). So far, R8R and John have mentioned individual opinions/impressions of options. Simple example to show an error effect: mercury (deity) and mercury (element) differ so a pron is needed. I claim that if there is any chance of mistake (include stressing syllables), the pronunciation should stay. -DePiep (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
You could have asked about things that are not clear to you. I note that, after the 'discussion' you performed on the tempalte talkpage, again you resort to dismissives, non-reading, zero-effort to understand and evasion. Next time, if and when you take an effort when contributing to a discussion I might engage. But this unhelpful behaviour does not deserve an answer. -DePiep (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Mmm. Well, close the door behind you, I guess. Opining about how best to describe pronunciation in the English language when you are clearly not a native speaker and clearly do not have a clue about how words are pronounced in that language is likely to elicit dismissal. Bye. --John (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Is what I wrote. Well read. That is why I proposed to invite someone who knows about IPA and respell. Someone who knows what is prose, and what not. -DePiep (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Here by invitation. I added (or at least corrected) IPA in many of these articles. We don't generally give English pronunciations on WP, per WP:DICT. There are two major exceptions: Names, which you will not find in many dictionaries, or which may differ from another name of the same spelling; and new or obscure technical terms that also may not be found in an average dictionary. Another common exception are counter-intuitive words, whether they trip up native or L2 speakers of English.
However, since many elements probably deserve a pronunciation, and we have them organized so that we can navigate from one to another, why not include pronunciations for all? Granted, "tin" and "gold" may not be needed, but it's a matter of consistency: readers can depend on having a pronunciation for any element, without argument over where the dividing line should be. We do something similar with astronomical bodies: "Pan" and "Atlas" and pretty obvious, but it's nice to have the IPA regardless, just so you don't have to worry about them being weird. — kwami (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I discovered this discussion through Kwami's talk page. On Mercury, this word does not actually have two different pronunciations: the pronunciations given in Mercury (mythology) and mercury (element) are variants of the same pronunciation. /-kjʉr-/ and /-kjər-/ are different pronunciations of the cure sound. This is called the cure–fir merger, a type of vowel reduction.
As for DePiep's intelligence, there is no reason to call it into question. Even native speakers won't necessarily know about this merger, though they might pronounce it. DePiep clearly acted in good faith when he said that Mercury had two pronunciations. He was correctly reporting the differing IPA transcriptions in the two articles. — Eru·tuon21:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Let's create a new article, List of chemical elements by difficulty of pronunciation. Then we can pick a point -- and list the list the pronunciation for every element from that point on. In all seriousness, if we include pronunciation, it should be in a standard but unobtrusive place, so it is easily found by those who need it but also easily ignored by those who don't. My first thought is to only include it where it is really needed, but if the standard place is unobtrusive enough, I wouldn't mind putting it on every element. YBG (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm a detached observer, but from my glance at element articles, pronunciations are included under the heading General properties in the infobox, along with appearance. This seems odd, because pronunciation is not a property of an element like appearance. Pronunciation needs to be placed somewhere more appropriate.
An option for unobtrusiveness is to make pronunciation collapsible, like the Chinese infobox in the article on Beijing. (Look below the main infobox and the notice about Chinese text. The pronunciations are found in the middle of the template, below the Chinese characters and the translation, under Transcriptions, with a show button that you click.) But some readers may prefer to have the pronunciation display automatically with no clicking. Just a possibility. — Eru·tuon04:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
re YBG better in an "unobtrusive place": Worth pondering. Could be under the "Miscellaneous" header? Would be further away from the lede then, which is the other natural place where readers expect it to be. IOW, when it is out of first sight, the reader might think it is not there at all (should read guidelines in this). btw, I am very pleased with the fact that pronunciation (IPA, with or without the respelling) is not in the opening sentence, as other articles can have. I think we all agree it should not be there indeed. This is no point, except that it is good to note a worse situation for reference.
re Erutuon make it collapsible (show/hide button). Unfortunately, we should not design a page with that option. In the article body, no extra click should be required to get information (navboxes are out-of-body). This is a WP:ACCESSIBILITY guideline. An other reason is, that the mobile view does not have a show/hide button at all: mobile viewers see it always uncollapsed ("show" status). For example, see Beijing in mobile view (check the transcriptions in infobox). -DePiep (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Should this be read as a proposal to move the pronunciation data row as is to "Miscellaneous", say top position in there? -DePiep (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Upon further thought, I think I'm fine with leaving pronunciation in its current position in the infobox, on the assumption that it will only take a single line except for a few outliers like Aluminum/Aluminium. By generally consuming only a single line, having it appear in a consistent and expected location outweighs any residual concern for unobtrusiveness. But the criticism that pronunciation is not a 'general property' is valid. This could be rectified by changing the label from "general properties" to simply "general". Or perhaps as it is the very first category, the colored label-bar is not needed at all. I think I'd be happy with either, though I acknowledge that I've only looked at a couple of sample infoboxes and very easily might have missed a significant problem. YBG (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
That presumption is not warranted. And, its best position should not depend on this (text size?). But since I picked up the repositioning-idea from your earlier post here, I won't read is as a propsoal. -DePiep (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Proposal to remove obvious pronunciations
From the above discussion, I propose: remove from the element infobox pronunciation when it is not confusing (both IPA and respell form). This would be: gold, silver, tin.
Note 1: More elements could be added to this list, but so far no candidates with obvious pronunciation are mentioned.
Note 2: this does not prejudge any other pronunciation dicsussion, like "remove respell pronunciation", and "remove all IPA & respell pronunciation". That is: these discussions are not intruded upon and they can be started/continued separately (in a different place).withdrawn
I think the majority of elements do not need to have pronunciation given. Only those which would cause a native English speaker of average intelligence and high school education level difficulty need to be glossed in this way. --John (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
That not the proposal. Not to play a game, but IMO this topic deserves its own discussion (-thread). They are two independent decisions (one does not say about the other). -DePiep (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the majority of elements do not need to have pronunciation given. Only those which would cause a native English speaker of average intelligence and high school education level difficulty need to be glossed in this way. --John (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
These intrusive and dumbed-down pronunciations were added to (almost?) every element. Was there a proper consensus to do so? If there was, it needs to be revisited. If there was not, they can be removed on sight. --John (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The status quo is the consensus. Where did you find that other process you mention? Oh, and for a revisit I'd like to read better arguments than "ugly" and "dumbed-down", as a "try [it] another way". It's been explained often enough to you, recently. -DePiep (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Zumdahl is the authors of the book "Chemistry" which a lot of chemistry students have read. So if the images are changed, pleaes dont call it Mendeleevs PT, but a reconstruction of Mendeleevs PT, because all chemist (and like) knows how his PT looks like. Christian75 (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Its a table, not a painting — for Higgs sake. Could these chemistry students read that Zumdahl copy? If not, what did they learn from it? If yes, that's exactly what we want to achieve here too. It is the table as Mendeleev published it: structure & textual content. We stay close to its original style, that's a nice bonus. -DePiep (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Higgs sake? I just say, dont call it Mendeleevs PT, and I have given you one source which use the original. Zumdahl didnt coice to remkae it, so I think we should not either, unless you have a source which did. Christian75 (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Why would Zumdahl define this for us at in the first place? I answered your Q "Why make a new version of the original?". Should do. -DePiep (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
At a first glance the re-rendering of Mendeleev's 1871 table looks superb and even manages to retain a similar style. I'll print them out a bit later and do a side-by-side comparison. Good work that. The text attached to the image file could note that it is a cleaned up rendering. Sandbh (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the comment! Please do let me know if I've misread any of the symbols; the clearer version here might be more useful - it was only found after my first attempt. NikNakstalk - gallery11:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
OK. The rightmost superscripts for RH4, R2O5, R2O7, R2O4 need to dropped to be in line with the top of each O. In Gruppe V., ==73 should read ==72. Rest is fine. Sandbh (talk) 04:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
May I suggest to replace the "==" with regular "="? I myself mentioned "==" to note the extra-length equal sign used in the originals. But reproducing those as "==" is misleading I guess. "=" is fine, the old style is not available. -DePiep (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I have replaced all instances of == with = and fixed the 72/73. However, I cannot understand why the superscript for numbers higher than 3 is so off; they are all the unique unicode characters for those indices, so they're not really superscript in the file itself. There's no reason why some should be higher than others except that the MediaWiki renderer has it wrong. Opening the file directly in Chrome has them placed all at the same level, where you'd expect. I'm baffled. I've tried using a new font to fix the issue and it seems to have helped. NikNakstalk - gallery13:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Mendeleyev's PT (1871)If you really want a new version of the historic one, why not translate the german version to english? The reason I do not like the change are that I would expect to find the original PT in the history section and not a reconstruction, especially when it claims that it is Mendeleyev' PT. Christian75 (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I already explained to you that it is a table, not a painting. Now you come repeating that this is a new "version" (let me spell it out: 1869 and 1871 are different versions). -DePiep (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course 1869 and 1871 are differnt version. The File:Periodic table by Mendeleev, 1871.svg are from Zeitschrift für Chemie, thats why it says "gruppe" (group) and reihen (row), and thats why I ask; why not translate it to English? (The image I added in my last edit are, despite the name, from 1871 File:Dmitry Mendeleyev Osnovy Khimii 1869-1871 first periodic table.jpg and by Mendeleyev). You do not have to explain it to me, its a question of different opinions. If its just a table, why not translate the Rusian to english too? But I see it more like a "historic document", like Bill of Rights has the original document as a picture. And like every page on the internet has the original one if they talk about the history of the PT. Christian75 (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Now just stop writing what I do want or would want, I'm supposed to know that myself. Next, I suggest you reread this whole section and try to come to a coherent reasoned point for yourself. Your notes are a bit, eh, meandering. Then if you also show you have processed arguments already answered (instead if skipping/ignoring/repeating them), I can respond constructively forward. -DePiep (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
The original one has great historical value, and it certainly ought to be shown in an article like history of the periodic table, instead of a reconstruction, because there the main topic is the history. But when using it to show placements, and not historical development, like in astatine, clarity becomes more important, I think (look at that small size!). (And I have seen books that re-typeset Mendeleev's table as well, although the original seems more common: but I think that's because pretty much all the examples there would use the standard 18-column table.) Double sharp (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
(ec) "If you really want" [6]. (And a shortcut: In there you use the word 'version' in a way that caused me to explain it again. Like meaning 'not a different version'). -DePiep (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
At the talk page for List of metalloid lists I've asked for proposed additions to the main list, especially older and more recent citations. I'll aim to periodically add these to the list and update associated metrics, whenever/if ever there's a critical mass of them. Sandbh (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
There's a requested move going on at the linked talk page. IMHO, it ought to be on 223Ra as opposed to 223RaCl2, as the root thing that makes it work is after all the radium, not the chloride salt; and I have hence supported the move back to 223Ra. Double sharp (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Lr ionization energy, group 3 rumblings and Jensen (again)
The Scerri approach I understand and find convincing. That is the main presentation we use, alternative schemes are or should be described in topical articles. I don't think we should change our presentations. Or you two should advise me to study this issue more deeply ;-).
Note: Sandbh, I understand you picked up this story because of your Daily Mail subscription :-).
While we are at it, Sandbh and Double sharp: which Scerri book would you advise me to start with? And what would be a good introduction to understand quantum mechanics wrt elements & shells? Scerri at amazon -DePiep (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
DePiep I would start with The Periodic Table: A Very Short Introduction. I will ask Eric if he knows of a good intro to quantum mechanics etc. Sandbh (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that should do for the next months. btw that Springer link you gave on this page (the bad one) made good intro reading too. -DePiep (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
From Eric: "The best of my books to start with is my 2007 book, The Periodic Table, Its Story and Its Significance. Books on QM. There are many of course. Pauling and Wilson is still a classic, as are more modern books like Atkins and Friedman." Sandbh (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Adkins and Friedman's Moecular Quantum Mechanics (I suppose it is) isnt easy reading (its require some math skills too). We were reading Atikins "Physical chemistry" before reading Adkins and Friedman. Christian75 (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems to be fairly established that navboxes belong at the very end of an article, after all of the notes and references. This works quite well for most WP articles. However, WP:ELEM articles tend to have a huge volume of references -- sometimes equaling the size of the rest of the article and requiring 6-8 clicks to scroll through, even on a wide monitor. We do make extensive use of infoboxes at the top of our chemical element articles, but this doesn't completely fulfill the same function as navboxes.
When an article has a massive list of notes and references, I think it would be helpful to put the navboxes further up. I'm thinking of suggesting a change to the MOS to allow this. The general rule stays the same as it is now, but it would allow some flexibility, specifically, when there is a massive quantity of notes and references, navboxes are allowed to appear in the See Also section, but only in a collapsed state.
What do others think? Is there any support for this in WP:ELEM? Any comments or suggestions? If there is support here, I'd like to take the suggestions given here and then see what interest I can generate over at Village pump and then over at Village pump. YBG (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. I'd like to read what the page-designers think. I've always found it hard to understand that a navbox does not belong to article content (e.g., a navbox is not printed, and does not show in mobile view). -DePiep (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure there are others, in fact I've seen a short discussion that I can't find now. Sigh. All in all, most of the discussion is not related to the issue of long lists of references. I also note that if the standard practice in WP is to place navboxes after the references and the like, then general WP readers who want to see navboxes will look there and now the long lists of references actually argues against putting them in See Also. Also worthy of note is that at some point the use of navigational infoboxes came into use and I think this eliminated some of the pressure on making any changes to the placement (horizontal) navboxes. Having briefly scanned the above lengthy discussions, I'm a bit less inclined to pursue this proposal. But we might consider expanding our use of infoboxes and developing a couple of vertically oriented navigational infoboxes -- one to go after {{infobox element}} in element articles and another to go in articles that don't have {{infobox element}}. This could take the form of the "Part of a series of articles" infoboxes that I see in other areas on WP. YBG (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I can understand you r reason to think of this change. I myself can not promise to spend much time on this (motivating my opinion), mostly due to lack of means (energy & time). Page design is a huge topic, and it takes a lot of reading & thinking to be able to add a new thought. So it will be difficult to improve that. Your second note, extending vertical (sidebar?) infoboxes/navboxes: Difficult topic too, but we could manage that within WP:ELEM. There is a third topic in the back of my mind: the element articles do not have data that is commonly added with in {{Chembox}} and {{Drugbox}} (medicine regulations, hazards, external database links). Takes another year to find a solution for adding these. -DePiep (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Part of a series infobox
I think the best solution for the issues above is to develop one of the "Part of a series on ..." navboxes that hang on the right side of articles. Before I spend too much time thinking about this, I'd like to elicit some input from others. In particular, could you answer these questions:
Do you think this is a good idea?
If not, briefly explain why not.
If so, please suggest a particular box that could be used as a model
The default unit is cm3/mol (do not enter this). For gases, dm3/mol is used II'mC. For these (a dozen), alter the default and set |molar volume unit=dm3/molor whatever seems fit. . -DePiep (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
By now, it is
|molar volume=
|molar volume ref=
|molar volume comment=
|molar volume unit=<!-- cm3/mol is default, otherwise add your unit here -->
Appendix A: Background Data for the Chemical Elements 1183. Appendix. A. Table A.1. Obsolete and historical names of the chemical elements. Obsolete ...
Hydrogen is an alkali metal. Would work better if the label was "Hydrogen and the alkali metals".
Sc, Y, La and the lanthanides are categorised as "rare earths and lanthanides", which would give the acronym REAL metals :)
Technetium uncategorised
A new name for the post-transition metals = fusible metals. I presume that, even though the alkali metals have melting points as low as the fusible metals, that the alkali metals would require special handling to melt, to avoid explosions, hence the fusible[-friendly] label for the PTMs seems OK.
Unique categorisation of B, Al, C, Si and Ge as semi-metals
Only N, P and As are categorised as "pnictides"; Sb and Bi are semi-metals
Pnictides, chalcogens and halogens appear to be exclusively non-metals.
re: interesting, but not very sophisticated imo. For example that pnictides issue: it only says pnictides for the non-metals, and below in the Pnictides column it says different. (They did not solve that contradiction: Pnictide is a group so the whole column is Pnictides. Like we said & solved nicely here about halogens: the column is halogen, and the metallishnesh-trend may be different (At is halogen by group and metalloid by metallishenss-trend). -DePiep (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations. I think I should compliment R8R and Sandbh here. I am looking at your patience & carefulness for inspiration. -DePiep (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
There are six Pt group metals, right
I hesitate to ask because these questions can get folk aggitated: could we agree that there are six platinum group metals? For casual readers and those working in the area, that would be my advice. In my 40 years working with PGMs, I have never seen the radioactive heavy threesome included, and I worry about giiving undue weight to a pretty esoteric perspective with no ramifications for the real world, IMHO. {| style="float:right; margin:5px; border:1px solid grey; text-align:center;"
|+ Platinum group metals (PGMs) in the periodic table
|-
| white;| H|| colspan="17" | ||He
|-
| Li||Be|| colspan="11" | ||B || white;|C || white;|N || white;|O ||F ||Ne
|-
| |Na||Mg|| colspan="11" | ||Al||Si||P ||S ||Cl||Ar
|-
| |K ||Ca|| ||Sc||Ti||V||Cr||Mn||Fe||Co||Ni|| style="background:#90ff00;"|Cu||Zn||Ga||Ge||As||Se||Br||Kr
|-
| |Rb||Sr|| ||Y||Zr||Nb||Mo||Tc|| style="background:#00ff90;"|Ru|| style="background:#00ff90;"|Rh|| style="background:#00ff90;"|Pd|| style="background:#90ff00;"|Ag||Cd||In||Sn||Sb||Te||I ||Xe
|-
| Cs||Ba|| * ||Lu||Hf||Ta||W|| style="background:#90ff00;"|Re|| style="background:#00ff90;"|Os|| style="background:#00ff90;"|Ir|| style="background:#00ff90;"|Pt|| style="background:#90ff00;"|Au|| style="background:#90ff00;"|Hg||Tl||Pb||Bi||Po||At||Rn
|-
| Fr||Ra|| ** ||Lr||Rf||Db||Sg||Bh||Hs||Mt||Ds||Rg||Cn||Nh||Fl||Mc||Lv||Ts||Og||
|-
| colspan="19" style="line-height:110%;" |
|-
| || ||* ||La||Ce||Pr||Nd||Pm||Sm||Eu||Gd||Tb||Dy||Ho||Er||Tm||Yb|| ||
|-
| || ||** ||Ac||Th||Pa||U ||Np||Pu||Am||Cm||Bk||Cf||Es||Fm||Md||No|| ||
|-
Here's the only journal article I've seen that even discusses Hs, Mt, Ds alongside the PGMs. Even so, it only calls them "congeners" of the PGMs. OTOH, it's a more common extrapolation among "PT fans" (one, two, three), which sometimes don't even bother to distinguish Hs, Mt, and Ds from the standard (and much more useful) PGMs. Is that where this addition to WP came from? I've un-highlighted Hs, Mt, and Ds in the table (they weren't even mentioned elsewhere in the article, which is usually a bad sign): hopefully that will prove uncontroversial. Double sharp (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
In {{periodic table (micro)}}, you can highlight groups of elements by seting |mark= to any group number or major category name, e.g., |mark=6 or |mark=metalloid. Furthermore, the micro PT senses when it appears on an element page (or its infobox page) and highlights the single cell for that element; see, for example, hydrogen and {{infobox hydrogen}}. I think it would be very helpful if this template could be set up to highlight a particular element's cell in a more general context. I propose that |mark=1, |mark=H, or |mark=hydrogen -- or maybe any one of them -- be used to mark the hydrogen cell. Ideally, you could highlight multiple elements by using forms like |mark=11,19,37,55,56,78,79 or |mark=Fe,Co,Ni,Gd,Dy or |mark=boron,antimony. This would provide a very nice way to illustrate the bullets at Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals § Anomalous properties. I think that all that would be necessary would be to change the code to conditionally draw the border in {{Periodic table (32 columns, micro)/elementcell}}, but I'm not completely sure. Can anyone (e.g., DePiep) verify that at least the single-element version is a relatively easy thing to do and either do it themselves or perhaps point me in the right direction? Thanks! YBG (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
YBG, I plan to use an atomic number list (not symbols), because that's easier for the unnamed superheavies. Would that be OK? Or better use symbols? -DePiep (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
WOW, DePiep Rocks! thank you so much. By the way, numbers or symbols doesn't really matter to me. YBG (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
@DePiep:: I see you have also removed the special pagename logic. Excellent work! By the way, is there a some common property amongst the apparently random list of elements? One that survives being shaved by Occam? YBG (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
So it's symbols only now, so |mark=9 keeps working for the group; list order can be random and writing "AU" does not produce an error here. Yes I removed that "mark Au when page is gold or infobox gold" logic because that was too fragile and unneeded elaborate (done 118 times/page). Infobox element now uses this |mark={{{symbol|}}} too. If one sees any issues please report. Yeah of course my newly discovered class of elements has a common property; I'll leave it for you to puzzle for a while. (Really, I had a collegue once who in such a list did find a number pattern - spoiled the joke). Once again, I fell like Mendeleev must have felt. -DePiep (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I note: entering |mark=AU will not produce an error or maintenance categorising. Of course it won't show as intended either. Do a count in the preview, I suggest. -DePiep (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
More on issues & features with the micro PT
Just to note: the micro PT shows bad in mobile view. The borders don't come over well. See Properties of ... (mobile).
A period can be entered by this |mark= list. Adding this extra would only be a shortcut (for the editor). On the other hand: the cell formatting is processed 118 times per micro PT. Adding this redundant feature would add to the pageload time. So I advise against it. -DePiep (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I add re Parcly Taxel, as this topic developed (below): I also think that the list-by-symbol is the most editor-friendly way. It does not require you going to search the documentation page for parameter details &tc. Just typing the symbol list: what can go wrong? Very editor-friendly, this makes me a good template-editor and happy. -DePiep (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Does this mean we should eliminate group and category marking like |mark=3 and |mark=metalloid? YBG (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
No, let's keep those. Works fine, nothing to fix. I'm not that sharp on load speed. But I think the mark-by-symbol-list is easiest for every editor & every situation passing by. No need to add extra shortcuts that expand the /documentation. (Today I would not add group option for the same reasoning. The category is needed anyway b/c of the colors. Note that the cat naming is precise, "metalloids" (plural) will fail -- unlike the very more forgiving {{element color}}. All b/c that of bit of speed.) -DePiep (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
What about using separate parameters |markgroup=3, |markcategory=metalloid, |markelement=H, |markelementlist=H,He, |markfrom=19|markto=36? While these could all be parsed as part of |mark=, if they were separate, it seems to me that the complex processing time would be expended only when it is actually used. I may be overthinking all of this, but if the template gets executed 118 times, every little bit might help. YBG (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Not needed, I don't mind load speed. Current number (group) and cat name (for cat) do not interfere, so no mistakes. It's just, I see no need to add options that require an editor (you and me included) to go to the documentation page for parameter spelling & meaning & options. I am very happy with the symbol-list option we now have, it's editor friendliest. (now go spend your time asking for the other suggestions I listed above ;-) ). -DePiep (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I only get a hyperlink when hovering over the bottom quarter or so of the cell. Any way to make it work in the entire cell? YBG (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Not that I know of; they may have asked if they could have a page with his books on it. I looked at it and thought it was superb; wondered if it would work with ScYLaAc (boo! hiss!!) but couldn't vizualise it in my head; and wanted to know when we could have a Wikipedia version :) Sandbh (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why it shouldn't work with Sc/Y/La/Ac; it's just that the fold then has to cut through the d-block.
I must admit though that I'm not so keen on their colouring Ag (for example) as an s-block element because its differentiating electron happens to be a 5s one. Isn't block assignment based on available valence electrons, in which case Ag is clearly in the d-block? (Not sure where this leaves group 12, though.) After all, electron configuration isn't everything when predicting the chemistry of the elements: Fe and Ru behave rather differently, but Ni and Pd are much more similar to each other, even though the electron configuration tallies in the former case but not the latter! Double sharp (talk) 08:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
PS note erroneous config for Lr; needs to show p rather than d electron.
More facts in our element cells: yesss. (First candidate: our bold ie common valences). Folding the PT (by vertical folds): go. As the Video PT prof did before. (cannot do that graphically today on wiki). Major refinement I'd like to know: what facts, or dimensions, are those bubbles saying? Does their size mean anything? Why is the gold core yellow? Where is the key (legend) at all? OK. From here: I get that we can improve presentation. What facts from that link, per cell, should we add/improve? (Personally: it does not add any info to me. I only do recognize the folding lines). -DePiep (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
To me, something is not OK or clear. The circular balls showing the incomplete shell? The free electron shown bigger? Some half-ball on top? What's that with the d-colors appearing halfway d-bock? Me, the half-layman, does not understand QM any better from these images. (The idea of folding is OK, but that's just the blocks, right?). -DePiep (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, I really need more time to study this. This I understand, so far, in the PT and its legend:
The grey core circle represents the closed (completed) subshells, and with it the core increases in size over the periods. See for example group 1. This core also can have the marker for radioactivity, but I guess that is unrelated info for the topic. Comment: Unexplained is why the core of Au -only- is yellowish not grey.
All colors refer to the four 'blocks' (so there are four basic s-p-d-f colors; these are used in shades. I guess block is not exactly the right word here). I think the folding option for the hardcopy is (mostly) just supporting the block structure & colors, not an extra information.
The pearl collar of colored circles represent incomplete subshells (colored by their block). Per block there are these maximum number of pearls: s=1, p=3, d=5, f=7. E.g. The Au example shows an incomplete s-pair (half an orange pearl), and all five d-pearls.
Empty pearls too have a place marker (transparent = bg block color with a white outline; for example Sc). This too supports the graphic structure to show a 'filling sequence in a subshell', saying 'there is a maximum'. Great. I think that the pearl string being circular is not essential.
The bigger pearl or half-pearl, in a lighter shade of block-color, marks the differentiating electron. I guess the "difference" is with the previous element (first lower atomic number), like "the electron just added when walking the Z's". The whole cell bg take this block color! This illustrates the jumpy filling sequence in the f-block like when going Eu-Gd-Tb. Not directly showing is the repositioning of the previous (now jumping) electron, e.g. the 'disappearing' d-electron when going from Cm to Bk; this must be deducted. Comment: I think only half a pearl should be light-colored always, because only one electron is added. The Au example suggests the two electrons are differentiating (the full pearl is lighter). Also, graphically I find it confusing that this pearl is drawn bigger. What is exploding in there? I'd choose a different way to mark it (just an asterisk in it for starters). Also the shading being lighter put me wrongfooted. To stress an graphic point, one would darken it. My association is: lighter=lesser.
The graph nicely pulls attention to the block-spoiling diff electrons: (d in f-block, s in d-block. Comment: first time I see this clearly (here it's written not drawn: correct but not illustrating).
All in all, it is a great way to show graphically the incomplete subshells for an element individually, and in the table structure (walking through the PT by group and/or by period) showing the filling sequence, and its jumps. It beats any textual description.
Would be great if we could have such graphs in a (big cell) PT. The folding option would be an extra, but without it the show is OK already. -DePiep (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Template:Periodic table (f-block) is the example to compare, I was looking for: is has the open shells in the f-block (OK) written (good). The irregular filling pattern is present, using red color (OK) and can be deducted (not ideal). The graph beats this one. Note to ELEM editors: this template is not used in an article any more. Should that be corrected? At the moment, we do not have anything showing the f-block shell filling. -DePiep (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Chem template
Can someone explain this?
Using {{chem}} adds extra obnoxious space before the line
O 2: {{chem|O|2}}
But using the html subscript does not.
O2: O<sub>2</sub>
I'm not sure why this is.
If someone can explain it, I will be most appreciative. If someone can fix {{chem}} so it does not have this problem, I will be even more appreciative. YBG (talk) 03:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I see that {{chem}} has provisions for including superscripts, and if there were happen to be superscripts, then the extra leading before the line would be understandable. My question is, if the template is rendered without superscripts, shouldn't it be possible to render it in a way that avoids the extra leading? YBG (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the extra space that was meant is the space between lines, not within lines. So:
some demo
"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et O 2 dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non O2 proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.""Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et O 2 dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non O2 proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.""Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et O 2 dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non O2 proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum."
In the astatine infobox, the oxidation states are noted this way: "−1, +1, +3, +5, +7": the "+" plus-sign is added. Shall we make that standard for all infoboxes? (I like it for stressing the essence, but is it best practice?) -DePiep (talk) 07:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I like it too for clarity. What's the downside? All I can see it that it consumes more space. Is it significant that −1, +1 are bold but the others are not? YBG (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Only downside I can think of is it being non-standard or confusing. Is why I ask this. There is a reason for the bolding, but being Good Encyclopedic means we should describe/note/clarify that. Maybe legend or footnote or labeltext. Suggestions? -DePiep (talk) 07:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
It's pretty standard to write cationic charges with the sign in many contexts (of direct relevance for the infobox field, that's how oxidation state does it). The bold ones are the most common values. I agree that if we retain that sort of detail, we should somehow have a note about it (maybe an on-hover popup would be less intrusive than an actual footnote or other symbol/word that takes up space). DMacks (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I think its standard too. Just checked, Zumdahl and Greenwood/Earnshaw does it too. (When G&E counts d electrons they doesnt add the + e.g. oxidation state: 4 (d1), but otherwise they do.) Christian75 (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that fits my generic understanding in numbers: no when it's a counting total, yes (allowed) when a value. -DePiep (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Quick conclusion: 1. yes we can add the + in "oxidation states +1" &tc., (so, all elements then); 2. bolding stays (none asked otherwise), but still unclear if & how to clarify that. -DePiep (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
About bold/normal (main oxidation states)
"The main oxidation state: it is simple: we can use it from the literature, like Greenwood/Earnshaw, Holleman/Wiberg etc. ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
This is not about sourcing the bolding, it is about explaining the bolding. As it is now, the Reader is left with the question: "Why is this number bolded?". -DePiep (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
How about "−1, +1, +3, +5, +7"? {{H:title}} is documented as not being WP:ACCESSIBLE, but it's a start...better than no explanation for anyone (I don't see an alternative that is similar to this result). Alternative would be a <ref> in the label that says "bold ones are most common". List of oxidation states of the elements uses the same convention for formatting the most common one(s) for each element. DMacks (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
We can add the bold ones are the most common ones in a small font size next to the very name of that row of the infobox, smth. like "oxidation states <br> (the most common ones are in bold)".--R8R (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Re R8R, along that line yes. Then (because infobox font already is reduced), bold/normal like: Oxidation states (most common ones are in bold). Q: Is "most common" the crispiest we can be? It's a bit open ended imo. -DePiep (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC):
"Most stable" is more like it, closer to what we want to emphasize. I don't think I could do better than that.--R8R (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Why not use {{abbr}}, as it is docuented as being accessible? I know that't not what abbr is intended for, but it's worth considering. YBG (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
{{abbr}} uses <abbr>, a w3c defined HTML option (that is: high level of definition). Its /doc says: only use this for abbreviations and acronyms, not to add a title (mousehover) text. So we must confirm. DePiep (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I dont think they necessary have to be the most stable to be in bold, and if it changed to most stable a lot of oxidation states needs new references. Christian75 (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
A side note: Why do we reverse the numbers, e.g. 3, 2, 1, -2 ... (I just checked hydrogen, cobalt and iron - all reversed), and theese elements doesnt have oxidation state 0 in the inforbox. Christian75 (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I think we can agree & decide here that the numbers should be ascending (I propose). I don't understand what you mean to say with the zero. -DePiep (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Made the three elements mentioned ascending. Not for me being that bold, but for it being obvious imo. -DePiep (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
One more approach. Can we split the small list, bolds first:
I like it, since it doesn't necessarily rely on bonding to show which are the mainly encountered states. Can we show C as ascending? Sandbh (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
We can reorder for C, it's free. Below, earlier, we noted that we'd better mention the bolds first in a single list (so that would decide the ascend/descend order in most cases). But done this way, that rule does not work any more. We're back to the question: do we asc or desc in all infoboxes? I'd like to have a guideline however faint, to get similar presentation in boxes. -DePiep (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC) added that variant.
I like the proposal. We could do it.
Regarding the order to list the states in, it doesn't really matter. Both the ascending (which makes sense in its own way) and alternating for metals and nonmetals (which makes sense in its own way) are fine. It is a matter of taste, really, especially if we show the main states before the other ones, as proposed. Especially in that case, I would use the ascending ordering for all elements, but I would not really oppose if others disagree. --R8R (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the ordering. A lot of infoboxes are descending, which indicates a habit (in science). I'd like to hear from Sandbh, R8R Gtrs, Double sharp about this ascend-or-descend At ordering:
I don't think there's a real difference between the two. It could be done either way. None will get hurt.
Or we may say both versions may be defended with arguments of kinda the same level: Numbers should decrease, because they show an increase of electrons we have (IOW, more electrons = lower oxidation state, since electrons are negatively charged) and that looks cool, or we can show them increase because, you know, they increase and that looks cool. (In both cases, "that looks cool" is a simplification, but is actually the very essence of what it stands for.) But I can't really figure out reasons any more sophisticated than these, and since both mean little, and it's a question of personal preference. If others know better reasons for either version, I'd be pleased to listen.
Since they're both basically the same, I'd go with the ascending order if we decide we should standardize this. (I raise my doubts on if the effort will be worth it, though. However, standardization is a thing... I just don't want to do it myself, because it seems mostly pointless to me to spend time on this, but I am fine with any decision as long as I am not in.) Just a personal preference, no actual scientific reason, since I can't think of a very good one (or maybe I'm underestimating those we have, who knows). Or you can say the ascending order is more intuitively correct, which I will go with.--R8R (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Another alternative would be to choose between ascending and descending based on which one puts a given element's most common states earlier in the list. YBG (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Something along the same lines, since I expect to see the most important information listed first: Hydrogen, metals and metalloids = positive to negative. Nonmetals = negative to positive. Thus:
Makes most sense. When situation is doubtful (eg, symmetry in boldings), existing edit order should stay. -DePiep (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Adding oxidation state 0
Split off topic
I think the oxidations states for all the elements are based on Greenwood and Earnshaw including the bolding (page 28, 2nd edt.)? And Carbon is not correct in an organic perspective - I think all the oxidations states from -4 to +4 are common in organic chemistry? And all the infoboxes should have added 0 as an oxidation state too (C has oxidation states 0, but a link to formaldehyde - the free element are more common than formaldehyde). Christian75 (talk) 09:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
This subtopic is not about correctness or sourcing of the ox states. It is about how we present them: use bold, order (ascending/descending?), describe the meaning of bold. If there are improvements to make in specific elements (like C), pls take it to its talkpage or open a separate thread here. -DePiep (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Off course its relavant before changing all the ordering. We do not source the bolding, and we are missing oxidation state +0 in nearly all a lot of infoboxes. Christian75 (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I think we should not use the OS zero if an element is found in this OS only in its free form. Because zeros in free state are obvious; but it is not just a matter of taste, I, at least initially, would think there may be a known, say, Na(0) compound. If we must add zeros, I suggest we change the line name to "Oxidation states (as found in compounds)" or smth. like that, just not to do it anyway. It would confuse me and surely some other people. Let's not do it.--R8R (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe its obvious, but so is the oxidation state equal main group number :-). But if its confusing to list OS 0, maybe it should be added to some kind of description to the entry. (and btw: the +0 are a matter of style - just checked Google and some other people do it too. I think its like writing +1, +2,... which could be written 1,2,... (as math people normally do)... Christian75 (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Christian75 Are you seriously going off-topic again, reversed direction this time, right after I have organised your flea jumpings? You really want to show off that you have not read this thread? Bye. -DePiep (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it off topic, not when I removed the "+" before the zero at {{Infobox astatine}}. I've seen sources doing it without the + for the zero (although in that particular case they also removed the + for all the positive oxidation states). But to me it is a bit odd, because it makes me wonder if −0 would mean something different from +0. It's not really natural and obvious to me to put a sign in front of zero, because zero is neither positive nor negative.
About oxidation state = main group number: even that is not always obvious. Po(VI) and At(VII) spring to mind as cases when the group oxidation state is known only in a few compounds, and most known compounds are in some lower oxidation state. Rn(VIII) is not even known. (Granted, these are rare radioactives, but even a small exception forces readers to take note and not assume it's always the same – to me, a possibly dangerously effective source of misreadings.) Double sharp (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
A long time desired improvement I have added: the ubiquitous category background color we use now has its legend connection in the {{infobox element}}.
I forgot to show the point: it's about the section-header background color, now having the key (legend) accessible/in-sight. -DePiep (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
template:authority control
Oh dear. The bots are taking control by doing bot added Authority control in barium[8]. What a commanding name (aggressive twice, note). It gives control to wikidata.
First look up authority control (I think the words sounds more aggressive for a non-native english reader), and second I agree that its really strange to add to barium. It added two links - one to some Japanese text, and one link to a German text - both links just to confirm that barium is an element. I removed it again. Christian75 (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I know what Authority control means, it's a name. It is aggressive in English still, irrespective of native language. It may be useful for princess Diana, but not for chemical elements. I think wikidata is overstretched in this one. -DePiep (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Molar mass for molecules: which atomic mass (source)?
Here at {{Drugbox}}, there is a talk to get the automated calculation of molar mass by atomic mass (from input like H=2|O=1). Together with {{Chembox}}, there are 15,000 potential articles.
My question is: for the atomic mass of an element, which source numbers should we use? (and knowing that IUPAC uses ranges like [1.234, 1.345], which number to use at all?). Issues like rounding and uncertainty can be addressed later. Practical laboratory rounding says "2 decimals is OK". -DePiep (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
In the documentation for {{Chem molar mass}} I have explained four different types of value, and the source I use: 1. CIAAW straight, 2. CIAAW conventional (a second list in their spreadsheet, for H etc.), 3. Four existing radioactive elements, 4. Nonexistant radioactive elements. For #4 CIAAW does not give any value, I have used the value we publish already: longest living isotope (could be called OR).
I have not found any other source. If an other source exists, we should sort out why their value should trump CIAAW's. -DePiep (talk) 11:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
In general, I think the article is ready for FAC, but I'd like anyone to give it a last-minute look before the procedure starts. I checked the previous FAC, and it seems prose quality was the only major obstacle; now that the article has been copyedited, I would still love you to give it some final check.--R8R (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh dear. It looks like the RfD nominator does not understand the issue, and so wants to explain it to readers. For a redirect. So we can expect a wha-wha content article trying to explain the unexplainable: that "other nonmetal" is a nonsensical bad classicifation. -DePiep (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
so I finally acquired Cotton's Lanthanide and Actinide Chemistry
Yeah, I only went looking yesterday (heh). It's not hard to find at all, even if you just search "lanthanide chemistry". Double sharp (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't mean to highlight how easy that was, rather I meant to share the link. I gave it a look earlier today; it can actually be useful for the purposes of writing element articles, and it should totally be able to help you with cerium :) --R8R (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I've just started Scerri's Story and Significance, I'll catch up with Cotton a bit later ;-). Already the introduction is comforting the mind with fine new thoughts, and it created a laugh when I read that Newton was more of an alchemist. -DePiep (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Could be a big site linking to it, or other random events. I checked the history of PP and the last half year its typical 10-15,000 hits per month. Gold and Al (both C class) has been in top 5 the last half year with 100,000 hits per month. Just FYI :-) Christian75 (talk) 07:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, only Yb has changed at CIAAW between 2013–2015. The other edits in that List must have been correctionss (were wrong in 2013 already). The spreadsheet is not updated yet. By the way, the change for Yb is quite big: 2013: 173.054; 2015: 173.045. Could it be that they have corrected a typo? ;-) -DePiep (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
While that would be hilarious, I think the fact that the uncertainty changed as well (Yb 2013: 173.054(5); Yb 2015: 173.045(10)) makes me think it's just a coincidence. Double sharp (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
An interesting idea would be to have an in-project page showing how these atomic weights have been changing. We could then search the old values and update them on sight. Double sharp (talk) 07:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
OK with me. Is stable long time indeed. Does this require any other action (like formal closing of a WP:task?). I mean, lets do it right in one time. -DePiep (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this requires any 'formal' action. I don't want to close the taskforce itself, just centralize discussions related to isotopes on this page rather than on the isotope taskforce page, given its low activity and the majority of the issues dealing with our approach to isotopes resolved. I just want to gauge the mood before doing anything (e.g. prefer the isotopes discussions to remain on the isotopes subpage). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}19:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
With this, I'm less supportive (but do go ahead). My headache is that WikiProjects and subs are getting mixed up. Even now I still get confused (into improductively) mixing up WP:CHEMISTRY and WP:CHEMICALS. Can you see the problem? Overlapping WikiProject issues appear on different WP pages. This is why I request: then merge all of it. -DePiep (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The issue with WP:CHEMISTRY and WP:CHEMICALS is most likely that WP:CHEM is ambiguous (as an abbreviation), and that people might not know that WP:CHEMICALS even exists. That, and for most chemicals, they should just be tagged by {{WP Chemicals}} and not both {{WP Chemistry}} and {{WP Chemicals}}. Whereas WP:ISOTOPES clearly is a taskforce of WP:ELEMENTS (used to be its own WikiProject in the past however, but it has been merged with it eons ago), and you tag it with {{WP Elements|isotope=yes}}. This is really about closing down a discussion page and redirecting the traffic to this one.
I agree, go ahead. But what to do with the existing discussions on the page? I suggest that it be moved lock, stock, and barrel to an archive of this page, and then a redirect created to this page. That way, there would only be one set of archives to examine. YBG (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, I gave it the number 21. Then we'll just have to note that there are two special archives: 15 (ginormous metalloids discussion) and 21 (all the old isotope material). Double sharp (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Could somebody please start from this svg and update it with the current color scheme and IMO remove the ionization energies and see if the result is FP-worthy? Nergaal (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Since you ask: not me. I remember the name Nergaal and it does not sound inviting. But hey, maybe you have friends left, elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
You seem to have a problem understanding what I said. I didn't say "hey buddy do me a favor". You in particular made sure to make me stop caring about this project, but there might be other people here that care to improve the project without creating unnecessary drama. Nergaal (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh and just to be clear: I remember your name, without research, just because you made a fool out of good ELEM editor Sandbh and then got away with a reduced block because of your admin friend drmeis. This is your behaviour vs Sandbh's, so you are left to explain why I would be the cause for you leaving the project (unless you don't like someone pointing things out - then shoot the messanger). -DePiep (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I think you got things wrong. I have no idea who that admin is, but if it was you who got me blocked over the war at other metal which was later agreed widely to my initial move, then I congratulate you for doing great work. Nergaal (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
"I have no idea who that admin is" you say. Well, it is the admin who unblocked you prematurely (immaturely) in your 'other metal' disruptions. See the Nergaal block log. Of course you don't know. -DePiep (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Periodic table no longer periodic with undiscovered elements??
Elements 1-118 still follow the pattern we know and love. Elements 119 and 120, following the pattern of the first 2 elements of any row, are still following the pattern. But after that, if the elements were to follow the pattern:
The g-block (the elements of the eighth row not corresponding to any elements in the higher rows) should have elements 121-138.
Elements 139-168 are in the same groups as elements 89-118 respectively.
But the article reveals that the table no longer follows the pattern that we know and love. First, the g-block has 20 elements, not 18. Then, elements 141-164 take the expected positions of elements 139-162. Then there will be no p-block for the eighth row; it will go straight the the s-block of the following row with elements 165 and 166. Worse, the ninth row will be just as long as the second and third rows with just 2 s-block and 6 p-block elements, followed immediately by the g-block of row 10 with no s-block at all. The pattern we all know and love is broken. No more "periodic table", but more of a "groupic table", meaning that putting elements in the same column by group because of their similar properties is what's important, not putting them in periodic patterns. Any thoughts on whether the table really still is periodic?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Take one mor breath, Georgia guy. Or two. -DePiep (talk)
Right. Sorry about that.
Well, periodic table says that it is ordered by atomic number, electron configurations, and recurring chemical properties. No mention of the constant n + ℓ value that you find in every earlier period. So I think it is actually doing its best given the weirdo electron configurations predicted.
Take the extra two superactinides: this is happening because the 8p1/2 electrons are lowered in energy so much that they're filling up along with 5g, and the properties are hard to distinguish. A bad analogy is how not only 4f, but also 5d1 fill up in the lanthanides. It's essentially the same question: "why are there 15 lanthanides when the f-block only can hold 14 elements" and "why are there 20 superactinides when the g-block only can hold 18 elements"?
The difference, of course, is that in the lanthanides 5d is supposed to fill right after they finish, at Lu–Hg, by Aufbau, but in the superactinides 8p should wait till 163–168 by Aufbau. So something has to give, and we, following Fricke, decided to go by predicted chemical properties. 139 and 140 are not expected to act too differently from the other superactinides, so with regards to the table, they should be together. Because when you put elements on the periodic table, there are four steps, per Jensen:
Assign a block based on what electrons are available. For 121–140, g are the main valence electrons, and you can treat the p additions as anomalous.
Assign a group in the block based on how many electrons are available. So we just get twenty columns going in atomic number order.
Verify them by checking if block, group, and periodic trends hold consistently. Given that the superactinides are supposed to be pretty homogeneous, I think we've achieved this.
Verify that the elements are placed in order of increasing atomic number. Yup!
141–164 being two higher than expected is basically because 8p1/2 has also been filled, so you've got an extra two electrons as part of the inert core. So things still work out: for example, Rf has 6d2, and eka-Rf (156) has 7d2, following the above criteria.
Then after that we are faced with a problem. The subshell splitting is such a large effect now that 8p3/2 rises beyond 9s, and so the latter fills first. So we have no choice but to put 165 and 166 in the s-block of the next row. This doesn't really violate the criteria above, as the trends work out. And we have an added bonus that 9p1/2 and 8p3/2 are close in energy, so they act like a single p-subshell. So, why not move 8p3/2 into the ninth row? It keeps the elements in increasing atomic number, fits the trends, and now we have a short period like the 3rd row, just as is predicted by Fricke.
Finally, as for 173–184, since the 9th period is complete at 172, we have to treat it as being the g-block of the next row.
So I think the table is still as periodic as it can get with the electron configuration weirdness. The placements are perhaps not strictly following electron configuration, but do their best to expose the trends, both across periods and down groups. Double sharp (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that more research on the properties of francium astatinide, which is based on the known periodic table, may be in order. I will explain that more tomorrow. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The periodic table has to do with chemistry, not physics (except to the extent that chemistry is physics). The periodic table is a mechanism for organizing the elements based on their chemical properties. If an element doesn't exist long enough to have falsifiable chemical properties, its placement in an extended periodic table and the shape of the extended periodic table are untestable, not even wrong. Francium and astatine are both known, naturally occurring trace elements as products of the three radioactive decay sequences, and its chemistry is not even well known, when each of its elements has a half-life of minutes, not milliseconds, and francium and astatine are in their proper places in the regular periodic table. An extended periodic table for elements whose half-lives are so short that their chemistry is not testable is operationally meaningless. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Except that they are predicted to have stable-enough isotopes for chemistry, thanks to islands of stability around E122 and E164. So this table is a prediction, and would probably be falsifiable if we made those elements. So you could think of it as just a guide, a starting point to future chemical studies, using physics as a guide to make first extrapolations of chemistry into this large unknown area of the periodic table.
Fr's chemistry is known, just uninteresting (only Fr+). As for astatine, there's enough to write a whole section at Astatine#Compounds. Even flerovium, with investigated isotopes having half-lives in the milliseconds, has been chemically experimented on (Flerovium#Experimental chemistry). And we even have a preliminary experimental value for the boiling point of copernicium (maximum half-life of half a minute). So I would certainly not rule out chemical experimentation techniques developing to the point that it can handle millisecond-isotopes in the near future. There are already studies thinking about chemically investigating elements up to Lv, with a 61-millisecond half-life! Double sharp (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Finally, we already put elements like meitnerium on the periodic table, even though their chemistry has not yet been tested at all. (It could be: there's an eight-second isotope, but it's just that no one has gotten around to it.) For now, it's placed below Ir because it's expected to behave like Ir, but we don't know yet. So it seems there is already precedent for making tentative placements on the periodic table based on predicted chemical properties. Double sharp (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
on Japanese Wikipedia's element-classifying scheme
Now the greys are called "other metals", and envelope Be, Mg, Zn, Cd, Hg, Cn, as well as our post-transition metals. (I also edited their table to show Mt, Ds, and Rg as "unknown chemical properties", and Fl as a post-transition metal.) So Be and Mg aren't alkaline earth metals there? Interesting.
The inclusion of Be and Mg with group IIB instead of group IIA is quite interesting: I will link again to Jensen's paper on the subject. Now it would be really nice to know what prominent Japanese textbooks say: do they discuss Be and Mg with Ca–Ra or Zn–Hg? (Since German Wikipedia uses Sc/Y/La/Ac like Holleman and Wiberg.) Double sharp (talk) 08:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
(Also, beryllium is the only element FA on Japanese Wikipedia. Would be interesting to do that here as well, as it was our first. Also wouldn't mind doing Li and Be together.) Double sharp (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
and one more thing, based on the above mention of Japanese Wikipedia
Now that we don't use "poor metals", I submit that if we do choose to take group 12 out of the TMs, we'd actually be listened to seriously instead of getting laughed at for "poor metals". If we want to go down that path, that is. (Although it does unfortunately mean uncolouring Cn and Fl. But then the whole can-it-use-d-electrons definition is very unnatural for the superheavy elements, if we listen to the predictions of Fricke et al, as there would be many cases like E113, E165, and E166 where the d electrons are used but result in main-group behaviour.) Double sharp (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
If we describe his contribution to the periodic table, his name will be in automatically. But what did he actually contribute to the system? Discovering elements is not enough.see below Same for Nicholson. -DePiep (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree with DePiep. Pyykko is fundamentally important for WP:Elements in how he planned a new theoretical system of organization of the future elements, some of their properties, and so on. Like Mendeleev, but predicting the future instead of describing the present. Janet left-step table is well known. But does it matter who discovered rubidium? Does anyone want to actually work on these articles? What's the practical reason to throw our flag there?
If we were a 100-people-large project, there would be a chance someone would work on these articles. And even it would be very small: discovering an element is generally far less than discovering a chemical law, so it's not so attracting for editors (the first example to come to my mind was Markovnikov's rule, and Vladimir Markovnikov is a Start-class article). Projects were meant to help the editors, not dictate what they would (not) do. So I think there's no point in doing this; however, if for some reason people start to work on such articles, the topic may be readdressed.--R8R (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Oooops, I completely missed the point by Stone (and in the process misleadpossibly misleadR8R Gtrs ...). Stone does not propose to add Mosander to People involved with the periodic table. I'm sorry an so correct. (I really need a holiday. In Sweden - might as well visit Ytterby).
This WikiProject is named "Elements", and so discoverers of elements belong in here. Mosander is already in the infobox of the elements he discovered (history section: lanthanum, erbium, terbium). As I am reading Scerri, it is even more fascinating to get a view of the 1840-age of pre-PT science. I'll add the project template. -DePiep (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I stand just where I stand. I don't see the point in putting our project boxes there if we won't work on those articles. A Wikiproject is a group of volunteer editors working on articles on a certain topic. As such, it shouldn't include what you might (and possibly even might not) think from its title; instead, it should include what a Wikiproject is ready to work on. We may claim those article as relevant, but what will it change?
There are only very few biographies in our project, but a few I will add, I worked on in the past. Henry Moseley is the first I have in mind. He set the frame to finish the periodic table and fill all the gaps. --Stone (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Feel free if you think our project will benefit from this. Actually, we may create a taskforce within the project (like our previous expansion to Isotopes) if we want such articles to be expanded by WP:ELEM. This would help us organize the articles so they would easier to reach.--R8R (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
About R8R saying "WP:ELEMENTS should include what a Wikiproject is ready to work on": I disagree. We better not kick out articles because of low editing capacity. Mosander must be in because he discovered elements, full stop. What R8R can help is the |Importance= option in the WP project template. And always a bio-interested editor can start on the Mosander page, however. -DePiep (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
In general, I assume a WikiProject is all about its editing capacity. It's why projects are established in first place. Once it increases, we can increase our scope. But I like there is a civilized argument :) So I won't insist if you all disagree.--R8R (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
We can set |Importance=low for Mosander, but pls keep him in (Again, IMO our 'edit capacity' is not defining who has something to do with elements). Yesterday I added Diagonal relationship after a Double sharp tip. Low indeed, but interesting & related. -DePiep (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Periodic table in infobox element
Cancelled
In {{infobox element}}, I have removed the "above, below, left, right" links for element neighbours. I think our PT and our readers are good enough to know what the 'above element' is. See: gold. -DePiep (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Not a mistake, just a todo thing. A minor effect it is. Centering it is a minor issue compared to removing those links. -DePiep (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
...I think this is a bad idea. The nearest neighbours are often among the most similar elements and I think it is good to have these links easily accessible for comparative purposes. (Even diagonal neighbours would be good to have, but I won't insist on that: it's hard to show that nicely.) Double sharp (talk) 06:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I have an even simpler argument: I have actually actively used these links, because the squares are so little and it is hard to click the right square even with a mouse (and this becomes even more difficult when you use sensor displays!)--R8R (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I put (or checked the presence of) WP Elements tags on the exotic atoms Mu (μ+e−), Ps (e+e−), Pn (p+p−), and p−He+ (p−-e−-He2+, He with one electron replaced with an antiproton): these are the ones for which some chemistry is known, or at least have a symbol. In particular, the symbol Mu for μ+e− is OK with IUPAC! Double sharp (talk) 07:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Common compounds
Now that the elements table is nearing completion, perhaps a series of common comounds could be added to give project members the drive to push articles up to quality? (I know personally it's more fun and rewarding to bring a start up to B, than a GA up to FA).
A video was released earlier today on a YouTube channel I watch named Periodic Videos. The video was titled, "Your periodic table is probably WRONG" and it is linked here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1zNbWJC5aw
My question is, was anything changed in our articles here in regards to this, such as how we portray the periodic table and, if not, what information and testing from scientists in the field would be necessary for us to then change it? Or is there an organization or society that would have to put out an official dictum before we make any changes? SilverserenC21:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
First of all, see what trouble The Prof has explaining the issues because he keeps using an 18-column PT. Half of the time is eaten by the "move that bottom block back into the PT" wrestling. (IKEA comes to mind - including the leftover parts). Why don't they have a 32-column PT in Nottingham to start with? There is no reason to complain, at the end of the video, that PT's are drawn such a way because of drawing ease (and then use a PT too easily drawn yourself). By all means, how is a classroom wall not an ideal size for the 32-column PT? On top of this, the 18-column cardboard PT used in the video is ambiguous about how to squeeze in the bottom block. Ouch. Talking about drawn by ease. No wonder The Proff never noticed.
Next. The opening notion of the video (Group 3 should be/could be to the right of the Ln/An block, creating a group 3 having Sc/Y/Lu/Lr) is how we show it already a long time here. See for example Scandium (the micro PT in the infobox), Periodic_table#Overview (note the asterisk locations), and here (twice). Not correct to say that the bad form is used "everywhere"!
And no, we did not draw it this way 'because it is easy to draw'. We discussed this here, (especially [here]; Sandbh is the editor to follow) over a year ago. To PT theoriser Eric Scerri it is not new either. The news is that this is news to The Proff. In the Video The Prof even shows that (our) wikipedia overview (at 6:18).
In the end of the video, the speculation takes over. Already the video title says probably WRONG, later the words 'perhaps' and 'could be' are added (from 5:45). Quite a bluff to claim that PT's are drawn by what is easy, while only having speculation to inject. It could be that the Proff now had a bad day because all the videos that show his PT's "everywhere" (his tie for sure, his boxer short maybe) need a reshoot.
And no, there is no vetting institute for changes to "the" PT. It is based on reasoning. Eric Scerri noted that there are some 700 variants dawn of the periodic system, most sound but by a different principle. So the Proff saying it is WRONG may be itself the wrong part in the story.
Recap: 1. throw out all your 18-column PTs, use the 32-column form. If 18 is necessary, don't be ambiguous with the asterisks. 2. Always check Wikipedia. 3. Don't claim "wrongs" together with "possibly, probaly, could be". 4. This also applies to ties and boxer shorts. -DePiep (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Added talkpage archive link where it becomes useful [[11]], by User:Sandbh (after rereading Lavell, Scerri and Jensen). Also DoubleSharp is to follow, he's into Cotton at the moment for this :-). -DePiep (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Since I am named above I take the liberty of adding a few comments relating to the Poliakoff video and the question of group 3.
Interesting video. However the authors of the article in Nature magazine, who measured the first ionization of Lr, did not make an argument that it should be placed in group 3 as Poliakoff claims. It was rather the science news articles published in places like Scientific American. If one looks closely at this observation one finds that it still does not settle the issue conclusively. In my own book, "A Very Short Introduction to the Periodic Table", OUP, 2011, I give what I believe to be a categorical argument in favor of group 3 as Sc, Y, Lu, Lr. It is that the periodic table should be presented in its long or 32-column and that all elements should be shown in order of increasing atomic number. This settles it conclusively apart from the remote possibility, which coincidentally was shown of the video, of a table that breaks up the d-block into two highly irregular portions consisting of one and nine groups, separated by the d-block. I cannot believe that nature is so perverse as this. The 32-column table shown in the video is fundamentally incorrect. Just look at the triads. For all other transition metal groups the atomic number triads consist of the second , third and fourth elements in the group. In the case of group 3 as shown in that table it is the first, second and third elements that form a triad. This is highly inconsistent. Why should the d-block be the only group that is split up in this anomalous fashion? It makes no sense. please see www.ericscerri.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.169.229 (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
@Prof. Scerri: OTOH: the s-block splits up in a similar way too, where 2/10/18 forms a triad but not 1/3/11. But one thing I'd like clarification for: what do these atomic number triads mean anyway? What is so important about them, that you mention them as a strong argument? I'm genuinely curious. (?_?) Double sharp (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
See: Eric's paper 'Explaining the periodic table, and the role of chemical triads', here. Cancel the join up prompt and read on screen. Sandbh (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Now, if only there was an effective way to enforce that. Getting the IUPAC approval (possibly also ACS for the U.S., which does have a tradition to stand out when it comes to world standards) could do the job... Except it wouldn't be enough anyway. Like in Russia, they still commonly teach the hardcore old school Mendeleev's 8-group version (even though the 18-column form is slowly gaining usage, it is happening veeeeery slowly). And then practically, of what use would be for the non-scientists? The table grows super wide to include the elements comparably few people even work with? The f block is not discussed in schools, and for almost anyone else, the f block isn't a problem either. In fact, this whole group 3 question is extremely minor for any practical purposes. Mostly because few people work with or even just actually learn the lanthanides. So we would get one theoretical question solved at the expense of making the table almost twice as large as it is now, making much more empty space (compare visually the empty space in a 18-group table and a 32-group table... In fact, in the latter, there is more empty space than space filled with any useful information!)
All that said, yes, it would be great if we could get over the human conservatism and accept the group 3 is -Lu-Lr, rather than -La-Ac. Yet reflecting that by making the 32-col table the standard is just too much for any practical purposes. It would unnecessarily complicate the table to solve a problem with the elements few people even actually learn, not to say work with.--R8R (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Aha. Great to say, "I don't like it, won't listen." Yet this is the reality. People often listen to those who they seem as the standard makers. IUPAC is not omnipotent -- but it does influence things. Like it brought us those meh unun- names for the superheavies. Or the whole standard for the chemical nomenclature. It is not wise to ignore this just because you don't happen to like this. (Most of my re isn't about IUPAC anyway -- and I'd love you to discuss it.)--R8R (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I can agree. IUPAC can influence things, but you actually wrote "inforce [enforce]". Well, that is not possible. We are here to improve the PT by arguments, not by force. So I'm happy to read the eloquent contribution by Eric Scerri. (And really, really, never ever write "32-group table" again. It's 32-column. That's part of the point). -DePiep (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
By "enforce" ("inforce" was a typo) I mean "make this the standard." Making a better table is great, and there is some actual reasoning beyond the structure of the new table, but there must be some goal beyond just knowing you've made a better table, like sharing the knowledge, and you specifically say, "Each person born in this century should learn the Periodic Table in 32-column form." And to make it the standard of learning for the new humans... well, I don't see how that verb "enforce" contradicts your original idea.
Also, I argue the 32-col (yeah, point taken) table would be impractical in real life, for the reasons I've listed above. To educate the new humans, I would use the regular 18-col table with group 3 being Sc-Y-*Lu-**Lr instead of the Sc-Y-La*-Ac** or Sc-Y-*-** many people use today.--R8R (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I like how you say, "32 columns, and that's it," yet specifically ignore my concerns on its actual usage.--R8R (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
...is not what I said. I say: Whatever you want to show, show it in 32-col form. The asterisk-to-cellar graphic construction does not clarify anything. Especially the group 3 issue. -DePiep (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Mendeleev originally drew a 10-column PT (with groups I–VIII; group VIII has 3 columns - even today). Later on ca. 1900, the noble elements were added (11-column PT). -DePiep (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
It was an sort-of-11-column PT at first, with group VIII having 4 columns (Fe/Co/Ni/Cu; Ru/Rh/Pd/Ag; Os/Ir/Pt/Au). Cu, Ag, and Au appeared twice; once in group VIII and another time (bracketed) in group I. (If he didn't do this, only group I would not bifurcate; but the problem is that Cu, Ag, and Au show oxidation states higher than +1). However, preferring Platonic symmetry to inconvenient facts of chemistry, Cu, Ag, and Au were soon ripped out of group VIII. Double sharp (talk) 08:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The rightmost column is a bit confusing in this. For starters, I'd never allow multiple elements in one cell/column - that's why they are (different) elements. -DePiep (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
By now, my favorite PT form is the 32-column PT on a cylinder, with a screw. The screw is 1/period: 10Ne meets 11Na. -DePiep (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
By decree of IUPAC, all chemistry classrooms must have walls long enough for a 32-column periodic table. NO EXCEPTIONS. shoy (reactions) 13:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
And paper aspect ratios? (^_-)-☆ That is honestly the main reason why 18-column will still go strong for a while longer even if 32-column is superior, if you ask me: 18-column fits paper aspect ratios better (and it lets people equivocate about the composition of group 3, but that's not something we should be encouraging). Double sharp (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't have the impression that IUPAC enforces (but please do illustrate). The Prof in Nottingham, Eric Scerri, and we at WP:ELEM all have been free to think & build our own PT presentation. -DePiep (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
re shoyBy decree of IUPAC, all chemistry classrooms must have walls long enough for a 32-column periodic table. Don't worry, no problem. Even in Mendeleev's 1871 "8-column PT" era, classrooms walls had the right proportion for a 32-column PT. It was the lesser enlongued (more square-like) book page format that could not handle the f-block, that entered circa 1940 (by Seaborg). By then, Seaborg did not need a printed PT of course. -DePiep (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Not that everyone follows everything given in the IUPAC PT as well (aside from the equivocation on group 3, which we should really get rid of). I bet everyone's seen at some point a periodic table with H floating around somewhere in the middle instead of being over group 1. (And the periodic table diagrams in Greenwood & Earnshaw's 2nd edition float both H and He this way!) And I bet most PT manufacturers include the unconfirmed elements near the end (113, 115, 117, and 118), even though the IUPAC PT doesn't yet. Double sharp (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Must be intended to "simplify" matters. As is the introduction of transition metals in the discussion. btw, what is "the organisation of the PT"? -DePiep (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I imagine from the contents of their post that it's the placements of controversial elements, which is in practice the composition of group 3. Double sharp (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Precautions or toxicity
I just wanted to bring the edits of 50.196.213.1(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) to the attention of this WikiProject. This editor went through many (all?) element articles and changed section headings from "Precautions", "Health effects", and the like to "Toxicity". I think consistency is good, but I don't know if there is consensus for these mass changes or not and thought a discussion might be warranted. ChemNerd (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I think we should revert all of that, as many of these are more precautions than toxicity. For example, "Lithium is corrosive and requires special handling to avoid skin contact." is a precaution taken to handle lithium, and not an assertion that Li is toxic (which it is): that comes later. Most of these sections would surely list precautions to be taken along with a discussion of the element's health effects and toxicity. If a consistent heading must be used, I think "Precautions" would be a better choice than "Toxicity". Double sharp (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I have finished reverting the IP's edits (I think, please feel free to double check). There may actually be some pages where the IP's preferred heading is more appropriate, but that should be determined by consensus on a case-by-case basis. ChemNerd (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
P.S. A quote from the article: 'Researchers at the Center for Heavy Ion Research (GSI) in Germany, GANIL in France and many others are also working to discover new elements of the periodic table with numbers between 119 and 126. However, the researchers in Dubna believe that’s going to be difficult. "Even though we are building a special accelerator," said Popeko, “most likely element 118 will be the last one discovered because the process is more and more complicated and very expensive."' Q_Q Double sharp (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've had enough of this impossible-to-verify-outside-Emsley-and-his-source-Walter-Saxon tidbit that's being copied everywhere. I'm going to revert everything back to Pu as the highest natural element, in the absence of corroborating sources outside Emsley. After all, you'd think there'd be papers like there have been for primordial 244Pu. Double sharp (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Done, mostly. Corrected the most obvious ones; any others can wait a little.
I also edited {{Periodic table}} and one of the others to align La and Ac (the start of the f-block) with the rest of group 3. Two reasons: (1) as Sandbh and I have previously mentioned, Sc/Y/Lu/Lr ... La/Ac shows up best what is going on in group 3, and (2) even if one dislikes the actinide pseudohomology being unclear as to where it ends without further description in the table, the current version suggests Sc/Y/Lu/Lr ... Ce/Th, which is chemically nonsensical as Ce and Th are often (and Th's case, practically always) tetravalent, while the other elements in the column are trivalent. Double sharp (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Through the 'Wow,..' twitter link, I reached this blog from May 2014 by stuartcantrill. It quotes this wiki: [Ca] is the heaviest element to occur naturally on Earth; heavier elements can only be produced by synthesis.. (today our page Californium says that no more, but still Oklo is mentioned this way: "occurred naturally in Oklo ... but no longer do[es] so" -- so has it or has it not been naturally?).
It was produced at Oklo in the past, but all of that has long since decayed. So it has been natural in the past, but now it isn't. The traces of 244Pu left are so small that at some point in the geologically near future we may well have to update its cell border from straight to dashed! (BTW, Ca is calcium; Cf is californium.) Double sharp (talk) 05:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh wait. Here's a 2012 experiment that does not find any natural 244Pu. Should we change it to "from decay", then, given that the primordial existence of 244Pu is controversial, but the existence of 239Pu from uranium neutron capture is not? Double sharp (talk) 05:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Can someone enlighten me (or the articles) on this? Our {{Periodic table}} graph says, by the cell border being straight/dashed/dotted, that Pu is the heaviest natural occurring element. Is that a stable statement? (ie. the same over the related articles?) -DePiep (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
It should be a stable statement. If it's not, we need to update the old statements that Cf is the heaviest, correcting them to say Pu instead. Double sharp (talk) 05:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Unun- or element X?
The argument has been raised before, and we seem to have reached a consensus our current unun- articles should be instrad named "element X." We haven't gotten this implemented because of how this should be done; now that the issue was raised at the Uus FAC, we may reopen the issue.
So two major questions are: do we still see "element X" as the better option and agree we should change the naming style, and, if so, how (technically) do we want to do it?--R8R (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I recall we nearly fixed it, the long talk must be in the archives of this page. From memory, open details were: how to write it in periodic tables (repeat the "113" for name and number?); needed a check on how to write element 113 in chemical formula. Don't know how isotopes are written in prose (element 113-284 for 284Uut?). These are details we could finish I guess.
IMO the definitive step needed is add this as MOS/unnamed elements into WP:MOSCHEM (could not find a MOS PHYS). Of course this MOS must be limited to (all) unnamed elements (not even legal for Cn and Fl). I'd support it. -DePiep (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Now the thing is, Double sharp is no longer as supportive of the idea as he was back then. so we either convenience him/her back (an active discussion is underway, so if anything happens, there is a great place for that. But I don't really want to argue over the same arguments over and over), or establish a new consensus, or forget it, since we can't support it. Or we could possibly ignore this, since there hasn't been a discussion since then; but I don't think that's ethically correct: in a larger community, what one editor thinks is not all that important, but our project is so small, no one can be ignored; personally, I wouldn't be fine with that. Ideas concerning what should be done now?--R8R (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Congrats for the promotion, first. Then, how or where does Double sharp oppose it? If I had time & patience, I'd distill a textual MOS proposal from the old discussion. -DePiep (talk) 09:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Is there a need to move the whole articles? There are two possible naming conventions which both are used widely. Hard to tell which one is the most accespted. I always used the one we use. Is there a significant iprovement happening if we move the whole? --Stone (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
What is "significant"?
One obvious improvement is, "unquadennium" is jibber jabber for a few seconds even if you know the IUPAC rules; "element 149" is super clear. Digits are easier to get. Letters aren't too difficult, but digits are easier still. We help the reader. Not everyone is so keen on difficult rules.--R8R (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
My idea is, if the whole thing is slightly positive, we should aim for it anyway. A slight improvement is still an improvement.--R8R (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
This would be true if it didn't neglect the fact we editors may also be given a chance to change the way we improve Wiki, making the process more interesting, inspiring us to do more editing in future.--R8R (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
It might be good point to compile a list links related to this this topic
Re this Requested move: note how even the proponents opposed it. "It's a good thing but we may do an even better thing instead," but none actually did. So there was no discussion and it stopped there quickly. --R8R (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Stone, the quest was to use "element xxx" (name) and "xxx" (symbol) everywhere, by a new MOS. In that case, consistency would require moving each and every instance, including article (name). Of course, we would not like a two-way MOS. I remember that in the old discussion, it was generally accepted that the sources write "element xxx" always, so that would be the lever. Today this seems less finite, as Double sharp states. -DePiep (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I started the topic, not DePiep; however, he's right, that was the thing, he's not to blame for inconsistency.--R8R (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The opening sentence The argument has been raised before, ... refers to the earlier discussion, which was comprehensive. -DePiep (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
"our current unun- articles should be instread named "element X." For me this is hard to understand this like ""element xxx" (name) and "xxx" (symbol)".--Stone (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
As I said: we (at WP:ELEMENTS) should aim to use one single name&symbol convention for the un-named elements. That, over all their names & pages & uses (adding the alt names in their lede or infobox, and of course using redirects). This be done by a MOS-rule. Now please explain, Stone, what else do you propose? -DePiep (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if that's irony/sarcasm or an actual question. IUPAC was the organization to come up with three-digit symbols and these names in 1979 during the Transfermium Wars.
I'll add, however, we shouldn't stick to IUPAC just because they're IUPAC. We have that "always write 'aluminium' and 'sulfur'" rule, which is bad. IUPAC has it for a reason: the unified spelling standard makes sorting easier, which makes finding info easier. They have it since pre-computer times. So it's great for their original purposes. We, on the other hand, have redirects. I've seen the original discussion resulting in the rule. Someone proposed it, and everyone (less than 10 people) was like, "yeah, they're IUPAC, go with IUPAC." Little actual discussion. And we're stuck with it. And an American can't write "aluminum." And a Brit can't write "sulphur." Just against the spirit of the original WP:ENGVAR. For just complying with someone else.--R8R (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
It was an actual question, and thanks for answering it on that basis. I say we should stick with IUPAC. --John (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Re: Sulfur: The spelling can be supported by English literature eg. Claydens, Greeves' and Warrens Organic Chemistry" and by the Oxford Dictionaries. Christian75 (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, WP:ALUM is supported not just by IUPAC but also by the Royal Society of Chemistry. It is a valid exception to WP:ENGVAR and helps our project by reducing conflict over spelling in chemistry articles. It provides a positive model on how best to deal with this sort of dispute. --John (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Could you please rationalize these statements? How does this help our project? (There are still people asking and they are just pointed at a rule; how different would it be if we pointed to "whoever got it, has it" instead of "they said so, we follow"? it's just an internal Wiki rule either way.) What makes it a positive model? And most importantly, why do you think this is a valid exception?--R8R (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Sulphur, aluminum
Please keep sulphur/sulfur discussion separate: here
What has passed?
Wikipedia is now showing this (not so) huge banner saying that it has 5 million articles. If you will remember, I'm the one who copy-edited most of fluorine and copper. What should I do next? I have always been eyeing aluminium or sodium but haven't really got much time for it. I'm now doing some actual research of my own on Bézier curves as part of a high school project which is necessary for my graduation from there. ParclyTaxel23:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Depends; what do you want? Do you want a collab, or do you not want to step on anyone else's toes; do you want to just copyedit, or build an article from scratch? (Good luck on your curves project!)--R8R (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
The 32 stub-class articles and 86 start-class articles:
There are only 32 stub-class articles within this Wikiproject. I think it is time to look at them one by one and see if they should be merged, redirected, deleted, or expanded. Similarly, 86 start-class articles is relatively manageable.--Coin945 (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Fourteen of these thirty-two are elements that do not actually exist, but were thought to at one point (austrium, bohemium, carolinium, davyium, decipium, dianium, helvetium, ilmenium, kalzium, lucium, panchromium, pelopium, sequanium, and wasium). I think many of these would fare better if they were combined into a single article.
Maybe the names coming from false discoveries are not worth keeping or even making a common article for them all, the History sections of each element article should do this fine (unless there were some claims notable beyond pure science, or super important in it). For any other case, I object to the suggestion to see them "merged, redirected, deleted, or expanded" (well, expanded is fine, but not anything else) so we have fewer Stub-class articles. Our Wiki-bureaucracy (the whole class system) should help categorize our content, but not affect it in any way.--R8R (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
There are many more "false discoveries" articles in the list of start-class articles below. Do you think they should all be compiled, then properly spoken about? If merged, that would decrease the number of stubs/starts in the project considerably. :)--Coin945 (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Compiling would be great if someone wants to do it. I don't. Won't judge this. Again, the number of Stub-/Start-class articles should not be reduced by any means possible. We're supposed to be writing information for the readers; we should do our best to do that. The rating is good for categorization and motivating the editors; but this is internal Wiki business. That said, improving Wiki to reduce the number of the less developed articles is great and should be encouraged, but removing any information from readers, so a limited number of editors just see more attractive figures, is not.
Say, gnomium (as many others) has nowhere else to go (no place to redirect the "gnomium" search request to) and it probably won't ever be improved. The latter does not in any way relate to the question of whether we should keep it or not. We should think whether the article is worth existing without having that in mind. (Maybe someone will improve it?) The reader may want to know about this. Having a brief description is better than nothing at all. False discoveries of the elements attributed to an unquestionable atomic number may be covered in the main element articles (see astatine for an example), and we may pass the info there and redirect the the article to the main element articles. For any other case, the articles should stay.--R8R (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
My opinion is that all the false discoveries deserve a article on its own . It might be possible to reevaluate the articles and wrie a few more sentences to get them to the point were they cover the whole topic. Some of the mentioned article cover most of the things known and necessary to be covered in a wikipedia article, so they are more like an B or C-Class although they are very very short.--Stone (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
@Stone: In any case, whether or not we merge them, the bigger problem I see is that atm they are all fractured. They don't really link to each other and there is no overarching article that contextualises them into a larger narrative. So we should create that False discoveries of chemical elements article regardless just to have all these fragmented pieces of information listed in one article. The articles themselves could remain afterwards. You know the extend of this article series better than us, so perhaps you could create this article? It would only need to be a listy stub to house the other articles.--Coin945 (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
A bit of research into article histories has revealed that the creator of all of the "proposed name" articles was @Stone:. We should probably get her/his opinion.--Coin945 (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
It might be possible to look at the list and remove the Project Element template from the talk page of a few of the articles which have nothing to do with chemical elements.--Stone (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Haha well don't look at me. I didn't put them there. Looking at the list above, what is your analysis on the types of articles in this project that are stub/start?--Coin945 (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Both photos come from the same source. Do you have an explanation for the silvery color? It is easy to imagine how a golden tint could result from contamination, but not otherwise. Materialscientist (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
From "The Chemistry of the Liquid Alkali Metals" (Wiley, 1984): "When free from surface contamination, the metals Li, Na, K and Rb are silver-bright and lustrous. Caesium, however, is pale gold in colour in both solid and liquid states; coupled with the low density, and the low viscosity of the liquid, it surely must be the most attractive element in the periodic table. Earlier workers attributed the colour to the presence of trace amounts of oxide impurity, and certainly the gold colour does darken on the addition of oxygen. However, intensive purification of the metal by all available methods in the writer's laboratory over several years has not succeeded in removing the colour, and we have no doubt that caesium metal is indeed pale golden in colour.".
As for the gray picture, not sure why it is colored so. Rubidium impurity would tone down the yellow of cesium, or perhaps the angle of lighting means we are seeing the metallic sheen overwhelm the innate color. Dralwik|Have a Chat22:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Which means the oxide adds yellowish color, and the image with lowest amount of yellow (and no color distortion) depicts the purest sample. It is unfeasible to have so much of Rb (or other metal) in Cs to result in silvery color. Materialscientist (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
After thinking for months and sandboxing for just over a week, I have created {{Sidebar periodic table}}. It's not quite ready for prime time -- for example, the documentation page is yet to be written -- but it's certainly reached a point where comments would be helpful. YBG (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I've added a documentation page, describing the two parameters, |expanded= and |image=.
I like the idea of a sidebar periodic table. Could you add it to a relevant page, undo the edit, and then add a link here to the historical page so that we could see what it looks like? Sandbh (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Here's a bunch of examples. All have been reverted.
Would be great! imo, the image should be in always (esp when it is clickable per element).
Pls keep in mind: always design for uncollapsed version [no: sidebar=navbox=not in mobileview]. because mobile view does not have show/hide button (for mobile view check: see the link on the very bottom line of any wikipage).
My pref would be --B--. But that's just me, being familiar with these symbols. Most of our Readers won't even call it a 'symbol', but an abbr. Sure there is no obligation to state that it is a 'symbol' at all. -DePiep (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
4n chain
Done
4n+1 chain
4n+3 chain
4n+2 chain
Not sure
.svg)
.svg)
Like your idea of including the link wherever the bracket notation is used. I would include the parens inside the wikilink, to make a larger mouse target. And we really should expand uncertainty bracket notation -- maybe redirect it from Uncertainty § Measurements to Uncertainty notation § Bracket notation, which should also have sections for the other two notations. That would make a much nicer hovercard. YBG (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations. I think I should compliment R8R and Sandbh here. I am looking at your patience & carefulness for inspiration. -DePiep (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Resolved
Cancelled
Absolute dating (carbon dating etc.)
Aluminium granules (balls of Al)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg)