Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

150

Happy anniversary, for everyone involved. Enjoy. -DePiep (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Nice! I may have disappeared, but I am back in time for the 150th anniversary of the PT. Cheers everyone!

With love, UtopianPoyzin (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Templates for Discussion

A large chunk of Periodic Table templates have been put up as TfDs, but you all most likely saw that from the top of the talk page. Make sure you head over to voice your opinions: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_9#Template:PeriodicTable-ImageMap. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Is WikiProject Elements/Pictures dead?

It hasn't been updated since 2016 (the reign of unun-whatever-iums still hadn't ended), and since then some infobox element images have been changed, or restrictions on usage clarified, like actinium, which is now PD. Still not sure if we've gotten anything for promethium, though. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 16:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dreigorich: The sub-project does not appear to be active, no edits were made to any project pages since 2016.

Unfortunately, no pictures of pure promethium metal seem to exist after several searches - the closest I found is this which has two more images of promethium paint, though they are copyrighted and we already have an image of glow-in-the-dark promethium paint. And so the search continues... ComplexRational (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes it looks dead. Nobody links to it these days. The images themselves are great btw. -DePiep (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

This has basically been dead since 2011–2012, when we cleared out almost all the rare radioactives. BTW, here is a better picture of Ac (probably also PD as it comes from ORNL), though it's not really made clear if by "purified ²²⁵Ac" they are stressing that it is the pure metal or that it is isotopically pure ²²⁵Ac perhaps in a compound. We would of course still like promethium and radon images, but they do not seem to actually exist, alas! Double sharp (talk) 05:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Regarding the actinium image, I feel inclined to say that it is the pure metal because this video with that same image asserts that the pure element glows blue whereas Ac(III) salts are white and do not glow at all - though I still could be mistaken. Also, there seems to be this picture of actinium-227 also from ORNL. While browsing, I also found a nice decent-quality image of polonium-plated gold at from Theodore Gray, though it is pretty clearly copyrighted and I'm not sure if it is a suitable replacement for our current infobox picture. (per WP:WATERMARK, almost certainly not) ComplexRational (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

And nothing still for any of the elements without images (or alternatives for Tc, Pa, Cm). @DePiep and Double sharp: Comments? ComplexRational (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I am under the impression that best & top images are proposed through {{Infobox element}} and this talkpage. Similar: years ago the isotopes were a task by itself, now we handle them through this WT:ELEM talkpage. Can someone explain: what is the problem? -DePiep (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, we are now discussing the pictures through this main talkpage, so I'd say that there isn't any problem at all. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Actinium images

Zooming in on specific element(s)

Possible replacements for File:Actinium.jpg:

1. [1] appears to be pure actinium and not a compound (explained in this video) though it remains an open question.
2. [2] (caption: As part of the production process, an actinium-227 sample...) This image, however, is clearly labelled as actinium-227, though it is of rather poor quality.

Are these suitable alternatives (not necessarily replacements), and do they have the same PD status as our current image? ComplexRational (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion

Project members may be interested reading or contributing to the discussion at {slink|Talk:Alkali|Requested move 28 February 2019} involving multiple sets of chemical elements. YBG (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The correct link is Talk:Alkali metal § Requested move 28 February 2019. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 08:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Indium = Ur ?

Anybody know why indium has a symbol "Ur" in Mendeleev's PT? YBG (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

At indium's spot? I always thought it was uranium, erroneously placed. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 06:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit: Misread that as iridium (Ir) as first, thought you asked why iridium had the symbol Ur there and I thought: it doesn't? It never has? Did you mean the one in indium's spot? Haha, oops. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 06:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Dreigorich is right; uranium was thought to be trivalent at the time Mendeleev made his first table. He later moved it to group VI in his second table, doubling its atomic weight to match and correctly placing it as the heaviest as the elements known then, and that placement stood until the actinide concept was discovered. Double sharp (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! YBG (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)