Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

Noble gas notation for period 8

Are we absolutely certain that oganesson's electron configuration won't include wackiness with 9s orbitals? It hasn't been experimentally confirmed, but if that turns out to be the ground configuration, it would render noble gas notation for period 8 elements a little wacky using oganesson. I don't see much explanation of the conjectured electron configurations for oganesson through unbinilium.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: No, we're not certain, but 9s should be so high in energy that it shouldn't be a problem. All predictions suggest [Og] = [Rn] 5f¹⁴6d¹⁰7s²7p⁶ exactly as you would expect, so when we write E119 and E120 as [Og] 8s¹ and [Og] 8s² it means something completely analogous to Fr and Ra. Double sharp (talk) 09:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Vanadium

Vanadium , an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The correct link is Talk:Vanadium/GA3. This seems a bit hasty to me, but nevertheless I'll look into it sometime in the next week. Also, I wouldn't consider GARing everything (not delisting for the sake of it), but a few other element articles might have similar issues (e.g. relatively large numbers of inline tags) that should be discussed here. ComplexRational (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think it's a bad idea to get a few older GAs that no longer stand up to the standard delisted. This could potentially give someone incentive to improve those articles or at least indicate the actual state of affairs more correctly.--R8R (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Actinium image

Hello all,

A deletion discussion has started on Commons concerning the public domain status and licensing of File:Actinium.jpg. The discussion is at commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-OakRidge, and since it encompasses 57 files, I would like someone (ideally the original uploader) to check the licensing of our image and determine if it has to be deleted. If deletion is inevitable, we will need to search for or acquire a new actinium image. ComplexRational (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: Well, it looks like we do have a new Ac image now! Double sharp (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Double sharp: I saw, but thanks anyway for the ping. On that note, do you know if that image can be renamed to "actinium.jpg" if/when the old one is deleted? (IMO the new file's name is longer than it ought to be, especially with that number at the end.) ComplexRational (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

TFA: Island of stability (March 21)

As we know, Island of stability will be TFA on March 21 (blurb here). I am wondering: could the TFA image for this be more, eh, inviting? More simple, to-the-point, and suited for that size? I can think of: less complicated, less detail, major N, Z, and stress the island. Ideas? -DePiep (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep: Did you have anything in mind? I don't know if we have another suitable image; the only one that could work would be the 3D rendering, but it is not completely accurate and its creator is long gone. A caption could certainly help, though, to emphasize the island's location in that graphic. ComplexRational (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Would require a new one, I guess. Like, less colors (stable/instable only, would work?). even more simple axes (noting known elements). -DePiep (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

I'm chuffed to let you know that my open access article "Organising the metals and nonmetals" has been published in Foundations of Chemistry.

I haven't checked it yet to see if they incorporated all of my requested corrections to the proof copy. Here's hoping.

Huge kudos to you guys :) —see the acknowledgement section.

Sandbh (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox element: add categories?

Here, at MOS/Infoboxes, I asked if we can add Category:Gold to {{Infobox gold}} etc. -DePiep (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Example: see {{Infobox gold/sandbox}}, bottom. Discuss at the MOStalk please. -DePiep (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• The MOS talk does not seem to add much. I hereby propose to add the eponymous category to the infobox, like:  Category: Gold. -DePiep (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It be a template

Following the talk here, at #Introduction_into_superheavy_elements, it is that Hassium#Intoduction be a separate, re-used body of text.

As it happens, that body of text is to be a template, not a "part of article text be reused". Currently, there is a shifting around between pages without any use.

Al things short: the content will be in template {{Superheavy element introduction‎‎}}, not in mainspace Superheavy element/Short introduction. Not.

If and when R8R continues to disrupt this clear & sound process, I must consider a block request. -DePiep (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Ask for it any time. We'll see how far the request goes.--R8R (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. ComplexRational (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

"Boomerang" is not an argument. You can do better. -DePiep (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not arguing anything. My point, as explained in that essay, is that such a block request could very well end up with you being blocked again for incivility (for months, if not indefinitely; I read exactly what happened last time) and the problem(s) still unresolved. No admin will turn a blind eye to this, and neither will I, so I suggest you not ask for anything and turn your attention to other, more pressing matters. ComplexRational (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not arguing anything. My point ... is ... LOL. -DePiep (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep: When you say, "I will not allow" when DS and I are attempting to provide you with an "immediate" overview, I feel annoyed. When you ask for an "immediate" overview of a conversation DS and I've had for some months, I feel like you are treating us like servants, without consideration of the effort required to respond to your "demand". When you unilaterally fold an ongoing conversation I feel quite annoyed.

I ask you to behave in a civil manner, as a peer amongst equals, not as a king of the realm. Sandbh (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

You are right. I apologise. -DePiep (talk) 05:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I thank you all here for checking me in this. -DePiep (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@DePiep: You're very welcome DePiep. Sandbh (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Palladium Good Article Reassessment

Hello everyone, I wanted to let you all know that I have nominated Palladium for a good article reassessment. The associated discussion page is: Talk:Palladium/GA2. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Double sharp: and @ComplexRational:. This may have slipped under the radar due to the larger discussion happening above, but I thought you might be interested in this reassessment. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 19:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Utopes: The article does indeed seem to be suffering a bad case of citation-needed-itis. Unfortunately, rewriting this properly would require time and research that I don't see myself having for a while (the last time I did a full-blown rewrite to get to GA standard was for Ca and Si and that's years ago now, not to mention that I am no longer very happy with how I did Si; since then I've only been slowly doing FA's)...like for V, though, it may not be bad if it loses the green plus. At the very least it may well attract somebody new like you to fix it with Greenwood and Earnshaw! Double sharp (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Utopes: I second Double sharp's comments. I must note that several sections also seem underdeveloped (in addition to citations needed) and could use a rewrite. With the exception of isotopes, I wouldn't be able to commit much to it at the moment, but I'd be willing to help here and there if anyone else is willing to take charge. If it's not GA now (by the criteria), it's not GA, but that of course doesn't mean it can't become GA again at some point. ComplexRational (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I had similar thoughts when I nominated the article for a Good Article Reassessment. However, because I do feel like I would need to re-write the article as opposed to removing simple tags, I was skeptical of whether this (and Vanadium too for that matter) were truly "Good Articles". They were accepted nearly 9 years ago as Good Articles, however I don't believe they have held up well after all this time, and I don't think I can easily fix the changes. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Double sharp:, @R8R:, @ComplexRational:, I think the main problem we are seeing is that a large range in quality exists among this project's Good Articles. For an extreme example, Vanadium and Hassium are both assessed as Good Articles, however we can agree that the article on Hassium is of a higher caliber than the former article. Now, this much makes sense, as Hassium is being actively worked on to become a FA, and Vanadium is at risk of losing GA status. Yet, at least to me, labeling both of these articles as "Good" seems disingenuous to the project in the sense that the two articles aren't of the same quality. Now, I am aware that it has been established to discontinue the usage of "A-Class" among WP:ELEMENTS articles. However... I believe that it would make sense for the A-Class criteria to be used in certain instances, such as when an article has undergone a peer review or was a part of an FAN that did not succeed. That way it can be clear what the "cream of the crop" is among the WP:ELEM articles. I am aware that many of you are probably fed up with discussion about re-implementing the A-Class criteria, but I'm not asking to change half of the GA articles into A-Class instead. Alternatively, I was thinking about labeling articles as A-Class that have undergone substantial improvement beyond becoming a GA, AND have had high levels of community involvement from a FAN or a peer review. I can only think of a handful of articles that would meet this criteria. Thoughts? Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Utopes: This sounds great, I had this idea some time ago myself. However, if my memory serves me right, the problem was that we don’t have enough people to maintain an A-class review (like, say, the Military History project famously does), so it has to be an individual assessment by one user as they see fit, just like we do with, B, C, or Start classes, and there’s the issue of whether it’s okay to have a higher-tier class given out just like that. I’d like to have some criteria that are close to those of a FA, to show this article is not far from the FA status, but those articles are not very numerous. I am not sure whether that addresses your concern, but this can be thought through. But if there is such a desire, I think formal criteria can be written (or borrowed).—R8R (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

My worry about reinstating A-class is precisely that we don't really have enough members and activity to justify it. (Matter of fact, I'm not even sure that C-class is necessary.) That's why I think that perhaps it might not be such a bad thing if some of those old GA's get GAR'd (not all at once, obviously). If one of us has time to fix it then, then that's a good outcome! And if not, maybe someone later will fix it because GA seems like a good target. Partly thanks to our old spamming, many of the non-GA elements are extremely daunting important elements and tasks (tin? gold? phosphorus? oh boy), and this may look pretty scary. But if you look in the d block there are a lot of GA's that are really C or B class articles, I'd think, that could definitely use some improvement if you have some time and a source or two handy. And you can always ask R8R or me for tips on finding sources, since we have been doing this for a while even if our activity has taken a back seat to our real lives. ;)

Also: I think R8R really has a point that an all-green table may end up staying that way, because a GA already looks pretty decent if it's a real GA. So perhaps we should do a precedent, showing that GA is not and should not be "the end", by taking an old GA from really long ago (maybe so long ago that none of us worked on it) and taking it to FA. And it should be a really important element that we do it for. Vanadium and palladium would both make excellent choices for this, actually. (When I thought about this first a while ago my thoughts ran to tungsten, but either of these transition metals would work too. I know Utopes wants to do chromium, so this idea may well go somewhere in the near future. ^_^) These TM's are kind of really useful for the average reader. I know, I know, we've done a lot of stuff on superheavies, there is a beautiful human element there, and there are beautifully cool predictions there (you know, not only Hs, but also Cn and Fl, ought to become FA's), but it's true that for almost everybody flerovium does not have even one tenth of a percent of the importance of its heavier homologue lead (which is not a very good homologue anyway). So this would be something good to do.

P.S. Regarding old GA's, I think carbon and thulium need a good deal of work. Double sharp (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I think we may try the following: we may promote Hs to A (I think we can agree it's rather good right now) and then if there are any more near-FA articles, we can promote them, too. GA in itself is not a very high standard to my liking; the article is good for a collaboration of people doing this as a hobby and there's that (then again, there is ambiguity because the standard now is higher then it once was but there is reluctance to demote those articles promoted long ago); I think that aluminium may be an A once it's a GA. Maybe a better delineation would be a good thing given the big gap between old GA and FA. We could generalize this principle and say A is anything that comfortably fits into the current GA standard. Then again, there needs to be anything resembling a consensus for that.--R8R (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)