Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Elementbox

The infoboxes at User:Femto/elements_e1 etc. have become quite presentable, I'd say. Having all code editable on only a small number of pages has reached the end of its usefulness. Most templates aren't likely to be changed much anymore, and I think it's time to create a real, live set of "Template:Elementbox_[...]". Those things which are still left to do should have little impact on the general structure (like magnetic ordering, phase of matter, crystal structure, oxidation states, or things that may be added later such as electron affinity or critical point).

Afterwards we can start merging the boxes into the articles, and untangle any loose ends in the usual way of editing. The sooner the better, since all boxes include information referenced from the data pages, which without bragging should greatly improve the quality of the data that we provide.

So, take the above-linked working-pages E1–E11 as my more or less final proposal of templatized infoboxes, and also as an official request for consent to start working with the 'real' templates and articles. User:Femto/Elementbox legend and prototype gives an overview of what will be created. Anything yet to improve, leave out, move, rename? (Note that the isotope templates and their content are only provisional until an updated isotope table is defined. If something's wrong it can simply be replaced with original code.) Any blunders in the templates? Did I make any non-obvious changes to this infobox that should be explained?

Except one thing. I'm not at all happy with my ordering of the entries and the subsection headers. I think the current grouping into subject areas of "Atomic" and "Physical" properties is sub-optimal. Having the "atomic" entries on top puts the atomic mass on top too, which is good, but it also dictates that some of the less important entries like the atomic radii have to be included before the more interesting "physical" properties such as melting point or density, which is not so good. No idea how to rearrange and rename it, any suggestions?

Femto 18:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So I decided for a slightly changed, final arrangement of entries. — The "Elementbox" templates have been created, and the project's main page underwent a major update. Femto 18:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your electrical resistivity templates, and the project page, need a separator between the units: nΩ·m. Gene Nygaard 14:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also added to the other two electric templates. Femto 20:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am sure that this comes as no surprise, but I register my official opposition to the row templates. I personally believe that the information box should be stay in wikitable format. However, until there are other objections to the row templates I am not the majority and will work with the row templates. There are some better innovations namely the extra links and the new formatting. However, in the isotope section there are some notable problems. The example given will be aluminium. For Al-26 there are three decay methods so the current templates need three different isotope entries, I find that confusing and unacceptable. The decay energy for electron capture is listed as a question mark. It should be blank or a dash because there is nothing emitted from an electron capture. And the daughter product for gamma decay is listed as a double question mark but should be a blank or dash as well as there is no nuclear change after a gamma emission. I know these things might be tough to code in the current templates but it is the way things should look. --metta, The Sunborn 14:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At this point rather late feedback. I know and I admit it, the isotope templates suck. As noted above, they're only provisional. Read any question mark as "I'm clueless about gamma emissions. Please try to fix what's immediately needed." The templates work flawlessly at least for a part of the entries though. The other unacceptable rows can be replaced verbatim (*) with code from before the conversion—the whole isotope sub-table if need be. (*...or, with your improved template below.) I'm leaving direct links to the old page versions on the talk pages. Technically the whole thing is still a simple wikitable after all, only with a lot of the repeated coding put into templates, making it much less prone to deterioration of the notation standards.

I simply don't know enough about this isotope stuff to define anything but the most basic working templates, any help appreciated. I too would like to have a set of isotope templates that really does the job, and that really simplifies and unifies the coding. Keep in mind though, that not too much immediate work should be put into a particular format that hasn't been discussed for some time, and that might be redefined (to include mass, spin, probabilities, or what have you), as a single unit together with Wikiproject Isotopes and the isotope pages, towards something even better. Femto 20:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's worth at least a mention that you have changed from "electrical conductivity" to "electrical resistivity", apparently because of difficulty getting a handle on the notion that the reciprocal of 92.8 nanoohm-meters (nΩ·m) is 10.78 megasiemens per meter (MS/m). See lithium. Knowing that, we can test the reasonableness of your conversion; I'd think that 10.8 MS/m → 93 nΩ·m would be better, since 1/(10.75 MS/m)= 93.02 nΩ·m, and 1/(10.85 MS/m) = 92.17 nΩ·m. In which direction do we have the better information in the sources, for conductivity or for resistivity? Gene Nygaard 15:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned the change, and the sole reason for it, in the #references, TODO section. Actually there have been no conversions from the articles. The values are simply as referenced by electrical resistivities of the elements (data page). Femto 20:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I made a row template for the isotopes with two decay methods. I hope this is to your satisfationtion, Femto. You can see it on the project page in the example. However is the example there the "gold" standard? (pun intended) If so;

• why is the highest percent of the natural isotopes bolded? It serves no purpose, the one isotope is not better than the others.
• Why are the negative signs of the beta minus decay outside the hyperlink? The previous standard was inside the hyperlink
• According to the gold example we have changed the isotope cut-off half-life. Is the cut-off going to a one day half-life which is fine (and which homeland security uses in their table) or a 5-ish day half-life which I have been using because there was no objections?

--metta, The Sunborn 17:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gold is pretty and it shows off most of the possible templates, and then I simply copied the code that I already had there at that time. Fix anything that doesn't make a good example! Femto 20:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry for the rather late input, but there is a good reason for it, I am a famous procrastinator. Everything seems good though other than the minor formatting things above. I just didn't want you to go ahead and keep making the same mistakes and someone else would have to fix it. And as for wikiproject isotope collaboration, I think no one is active on it. I am willing to go back over the elements I have done and add down to 1 day half-life isotopes. --metta, The Sunborn 22:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Goes without saying that I won't convert more articles until this is fixed up. So, I'd like to 1. rename {{Elementbox_isotopes_decay_2}} to {{Elementbox_isotopes_decay2}} before it gets used too often (just because it saves some typing and matches to ionizationenergies1 etc.), 2. create a {{Elementbox_isotopes_decay3}} and {{Elementbox_isotopes_decay4}} accordingly, 3. adapt the articles that are already converted to use these templates where necessary (as well as the boxes remaining to be merged), and then the multi-row formatting problem could be considered resolved for the time being? Femto 20:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dodgy links

Hi all.

I note environmentalchemistry.com is one of the standard links for element articles. I tried following one of these links earlier, and got redirected to this lovely site: http://stoptargetedoperarads.info/banned.html; it seems they consider the Opera browser to be ethically unacceptable, on the grounds it uses ads. Loading up a different browser, I find that there's very little information here that isn't covered in the wikipage anyway (and it's covered in its own ads...).

Is it worth including a link which capriciously decides to block about 1% of visitors for no better reason than "we don't like it"? I'd have pulled it if it weren't a standard link, but since it was I thought I'd float it here. Thoughts? Shimgray 15:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I personally use Environmental Chemistry as a secondary source for isotopic data. If any editor uses it as a source of information we must list it as a reference right? I was not the one who added the link but found it useful from the wikipedia element articles. --metta, The Sunborn 16:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(I've done a little poking, incidentally - [1] suggests that 3-5% of users, at least a year back, were using Opera - my 1% was an underestimate. Says interesting things about our demographics)

Hum. Yeah, it should stay if used as a source. I'm just a little loathe to have a link out which blocks a nontrivial number of our users without any technical reason; it seems a bit unhelpful. Oh, well, such is life. Thanks. Shimgray 21:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The 3-5% figure would just refer to the blocked users of Opera, and does not include the number of users with other browsers that still get only "If you are using ad blocking software, you will need to disable it for this site to display pages correctly.". Well, their definition of "using ad blocking software" apparently also includes having the execution of JavaScript disabled by default on your machine, which also shuts out many libraries, schools, and universities. That doesn't make it one of the most useful links for our general external links section.

Someone removed the link from a single article (iron?, I think) before, with a remark regarding the requirement of javascript. Javascript or not, I've never figured out how to make those pages work without dissecting the HTML source, and now this advertisement and blocking business is definitely a little over the edge. As an information source, at least for the infoboxes, that website is going to be superseded by the data pages, and I think what is left doesn't justify to keep a link in each of the element articles.

If used as a reference for the isotopes, any links to environmentalchemistry.com should specifically go to their isotope pages, and they should not be in the external links but in the references section. Or even better, on separate isotope data pages that also list any data from other sources. With several possible references it's essential to record somewhere which particular source says what, or else it'll quickly become difficult to tell and compare where our information really comes from, reference link section notwithstanding. Femto 14:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Approximate Price/cost information?

I don't know if this has been considered before, but is it possible to have some indicative price per unit information in the general section of the infobox, perhaps with "updated on" and link to live source -- it would be very helpful for us "back-of-the-envelope" types! (I should also say that I'm very impressed with what's been done here over such a short time.) (217.33.130.66)

I think the infobox itself hasn't enough room for this type of information, you'd want at least one or two full sentences here, to specify the purity or to indicate a trend for example. I've expanded the article structure guidelines on the project page, regarding the placement of price information usually into the Occurrence section. Femto 15:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Gas densities, other row needed?

An editor added "Gas density at 293K" to the table in the Helium article. --metta, The Sunborn 3 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)

Undoubtedly, the densities for gases would make a valuable addition. The problem is, the data that exists in the articles (or existed if I removed it in a conversion) is of unknown or dubious origin and/or doesn't specify all conditions (we definitely shouldn't rely on those STP footer notes here). The little data that is collected at densities of the elements (data page)#Density, gas phase can't be exactly called reliable or consistent, so I left it out for now. All gas values would be most useful if given for the normal density at 273.15 K and 101.325 kPa, the standard condition for calculations with gases. As an appropriate entry row template I'd suggest:

• {{Elementbox_density_gplstp}} — includes unit gram per litre; condition standard temperature and pressure

First, however, we should have the data (directly from an authoritative source or at least 'as calculated' by some authority, or from a reasonably current textbook). Anybody? The 'big' data collections such as the CRC apparently expect you to be able to put some coefficients into a state equation and derive the values for any desired conditions. You hardly would want to cite my math skills as a source though. I see the recent helium edit also didn't include a source (and at 20 °C it should be more like 0.166 g/L if I'm not mistaken?) Femto 3 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)

It appears that the editor also just did hydrogen too. I will note his talk page to here. --metta, The Sunborn 3 July 2005 23:34 (UTC)

Hello folks! I'm the guy who did the "gas density" edits on hydrogen and helium. My source is www.chemicool.com, which appears to be a reliable source. Hope you find this website useful. --Fredrik Orderud 4 July 2005 21:53 (UTC)

Hm, those values seem to be correct, but for 0 °C, I'm pretty sure they're misquoted at 293 K. It's worth noting that several periodic table sites on the web copied this data without further questioning its origin or comparing it to other sources—I think Wikipedia can and should be better. I've expanded the data page with some data from an old physics handbook as another orientation point, but I think we can't yet be confident enough to give definite recommendations. I'm leaving the values at hydrogen and helium, only edited for 0 °C, since they're certainly within the ballpark, but the search for the ultimate source continues. Femto 5 July 2005 12:56 (UTC)

The CRC Handbook gives virial coefficients for the majority of gaseous elements, from which we can calculate densities without having to assume ideal behaviour. Which unit do you prefer to use, g/L, g/dm³ or kg/m³: I ask because we're having a discussion on units at WP:Chem and it would be sensible to be consistent! Physchim62 7 July 2005 09:19 (UTC)

If by "we can calculate" you mean that "you can calculate" the densities from coefficients cited in the CRC, and show your work without ridiculing yourself, by all means do! The preference should be g/cm³ for condensed phase densities and g/L for gases, which seem to be used by the majority of references. g/dm³ would also work, but has more letters, and might get confused with g/cm³. It makes sense to keep the gram for easy calculations involving the atomic mass. kg/m³ has the problem with final zeros of indeterminable significance for non-gases. Femto 7 July 2005 12:09 (UTC)

By "we" I mean "anyone who thinks it's worth doing". I will be unable to get round to it before August. I agree entirely with the comment about non-significant figures for the densities of condensed phases in kg/m³: note that the same problem applies if you quote properties at 298.15 K and 101.325 kPa (rather than 298 K and 100 kPa). Physchim62 8 July 2005 10:14 (UTC)

Aw. I tried to keep close to the sources, and hopefully avoided any 'upwards-inflated' conversions. This is by the way the reason why the infobox uses a mix of (round) °C and K conditions. Femto 9 July 2005 10:06 (UTC)

The following molar volumes and densities for the majority of the gaseous elements were calculated from the van der Waals equation of state, using the quoted values of the van der Waals constants. The source for the van der Waals constants and for the literature densities was: R. C. Weast (Ed.), Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (53rd Edn.), Cleveland:Chemical Rubber Co., 1972.

	van der Waals constants		25°C, 100.0 kPa		0°C, 1 atm		lit.
	a (L2bar/mol2)	b (L/mol)	Vm (L)	d (g/L)	Vm (L)	d (g/L)	d (g/L)
Argon	1.363	0.03219	24.77	1.613	22.39	1.784	1.7837
Chlorine	6.579	0.05622	25.11	2.824	22.75	3.116	3.214
Fluorine	not available						1.696
Helium	0.03457	0.02370	24.81	0.1613	22.44	0.1786	0.1785 (0°C, 1 atm)
Hydrogen	0.2476	0.02661	24.81	0.08127	22.43	0.08988	0.08988
Krypton	2.349	0.03978	24.73	3.388	22.35	3.749	3.733 (0°C)
Neon	0.2135	0.01709	24.80	0.8139	22.42	0.9002	0.89990 (0°C, 1 atm)
Nitrogen	1.408	0.03913	24.77	1.131	22.39	1.251	1.2506
Oxygen	1.378	0.03183	24.77	1.292	22.39	1.429	1.429 (0°C)
Radon	not available						9.73
Xenon	4.250	0.05105	24.69	5.323	22.28	5.894	5.88

Physchim62 21:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I included it with the data page, chose the appropriate recommended values (with exception of F and Rn, and a rounded Cl which still seems a bit sketchy), created {{Elementbox_density_gplstp}}, and added entries to the articles. Femto 14:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

approx. 9 g/L is probably about as close as we're going to get for radon. I had a look at it using estimated van der Waals constants, and I think 9.73 is too high for NTP: maybe an error from extrapolation of the measurements? There must be a measured density for fluorine out there somewhere, maybe from Air Products? I'll have a look when I get the chance. Physchim62 22:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Density of fluorine: 1.59 g/L (1 atm, 15 °C) from Air Liquide, 0.0983 lb/ft³ (1 atm, 70 °F) from Air Products. Physchim62 12:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Reducing that to STP, I get 1.677 g/L respectively 1.696 g/L. The latter suspiciously looks like the CRC value from above, converted back and forth, but it's a confirmation nevertheless. Seems safe enough to add a rounded 1.7 g/L to the data page and article. Femto 14:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Compounds

Category:Inorganic compounds has been tidied up so that there is a category for every element (at least, every element for which we have at least one compound article, which is now most of them). Editors might like to consider linking to the appropriate category (eg, Category:Sodium compounds) rather than trying to compile a list of compounds which would need a lot of maintenance. Physchim62 7 July 2005 09:19 (UTC)

This should be included into the article structure guidelines on this project page, under the Compounds heading, as a link similar to those Main article: summaries. We need to settle on a unified wording, "See category:sodium compounds for a list of compounds." or something like that? Femto 7 July 2005 12:12 (UTC) (Added such note. Femto 15:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC))

Edit link for elementbox?

I don't know if this is the right place to ask, but I'm requesting an edit link for the element boxes, like section headings have. Thanks. PeepP 23:46, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Where would it go, how would it work, and what would be its purpose? Femto 09:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant something that works similar to the links on the section headings - clicking it would edit only the element box (as opposed to the whole page). As for the purpose, I originally meant it to make editing the box easier, but now that I think about it, the box is always at the top of the page and you'd have to do the same amount of scrolling as when you'd edit the whole page. One advantage I see though is that if you edited the element box, you could just jump to the end of the textbox (if there's something near the end to edit) instead of scrolling. PeepP 11:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

What you want done is impossible. It would require editing the mediawiki software. Something I doubt anyone with knowledge would be willing to do for such a trivial purpose. Edit buttons are added automagically to the side of section headings. It would be possible to add a link to edit just the element box and the first paragraph. See this example for bromine. That is the best we can do. --metta, The Sunborn 12:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The "edit this page" link seems to work well enough to access the elementbox as a regular part of the article. More likely than to the bottom of the infobox, you'd want a separate link to jump to the top of its isotope sub-table for example, but I think the infobox code isn't that big. If scrolling were an issue, it would have been even more so before the conversions.

Another advantage of section edits, which would make it worth to add a separate edit link, is that the name of the edited section automatically shows up in the edit summary—but as you can see this would not be the case with the section=0 solution, since the section before the first heading has no title. Femto 12:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Periodic tables need wikification

Many of the various periodic tables and some other pages that contain partial periodic tables (most of which seem to be accessible through Template:PeriodicTablesFooter) need to be converted to pipe syntax. I've already wikified the tables on Poor metal, Group 9 element, Group 10 element and Group 12 element. This task should be taken on by someone who already knows the pipe syntax and style commands pretty well. Please check out the aforementioned tables to see how I'm doing it and to get ideas for how to specify alignment and color efficiently (hint: you usually don't need to put them in every single cell). - dcljr (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

34 Se

I have started introducing the template {{element cell}} (see example to the right) in periodic tables and in articles on periodic table groups. Wikification of tables may well be combined with introduction of the template. For some examples of use and further discussion, see the halogens, periodic table (standard), the template talk, and discussion below. --Eddi (Talk) 02:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thermal diffusivity

Somebody added thermal diffusivity infobox entries at carbon and silver. An appropriate template was also created, but unless there are going to be more entries of this type, I think for just two of them it's overkill and could be handled by regular table rows. There was no reference given, but the values are apparently calculated from (atomic mass / density) × (molar thermal conductivity / molar heat capacity). Similar to the molar volume entries—which have been removed since they can be derived from existing, more reliable values of atomic mass and density—is there a real need for them? Is this a commonly preferred unit in mineralogy or something? Femto 14:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

EnvironmentalChemistry.com

The website EnvironmentalChemistry.com prohibits access for people using the Opera web browser, on the grounds that some copies of Opera are supported by ads. This is against the Wikipedia:External links policy, so links to this website should be removed. --Carnildo 05:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem was known (see #Dodgy links above) but nobody wanted to do the dirty work. (thanks!) None left in elements 1-118 if I kept track correctly, or duly marked where used as a true reference. Also removed those with a generic "also used as a reference" note (which date back to when the first data was initially collected and are quite obsolete). Femto 16:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Changing standard first sentence...

I would like to propose changing the standard first sentance for element articles. Currently, it is: "Element Name is the chemical element in the periodic table with the symbol symbol and atomic number ##.", with any description of the element included in later sentences. I would propose changing this to: " ElementName(symbol) is a ElementDescription. Its atomic number is ##." ElementDescription would be something like "silvery and ductile member of the poor metal group of elements"(from Aluminium).

I believe that this would be more informative to general readers; the atomic number is also listed at the top of the elementbox, which makes it's inclusion in the first sentence not so important. I've changed Aluminium to fit my suggestion; feel free to revert or leave it until the discussion is finished as you will.) Thanks for all your work! JesseW 03:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I was unaware that there was a standard first line, if there is I would enforce it. However, as per your consideration, the main thing I see right now is the use of brackets. Good writing never includes brackets. Where a bracket might be of actual use a comma would do. In your case it is just lazy prose. --metta, The Sunborn 05:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

"use of brackets" - huh? Do you mean including the symbol as "(symbol)"? If that is what you were referring to, the objection "lazy prose" doesn't explain what's wrong, or provide any suggestion as to an alternative. I suppose, if you really hate parentheses (the term brackets usually refers to [these marks]), it could be rephrased as "ElementName is a ElementDescription. Its symbol is symbol and its atomic number is ##.", but that strikes me as unnecessarily verbose. But I basically don't care. What I do care about is putting the ElementDescription in the first sentence. What do you think about that part of the proposal? JesseW 07:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The opening sentences were introduced at the beginning of this project by User:maveric149 et al. with the main template that was used to create the new article structures. There wasn't an atomic number in the corner of the infoboxes then, so this sentence indeed may be due for a rewrite. Whatever is going to be the result, it should be the same for all elements. Currently some say "is a chemical element", others have been changed to "is the chemical element". The difference between the articles is confusing, and having both makes neither version look quite right. Femto 17:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you prefer the description first(is a) or the atomic number first(is the) version? As I said above, I prefer the description first one. JesseW 00:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Personally I don't care as long as it is professional (ie no parentheses). If you think a description is nessisary go for it. --metta, The Sunborn 01:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Since nobody has opposed this, or commented since July 29th, I'm going to change the guideline on the page. Feel free to object, or revert, or alter it, if you don't like it. Hope this is useful. JesseW 23:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Copyright concerns

I just recieved this email from the owner of EnvironmentalChemistry.com:

One follow up item. Since you are an editor and you are concerned enforcing your policies, I would ask (as I have asked others before) that you enforce your policy about copyright infringement and see to it that the crystal structure and electron dot model graphics on your periodic table of element pages be removed and redrawn from scratch as original graphics. Many of these graphics were stolen directly from my site and represent a violation of my copyrights. An example page that has a graphic file that contains graphics from my site is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon.

These graphics need to be reworked to exclude images that were taken from my site in violation of my copyrights. Failure to remove images taken from my site from the graphics for each element will result in a DMCA take down notice being filed, which would be a serious pain for all involved. Personally, I'd rather resolve this issue in a friendlier manner.

I don't know if he's correct or not, but comparing the graphics, it looks like he could be correct. In any case, the table images should probably be re-worked at a larger size, and that would be a good time to get rid of any potentially-infringing content. I figure I could write up a program to generate the images fairly quickly. --Carnildo 18:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Upon comparison, they are done in the exact same way however, there are some key differences. In his example given. The crystal structure pictures are similar but different. Notice his picture, the far side middle dot is actually on the same line as the front face's line. In our copy, this is not the case, the cube is rotated slightly in our version. In the lewis dot diagram, his version has dots much bigger in proportion to his i's dot. In our version, the lewis dots are the same size as our i's dot. This means there are no infringements.

If he only could be correct, I would let him file his DMCA complaint. If his claim could be supstantiated, we will have to change it. However, if you want to change them, go ahead, all the power to you. I don't think we should cripple our site because of one unsupported claim. A DMCA request is not handled by us, so let them take care of it. --metta, The Sunborn 18:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

ElementalChemistry.com? You didn't mean to type EnvironmentalChemistry.com? I'm going to bed now, in case we're talking about http://environmentalchemistry.com/images/periodic/Crystal/cubic-fc.gif — Wikipedia's source for the crystal structure of image:Si-TableImage.png has been image:Cubic, face-centered.png. Demonstrably very different and of higher resolution, even in the earlier upscaled version. These accusations of theft are ridiculous. Femto 21:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, EnvironmentalChemistry.com -- the guy whose links were recently removed from everywhere. --Carnildo 21:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Evidently somebody's sulking over their Google ranking. Must have put quite a dent into it... Femto 12:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Spectra

Why do the taxoboxes and articles not include emission and absorption spectra? — Xiong熊talk* 21:31, 2005 August 7 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. I don't know of any reason not to, but I don't know much about chemistry... JesseW 23:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

How would the information be presented? Femto 14:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

My first guess would be a series of template rows saying: "First spectal line is at 356nm". However, in the interest of templates it would be easier as: "Spectral line #1 occurs at 489nm". This is assuming I am talking about the same things you guys are. I am nuclear major not chemical. --metta, The Sunborn 21:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

So I took a look and since I have never seen complex spectral lines so I assumed there were none for elements. However, like the picture on wikipedia, there are complex elemental emission spectra. In order to accomadate this we would need a picture. For instance, we would need the following:

Emission spectrum of Iron

Emission spectrum of Hydrogen

So from what I see, we would have to have the pictures made for each an every element. However, the data would probably find use as we are making the sum total of human knowledge here. --metta, The Sunborn 05:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Including the exact numerical data itself in Wikipedia is out of the question, for obvious reasons. Iron has literally thousands of lines (see http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/ASD/index.html). The CRC Handbook still leaves some 1100 important selected lines for Fe. So pre-digested plots or images are the way to go, but in their common form with colored lines they're of little encyclopedic use, actually. I'm sure there are programs out there which take some database input and create images like that with a simple mouseclick. If anybody can, knows how, and wants to do that for all elements, I surely won't object. They're mere eye-candy, though.

At least, the wavelength axis should be labeled. Computer monitors can't reproduce a spectrum. All colors (and thus the absolute positions of the lines) are approximations, especially at the outer ends. Compare the colors above with WebElements Fe/H for example. And since the available data isn't restricted to the visible range but extends to the ultraviolet and infrared, why not include that too? A two-dimensional plot could contain a logarithmic y-axis with the relative intensities (peaks also labeled perhaps), in the same space that a colored line graph takes up. The simple answer to the question of why the articles don't include spectra is: "You're going to do all that work?". Femto 11:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Electron Shell Diagrams

If anyone wants Electron shell diagrams then I have made diagrams for them all here: commons:Category:Electron_shell_diagrams (just finished uploading them). There is an A0 poster type table, but it's proving a pain to export in a decent resolution as yet. So far all I have managed to do is make GIMP use 1.5 GB of swap file! Greg Robson 20:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I still maintain this kind of image conveys very little true information, especially considering the space used. Femto 09:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Especially considering the quantum model that is acutually used today. These lewis diagrams are meaningless next to what we believe to be going on inside an atom today. --metta, The Sunborn 17:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I realise that too. But quantum mechanics doesn't fit in with GCSE science too well (unless we devoted a lot more time to the subject!). It's useful for some aspects (reactions) of the lower ranked atoms. At least I got some familiarity with Inkscape. Greg Robson 21:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

They're very nice diagrams, but probably more use to the people on WikiBooks than here. Still, it's good to know they're around. After all, we have an article on the octet rule, which applies to precisely four elements... Physchim62 22:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Elements beyond Rg

Someone with a floating IP edited the pages for elements 111 to 139, creating pages if they weren't there, and replacing a 'predicted properties' table with the elementbox template, in some cases quite carelessly. Many of them were deleted but some are still there and contain bodged elementboxes, typos, and some dubious information (example Untriennium).

For elements beyond Uuo, I think getting rid of the elementboxes altogether would be a good idea, as they can rarely contain any actual information (even the picture of the periodic table is useless, as its only purpose is to highlight where the elements appear in the table). A lot of the articles, when pared down, contain less than a paragraph of conjecture. They don't seem very encyclopedic to me, and are mostly guesses about the physical properties of elements with very short half-lives.

I don't know if elements beyond Uuo are even within the remit of this project, but the work has spread there. I thought this would be the best place to get opinion before I try to 'fix' anything :) - Moogsi 19:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Element is element; I say let's just claim those pages for this project and see if anybody wants them back. Seriously though, it cannot be an article's only purpose to serve as a place for empty containers and repeated explanations of systematic element names. Where there are no known properties, chemistry, or history to speak of, it should absolutely suffice to collect any remaining information at transactinide elements or a like page. Systematics would be better explained in such a single article anyway, rather than with a scattered set of infoboxes that were never meant for that purpose.

Also, theories and conjectures mostly don't concern a single element/article only. The general sequence should be that these things are explained all in one place first, perhaps with subsections for predicted properties and considerations which are specific to particular elements. Should any of these sections grow enough to deserve their own article, then there should be one, but not before. Femto 12:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and cited your comments in the AFD discussion for Unsepthexium today (28-March WP time). Barno 02:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

To be specific, I cited them in favor of "merge and redirect to Transactinide element." If I see other AfD's on purely hypothetical superheavy elements, I'll try to promote the same approach. Barno 02:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Infobox coding

This is regarding my reversion of the recent edits to the infobox templates. They caused the inner borders to disappear completely under Opera 8.5, which I don't think was the desired result. If it was, this makes the isotope table quite impossible to read and the multilined cells require vertical align attributes. Unquoted attributes are also only allowed transitionally, and removing the quotes was a step backwards, I believe.

There have been earlier attempts to improve the coding of Template:Elementbox header and I can see the need for it. But it should be made sure first on this project page that the infobox renders as intended before the live templates are modified. Different browsers show different inheritance of the border attributes for example. Currently on my system, the standard beveled border renders acceptable under Opera, rather heavy under Firefox, and a sick dirty beige under IE5.5SP2 (sue me).

So, how should the Elementbox be styled? (And how would the coding be achieved?) Beveled borders, thin solid borders, one outer border with flat colored panels and spaces inbetween? Perhaps assign a class from a predefined Wikipedia style sheet. The mix of old named attributes and new inline styles should go. Can we get rid of the padding around the vaporpressure and isotope tables? Everyone's happy with the font sizes? How bad or good does the box look on your system anyway? Femto 12:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I should probably mention here the recent changes by User:Locke Cole. Apart from minor aesthetics, they look good in the browsers I tested, and thus are likely to stay. Any discussions or further insights from HTML experts are welcome. Femto 14:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Left/right navigation links

from Talk:Francium Shouldn't the left arrow link in the template go to element number 86 rather than nothing? It seems that the current interpretation of what the arrow links means is too literal and doesn't take into account that every element ought to link to the elements with one more and one less proton than it. Otherwise how are you to traverse all of the elements in a row when you can't wrap around edges? --Cyde 06:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Depends on whether one considers the table to wrap around; if it does, the concept of distinct rows/periods is somewhat weakened. Personally I seldom use those links, and last time would have had use for a francium←radon link when reverting an anon user who quite draggingly changed some pages in this manner, though this also means you're not the only one. Either way with me, as long as the whole system is kept consistent. Femto 12:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

As it is there is no good way to browse all of the elements one after another by following simple navigation links. That's my main problem with the current organization. If you want to make the left/right arrows different for wrapping around the table (to emphasize periodicity), then go right ahead. But I think it should at least be possible. --Cyde 02:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, no, I think that if the table wraps, it should be by atomic number, however the resulting steps at the edges would essentially put all periods on the same logical row. Which seems about the only reason why there are no traversal links, and I can't judge how trivial this is compared with having no links at all. Just make those changes more quickly than over the course of several days like when it was attempted last time. Femto 14:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics

I just noticed that none of the folks here seem to have ever visited Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics, so I invite everyone over. linas 03:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, it's now on my watchlist, but I don't promise anything. :) Femto 11:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

TheodoreGray.com

Special:Contributions/User:195.157.126.116 added external links to several element articles pointing to the appropriate pages of The Wooden Periodic Table Table at TheodoreGray.com, which Solipsist later removed as spam:

>> Although theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/ is rather nicely done, it also contains frequent references for buying examples of the elements in question which runs against Wikipedia's guidelines on external linking. --Solipsist

Now, I really don't think this qualifies as spam, and the user wasn't the first who added a link to this. Wikipedia's guidelines don't prohibit external links simply on the basis that the target contains advertising. There's the occasional plug for Mathematica on that site. Apart from that as far as I can see, the references are made to where the examples are from, to a guide of "How to Get Your Own Element Collection", not pushing to sell themself. I think the information on the site is well worth it. WebElements.com has its fair share of ads for their own products too. So, what's the opinion, should or should not this project sanction external links to TheodoreGray.com? Femto 16:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree its borderline. Its quite a nice website and I realised that most of the prices were examples of how the samples were aquired. I was also relatively happy to overlook the google-ads. However, the bit that concerned me was that each page effectively contains an advert on the 'museum grade' sample;

In early 2004 Max Whitby and I started selling individual element samples identical or similar to the samples we use in the museum displays we build.

With links to the website where they can be bought. I was also somewhat swayed by the fact that this user had only added links to this site (and one or two others) and had received a previous spam warning by User:Texture. -- Solipsist 18:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The first spam warning was likely triggered for adding www.element-collection.com to periodic table and chemical element. It's the site that is linked from TheodoreGray, purely commercial with little other content, and clearly a no-no. This may mean something, but it just doesn't look like the pattern of serious spam to me. I'm still assuming a user in good faith here who thought they'd share some 'cool link stuff'. I mean, who would start with carbon, aluminium, magnesium.

Personally, I neither will actively add nor remove these links, but the question remains, what should it be worth to us to refer to a site with further article-related content? It should be some time until Wikipedia itself will have that many good pictures. Obviously, they're trying to do business, though in a very unobtrusive way as far as advertising on the internet goes. Not trying to justify commercial content-bartering in any of its ugly forms; some time ago we had links to environmentalchemistry.com which couldn't even be viewed without having javascript ads enabled, until Wikipedia grew out of it. Femto 21:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Group number convention

The result of some discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Group 3, regarding the question of which periodic table group the f-block elements belong to, was that the definitions are vague, even from IUPAC itself who devised the current numbering scheme. It is mostly a matter of convention. Since there is the occasional edit to some elements trying to reclassify them, for the sake of consistency in this WikiProject and its articles, I'd hereby like to establish the following:

• Scandium(21), yttrium(39), as well as lanthanum(57) and actinium(89) are in group 3.
• No accepted group number have cerium(58) to lutetium(71) inclusive, and thorium(90) to lawrencium(103) inclusive.

Just emphasizing here this was done primarily to steady the contents of the infoboxes and is not a consensus set in stone. Femto 15:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I also created a dedicated {{Elementbox_periodblock}} infobox entry similar to {{Elementbox_groupperiodblock}} that gets rid of the currently used question-mark links. In the near future I shall update the articles, unless someone else wants to do it first. Femto 19:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Until this is clarified officially and finally, I suggest we have a temporary statement in the relevant articles, perhaps through a template, to the effect that:

• the lanthanides and actinides are not formally defined as group 3 elements,
• however, IUPAC has been (deliberately) vague on this question, and
• other, if not many, sources hold that the whole f-block is part of group 3,
• and perhaps a reference to the discussion at ungrouped elements or similar.

I think this would be scientifically acceptable as well as NPOV. --Eddi (Talk) 21:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

An extra warning doesn't seem to be too practical or necessary. I see selecting conventions about systematics as not much different from, say, picking one melting point out of several differing sources, or presenting values for atomic radii which entirely depend on your definitions, or British spelling vs American. The articles have to be NPOV, not the specific data.

Pages like group 3 element, f-block, or ungrouped elements should describe all different conventions and possible meanings, in a neutral way. The real problem is that we use statements like "scandium is a group 3 element" as if the link defined what this particular use of the term is meant to say. It makes all our content unclear and inconsistent, especially with respect to other articles that are written by other editors with different intentions in mind, and which might say something completely different.

The next big step of this project altogether should be to strictly separate the particular content and conventions from the general descriptions and definitions. Rather than having a statement about the existence of other interpretations, I'm thinking more along the line of providing an explanation of exactly which interpretation gets used in a particular case. This could be part of the existing reference system, like a page named systematics of the elements (data page), with content similar to this old working page. In addition to providing a coherent set of example data, it should contain brief explanations of why certain conventions are chosen, together with links to the appropriate articles. It would maintain consistency for all pages that refer to it, and most importantly there would be a central place that facilitates discussion, out of the need to keep it all together and as neutral as possible for all.

It cannot be that the examples in group 3 element and ungrouped elements contradict each other. Or take periodic table, at some point the decision was made to have its shape follow IUPAC conventions. This does not affect periodic table (wide) however, whose coloring affects the locator maps in the infoboxes, which indirectly affects whether we consider lutetium a d-block lanthanide or an f-block group 3 element, which affects whether the other lanthanides are group 3 elements, or rather be called lanthanoids, which again affects the placement in periodic table, in turn. We need much more coordination of this stuff.

Femto 15:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Lutetium is a d-block lanthanide. Whether it's a group 3 element depends on which periodic table one uses. Please see the three examples on my home page all 3 of which would be "IUPAC approved", even though IUPAC mostly uses the same version that Wikipedia has right now. I agree that we need coordination and consistency, and I agree with most of what you wrote, but I would not assert so strongly that La and Ac are in group 3. That is ambiguous also. My suggestion is a complete explanation about the ambiguity and the reasons behind it. See my changes at group 3 element. There are 4 possible sets for what is included in group 3 that make sense in their own way, and all are acceptable: 1) only Sc and Y are in group 3. 2) Sc, Y, La, and Ac. 3) Sc, Y, Lu, and Lr. 4) Sc, Y, and all lanthanoids and actinoids. Wikipedia, of course, should not take a position on this, and the current version with asterisks is a good way to do this. I think labelling elements as ungrouped elements was taking a position, and that was a mistake because it was a new position. IUPAC's flexibility about groups is not the same as calling some elements ungrouped. I suggest renaming the ungrouped elements article Lanthanide/actinide group number or something similar and including content there similar to what is in the group 3 element article now. Also, see the discussion at Webelements.com from earlier this summer when I grumbled about the webelements table misrepresenting Lu as a non-lanthanoid: http://forums.webelements.info/viewtopic.php?t=2334&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight= and the IUPAC rules about chemical series in the second to last page here: http://www.iupac.org/reports/provisional/abstract04/RB-prs310804/Chap3-3.04.pdf. Flying Jazz 05:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:This and Talk:Group 3 element, I removed the link to ungrouped elements from {{Elementbox_periodblock}}. Instead of one specific convention, we could adopt that any element which can be in group 3 should get a link to group 3 - but in parentheses: "(3)". Thus we wouldn't make any clear statement, but the group 3 article will always be right there where it may be needed to disambiguate further; no other article like ungrouped elements needed then. (And easy to do with one template fewer and a redirect named "group (3) element" for that parameter.) How's that? Femto 15:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of Elementbox_periodblock linking to something but I like the idea of clarity. There's nothing wrong with being as clear as possible about something ambiguous and kind of arbitrary. I've created the Group number of lanthanides and actinides article to do this (after talking to the original author of the ungrouped elements article), and directed the "n/a" of the periodblock template over there and did a redirect of "ungrouped elements." I think this reflects the real-world ambiguity about these elements and I think, in conjunction with the group 3 element article, that this makes things as consistent as we can make them without making stuff up. Flying Jazz 16:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Periodic table navigation box?

I just thought I let you guys know an idea I thought of: how about a set of links to every element with each element in it's own box (see the bottom of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season; you can use your established color scheme). Format these into the shape of the Periodic table, and each box is a link to the aprropriate element and displayes the chemical symbol. You could also include links to all of the "isotopes of x", but that has a separate WikiProject. I just though I'd bring that up; I stink at HTML, just so you know.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 01:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you thinking of additions to the articles periodic table, periodic table (detailed), etc., or a new article, or something? The hurricane legend gives popup titles when hovering over the different colours, which could be added to the existing articles, whereas new information like isotopes probably requires a new article. --Eddi (Talk) 02:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

selenium 34 Se  78.96(3)	bromine 35 Br  79.904(1)	krypton 36 Kr  83.80(1)
tellurium 52 Te  127.60(3)	iodine 53 I   126.90447(3)	xenon 54 Xe  131.29(2)
polonium 84 Po  [208.9824]	astatine 85 At  [209.9871]	radon 86 Rn  [222.0176]
ununhexium 116 Uuh  [292]	ununseptium 117 Uus  [291]‡	ununoctium 118 Uuo  [293]‡

For a periodic table with links to [[Isotopes of X]] as well as the article [[X]] for each element X, plus popup titles with chemical series, occurrence, and physical state (e.g. Halogens; Primordial; Gas), see User:Eddideigel/Periodic test. The data behind the table includes atomic number, element name, chemical symbol, atomic mass, physical state, chemical series, and occurrence — all data copied from Periodic table (large version). The layout of the table can be changed easily by exchanging all occurrences of {{element cell-2b}} with another template, but leave the data intact. Any comments regarding layout and usefulness are welcome here, or at Talk:Periodic table, or the talk page of the test table. --Eddi (Talk) 14:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean a "navigation footer" like {{PeriodicTablesFooter}}, only that it also includes a little periodic table, with direct links to the other element pages? It would add quite some bulk to the articles, and with the easy availability of periodic table I don't think it would add much usability.

As for an index to the isotopes of <element> pages, a bland single-purpose article like this should suffice. There is need for a page that can collectively be linked to as "the isotope pages". Only thing, I stink at making up article titles, just so you know. Any suggestions? The best titles I've come up with all sounded like indexes to the isotopes pages of the elementsesss my preciousss...

Eddi, you have to admit your page is more an expansion to periodic table (large version) rather than a navigational help (but the templatization does a fine job at simplifying the code, so go for it anyway). While we're at it, you also might want to formally introduce {{element cell}} and give it some mention on the project page, it affects enough element-related pages and should somehow get officialized. Femto 20:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Guilty on the expansion charge. But as you can see it is also the beginning of a vast simplification – basically the same code can be used for most of the periodic tables, only changing the template. If only template names could be used as template arguments (or can they?), it would suffice to update element data in one file and let the umpteen templates handle the rest. I'll do some testing of template nesting and see if it works. BTW, I'm not all that involved in the project, so I could need some advice regarding announcement. --Eddi (Talk) 20:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh nothing fancy, just a section with a quick mention of its existence as a way of displaying these cells, an example usage, maybe outline the parameters. Similar in style to the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements#Color standard. Femto 22:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Goody. Femto 15:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the templates. They should only handle repeated markup (or the descriptive equivalent of data that creates repeated markup, like the chemical series coloring). Technically tempting as it is, the data itself (that is, its 'meaning') should not come from one file, but remain visible and directly editable for all in the Wikicode. Femto 22:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

After some thought I have put together a few pages to test the idea of "one file – umpteen templates". The master file with all the data is User:Eddideigel/Periodic master, which takes the name of an element cell template as parameter and renders the data accordingly. The template defaults to {{element cell}} as in Periodic table (standard), so the table shows up even without the parameter. The client that transcludes the master is User:Eddideigel/Periodic client, which currently uses {{element cell-3}} as in Periodic table (large version). Feel free to modify the client file and see how it works, or browse through its revision history. This kind of transclusion is possible in several of the periodic table variants, and I still think such a master file would be useful. --Eddi (Talk) 05:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Gas/Liquid/Solid color standard

The recent change to Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements#Color standard is at variance with what's currently in use for the infobox headings. However, what's in use for the periodic tables also has some considerable weight. Two 'standards', one of them must die. What now? Femto 15:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Primordial plutonium?

Begin thread copied from Talk:Group number of lanthanides and actinides#Plutonium

The graphic shows plutonium as a primordial element, but its longest lived isotope has a half-life of only 8×10⁷ years. Its should really be in the same class as neptunium and americium. Physchim62 (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion about this here: Talk:Periodic table/archive 2#Naturally occuring elements. Of course, if that is true then Neptunium also would be naturally occuring, so I'm still confused about it, but changes should be made to the entire table template before the diagrams on these little side-aricles are altered.. Flying Jazz 17:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll copy this thread to Talk:Periodic table and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements to revive the discussion, which didn't seem to reach a conclusion. --Eddi (Talk) 19:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

End thread copied from Talk:Group number of lanthanides and actinides#Plutonium

Using the definitions under "Natural occurrence" in the periodic table, I wonder if plutonium a primordial, naturally radioactive, or synthetic element. Should we change the frame style of plutonium and/or other radioactive elements, or should we change the definitions? --Eddi (Talk) 03:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well more than fifty half-lives of ²⁴⁴Pu have elapsed since the creation of the Earth, and over twenty-five half-lives since the Oklo phenomenon (which might have naturally produced plutonium). Effectively all the plutonium currently existing on Earth is synthetic. Physchim62 (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been bold and changed Periodic table (standard) to indicate that both neptunium and plutonium are synthetic elements. Physchim62 (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Instead of referring to the (theoretical) natural or synthetic origin of various elements, I think it would be easier to frame the periodic table cells according to element half-lives. Time limits would have to be discussed, and the discussion would perhaps continue for a long time, but the frames would be easier to assign and to explain. Just as an example, we could have the following classes:

> $10^{10}y$

< $10^{10}y$

< 1 y

< 1 s

--Eddi (Talk) 21:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking at this issue of the primordial plutonium, and there is indeed some experimental evidence, although it seems to be a bit scant and controversial. See these references:

• DETECTION OF PLUTONIUM-244 IN NATURE Author(s): HOFFMAN DC, LAWRENCE FO, MEWHERTE.JL, ROURKE FM Source: NATURE 234 (5325): 132-& 1971.
• POSSIBLE COSMIC DUST ORIGIN OF TERRESTRIAL PU-244 Author(s): SAKAMOTO K Source: NATURE 248 (5444): 130-132 1974.
• SEARCH FOR PLUTONIUM-244 TRACKS IN MOUNTAIN PASS BASTNAESITE Author(s): FLEISCHE.RL, NAESER CW. Source: NATURE 240 (5382): 465-& 1972.

The first article discusses the discovery of 244Pu in bastnasite using mass spectrometry, but the second argues that this plutonium could actually come from cosmic dust (therefore it wouldn't be "primordial" in the sense of coming from the same supernova as the Earth). The third couldn't find confirmation of the presence of 244Pu from fission track dating. This is a fascinating story that could be discussed in the plutonium article. I should point out that even after 50+ half-lives, some of the original plutonium should remain on Earth, as can be verified by a simple calculation. It's just a matter of detecting it! ;-) Itub 00:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep or delete Template Periodic table

The periodic table article makes use of the template {{periodic table}}, which contains the actual table plus explanation of colours and frame styles. The template doesn't add any template functionality and is only used in that article, so it doesn't seem to reduce repeated markup, just moves it out of the article. Is such a template warranted? --Eddi (Talk) 03:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the contents and layout of the periodic table in the articles periodic table and periodic table (standard) are identical except for table width (80% vs. 100%). I suggest that we replace the {{periodic table}} template with a {{:periodic table (standard)}} transclusion. The smaller article would first have to be harmonised with the requirements of the bigger article, and parts of it would have to be <noinclude>'d – that is, everything below the style explanations – but that's a straightforward task. --Eddi (Talk) 03:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Transclusion within the article namespace seems unusual. However periodic table is better off without additional code, and periodic table (standard) is rather a foldout chart never meant to have independent content anyway, this may just be the exception that proves the rule. One page fewer to maintain, and easier to find for potential editors than a template (especially if one includes it with something like {{:periodic table (standard)}} <!--code included from the "periodic table (standard)" article-->). Makes sense to me. Femto 13:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I never thought about adding a comment – good to have other people around. :)   I have modified the standard table with <noinclude>s and harmonisation of notes, and transcluded it to the bigger article. The smaller article takes an optional parameter with styles for the table, e.g. width:80%. I have reverted the transclusion awaiting review of consistency, but it can easily be restored. --Eddi (Talk) 00:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the periodic table template has a history that may be worth noticing. If it is proposed for deletion, we ought to consider whether its history should first be merged with one of the other articles' histories. --Eddi (Talk) 03:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"Awaiting review of consistency" - No one complained, what exactly are you waiting for? Femto 14:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

No one complained because no substantial changes had been made at the time. Subsequently I made some changes that I wasn't completely sure of. Doing this in the low-profiled periodic table (standard) allowed for timely review. Now it can be placed in the high-profiled periodic table. --Eddi (Talk) 20:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Periodic table

Template:Periodic table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. Thank you. --Eddi (Talk) 02:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was DELETE. The template's talk page was preserved in Talk:Periodic table (standard). --Eddi (Talk) 10:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Preferred isotope notation?

Most of the articles on elements mix different styles of writing isotopes, such as helium-3 or He-3 or ³He. In copyediting articles I have tried to switch to an internally consistent style, but I don't know if there is a preferred style that should be used throughout every article. (Apologies if this has been addressed before, I couldn't find anything in the archives.) Edgar181 15:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no definite convention here that I know of. Rather than keeping one consistent style throughout a single article, it seems more important to keep consistency within similar sections across different articles. The postfix is easy to type and to read and doesn't disrupt the line spacing, while the superscript is more recognizable as an isotope notation. As a rule of thumb, I'd say it depends on the context. Isolated occurrences of symbols in a larger body of 'normal text flow' should use the postfix notation (blabla, C-14 is blablabla), or better spell it out if it's a 'really normal' sentence (blabla, carbon-14 is blablabla). Specifically isotope-related parts may use the superscript then. Femto 16:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

IUPAC allows either helium-3 or ³He, but not He-3, for what it's worth! Physchim62 (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. They make sense to me. Per these suggestions, I propose using the style such as helium-3 preferentially in a body of normal text, and the ³He style in sections specifically related to isotopes (and in the element boxes where, I think, they are all in that style already). He-3 style should not be used.

Substitute

The templates in the project should be substituted, because that will reduce the load on the servers and for other reasons. It is also not clearly on the list WP:SUBST#Templates_that_should_NOT_be_subst.27d. Polonium 21:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Neither are they on the list of "Templates that should be subst'd", that can't be the only reason. Moreover, there also are "Reasons not to substitute". The ease of changing and maintaining a standardized appearance clearly has precedence over server load in this case. Those subst's have to be reverted. Femto 22:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree and will fix what I can. --mav 03:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Uranium

The Uranium trioxide GAS also found its way into the uranium page! As combustion product! The edit war and dispute is long and hard so please have also a look on the topic as it enters your teritory. The Precautions was moved to place two because its more important than any thing else, even with the toxic Berylium and Plutonium its place 6 or 8. So lets add the stuff when the dispute is solved not when several chemists, which have read the literature provided, doubt the importance of the topic, and the conclusions drawn from the literature.--Stone 09:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Elementbox expansions

User:Thricecube added specific heat entry rows to several elements. I reverted because 1. the coding was inconsistent, and 2. some values were at variance with the existing heat capacities from heat capacities of the elements (data page). A mass-based heat capacity initially was included as a parameter of Elementbox_heatcapacity, but was removed later as being redundant. Further discussion seems necessary. Femto 18:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry folks - I'm new to this and don't quite have a grasp on the formalities yet. Although I believe all the elements could use a few more rows of properties, I will refrain from adding them. On that note, as an online encyclopedia, I think it's important to add raw data to elements that people might be looking for. An example, I personally think we should enter each elements' critical temperature to the infobox. If some university student needs to know it for a class, he should be able to say to himself "I'm going to search wikipedia, because they have all the info I need to know." I just don't really see the point in limiting elements to (almost) arbitrary statistics. User:Thricecube 10, April 2006

No harm done. Generally, we should err on the side of quality not quantity. Aforementioned student should not only be able to find the info, but also to retrace its source and judge the reliability. The chemical elements data references serve this purpose, additions of new data should follow this scheme. — Let's make it critical point instead of critical temperature (that is, two parameters, temperature and pressure) and I'm all for it. I've looked at this property before but postponed it because data wasn't available for all elements. Anybody else with an opinion about creating a critical points of the elements (data page) and including this entry in the infoboxes? Femto 13:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My only problem with critical point is that personally, I can't find a single reference anywhere to it; even critical pressure for that matter - except for the first few elements. I can, however, find an enchalade of data for critical temperature. If someone has a link to a page that contains data for each or most elements' critical point, I'd be glad to update each element. Thricecube 13:49PST, 11 April 2006

Working on some data. Femto 14:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, critical points of the elements (data page) created. This is what's available to me, 23 elements, of which 21 include the pressure data. One simple Template:Elementbox_criticalpoint with two parameters k, mpa should suffice. (phosphorus and arsenic can be handled with conventional code without creating too much mess). As soon as I stop seeing little numbers everywhere. Femto 19:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Valency in infobox

Why aren't the valencies of an element mentioned in the infobox? Isn't that a very important chemical property?Loom91 16:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

If you take a look at valency (chemistry) you'll see that for various reasons it's somewhat deprecated as a useful property these days. But that article does have a little coloured-in periodic table at the bottom showing valences. The infoboxes do have oxidation numbers, which are a more robust variant of the concept. --Bth 07:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

But a wikipedia is a general reference work, not solely for experts. Valency is a concept taught in highschool chemistry and many people will look up an article on an element to find out its valency for use in calculations. Not many will look for it under oxidation numbers. Wikipedia should be accessible to a general population. Loom91 07:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, the concept that was taught in your school may not be the same that was taught in my school. What Bth said. The wider concept of a list of common oxidation numbers seems more useful. Those who still miss valency may look up its article, and be provided with better information than from a disconnected infobox value alone. Femto 12:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you really want us to list chlorine with a valency of five or bromine with a valency of seven? Placing valencies in the infobox would either be misleading or incorrect! (I sould state an interest—I wrote the current version of valency (chemistry) to keep it in line with the IUPAC definition) Physchim62 (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

But should we really completely sacrifice informativeness for the sake of technical accuracy? Loom91 17:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate information is worse than uninformative! Physchim62 (talk) 09:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Not when that information is accurate enough in some contexts, such as high-school chemistry. Loom91 13:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Health Concerns

When dealing with toxic elements such as chlorine, mercury, lead and other toxic or dangerous metals, the health concerns and precautions should be prominent in the article. In the case of lead, for instance, the dangers of lead dust from old paint and dust for young children is quite well established but too little known. Michael Glass 13:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Chlorine up for GA COTW

Thought I'd let you guys know.--HereToHelp 21:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Elementbox width

Just FYI, the elementboxes' magin seems wrong, there should not be a right margin, but a left one.

Spiff 15:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh. There appears to be a default margin in the wikitable class. Replaced "margin-left:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" with "margin:0 0 0.5em 0.5em" in the table header. Does it work as intended? Femto 18:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)