Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

Proposed moves for sets of elements

After much discussion, we recently moved this article:

Heavy metal (chemical element) → Heavy metal (science and technology) → Heavy metals

This was accomplished after overcoming some concern about plural titles running afoul of article naming standards, but I believe that concern was a misunderstanding of the standards. WP:NCPLURAL specifically says:

In general, Wikipedia articles have singular titles; for example, our article on everyone's favorite canine is located at dog, not dogs. This rule exists to promote consistency in our article titles and generally leads to slightly more concise titles as well.

Exceptions exist for two general types of articles.

  • Articles on groups or classes of specific things.
  • Cases where the title only exists in the plural.

The article give 8 groups of examples of the first type of article and 4 of the second, and finishes with an explicit note that some circumstances merit invoking WP:IAR to make WP better.

With all of this in mind, I'd like to propose some moves for other sets of element. But first let me list all possible changes. YBG (talk) 07:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Named sets of chemical elements

This is (hopefully) a list of all possible changes if we were to pluralize the article titles for ALL sets of elements, which I don't think anyone would want to do. But I wanted to list them all for completeness' sake.

If I've missed any other names for sets of chemical elements, please add them above. And then join me in voicing your opinion below. YBG (talk) 07:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Summary of opinions

YBG
  • Groups: Definitely change (3-12); Probably change (1,2,17,18); Probably leave alone (13-16)
  • Periods: Definitely change all (1-7)
  • Metallicity trend classes: leaning toward pluralizing them all, but I'm not sure
  • Bottom of the PT: leaning towarrds pluralizing them all, but I'm not sure
  • Other named groups: leaning to pluralizing all, where there are two choices, I'd choose the one without 'elements'

YBG (talk) 07:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

DS

I wouldn't actually mind pluralising the group names, giving "alkali metals", "alkaline earth metals", "pnictogens", "chalcogens", "halogens", or "noble gases". After all, they would typically be considered together as a group. But I daresay the plural of "boron group" is not "boron group elements", because it is already plural. Same for "carbon group". As well, for things like "group 3 element", I would argue that the right title is "group 3". Since this is ambiguous, I would actually not mind "scandium group". It is common in German and Greenwood and Earnshaw tends to just name the elements, so in this case "Scandium, Yttrium, Lanthanum, and Actinium". Most of the metallicity trend classes likewise can be pluralised. As for the periods, I don't quite care enough about those articles: the elements are just too distinct. Maybe you could use periods 2 and 3 as good demonstrations of periodicity, though (and I would personally float H and He and call Li–Ne and Na–Ar the first and second row). But likewise the right title is not "period 2 elements" but "period 2 (periodic table)". Double sharp (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

R8R

The difference between singular and plural, as I see it, is that the former discusses the concept and the latter discusses the elements. So I'm all for plural in all periods and groups (except for "boron group elements": that "elements" adds nothing) and some other circumstances, but would probably keep singular in (say) "transuranic element" and definitely would in "metal."--R8R (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

For clarification, are you just saying you prefer "metal" over "metals" or are you also saying you prefer "* metal" over "* metals"? That is to say, what do you think of the § Attempt at consensus below? YBG (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

More

I've unarchived this section because I want to make a proposal, but I won't get to it right away. YBG (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

PT groups

I think that this might be the easiest category to figure out. Here are the choices for group 2; other groups are similar:

  • Trivial name: (sing/pl) Alkaline earth metal(s)
  • Numbered group: (plain) Group 2, (pt) Group 2 (periodic table), (sing/pl) Group 2 element(s)
  • Element group: (plain) Beryl­lium group, (pt) Beryl­lium group (periodic table), (sing/pl) Beryl­lium group element(s)

Here are some general principles I think we could all agree on:

  • When a trivial name exists (IUPAC or not), it should be preferred
  • Groups without trivial names should be all named or all numbered (i.e., change boron and carbon groups to match groups 3-17 or vice versa)
  • All title names should be either consistently singular or consistently plural
  • Numbered (plain) is not sufficiently disambiguated

Now as to what I'm not sure we'd all agree upon:

  • IMHO, Numbered (pt) and Element (pt) violate WP:NATURALDIS which states that natural disambiguation is preferred over parenthetical disambiguation
  • I prefer plural is over singular
  • I prefer to use the same natural disambiguator as much as possible, hence the (pl) choices (those ending "elements").
  • I slightly prefer numbered group names to element-name group names

Combining this yields:

Comments? YBG (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem with "group 3 element" for me is that the disambiguation does not feel very natural. I don't want to say "iron is a group 8 element". No, I want to say "iron is in group 8". I don't call iron, ruthenium, and osmium "group 8 elements"; I call them "the elements of group 8". So group 8 is the primary thing, not the elements in it; but it has the problem of needing unnatural disambiguation. However, I wouldn't say "iron group" either, as that historically means iron, cobalt, and nickel. So I think we are more or less forced to "group X (periodic table)". (Actually, in speech I tend to use the numbers, with the trivial names for groups 1, 2, and 15–18 as possible alternatives.) So for me it is: group 13 (periodic table) > boron group, and I don't consider the "elements" names to be good approaches. Double sharp (talk) 06:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Attempt at consensus

OK, it seems that we have consensus on groups 1-2 and 15-18. I (wrongly) thought the other groups would be easy, but let's leave them for now. Using (PT) as a disambiguator may well grow on me, but before we go down that path, I wonder if there are others were we could quickly reach a consensus on a natural disambiguation. The metallicity trend sets and the other "* metal" sets seem good candidates for agreement:

Could we arrive at a consensus on these? YBG (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Here are the changes I am proposing:

PT Groups Metallicity trend Other sets
target(hN*) Target page is a redirect with N versions, some containing content
target(hN) Target page is a redirect with N versions, none containing content
target Target page does not exist

I don't plan on doing anything for a week or so. In the mean time, suggestions are more than welcome. YBG (talk) 06:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

All are fine with me except "native metal"; that's not a category. You wouldn't say "Mo is a native metal"; you'd say "here is a sample of native Mo". Double sharp (talk) 08:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Let me read the article and think on this for a while. I've marked it above. YBG (talk) 08:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
@Sandbh: In native metal, I find four instances of "native metals", not counting the one in {{navbox periodic table}}. I'm wondering if the following might be an appropriate lede sentence: "Native metals are samples of a metalic element, found in nature either in elemental metalic form or as an alloy." YBG (talk) 06:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that works for me. Sandbh (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
@Sandbh: That being the case, would it be OK to move native metal → native metals? I realize that it is a bit of a stretch, and my primary reason (to have all the above-listed articles titled comparably) is weak, but I still think the parallelism has some esthetic value. YBG (talk) 07:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Although all targets are redirects, some have history, a few with actual content (i.e., besides #REDIRECT, templates, vandalism, and reverts, so I've included some info about the history in the above table. YBG (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
@Sandbh, R8R Gtrs, and Double sharp: I've removed the {{Nay}} and {{Qmark}} from native metal→native metals. Now I'm wavering between WP:BB and WP:RM. Thoughts? YBG (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I missed your 17 Oct ping for some reason. In general, WP article titles are singular. There is some discussion about this at WP:PLURAL. In this context, while I can see Heavy metal --> to Heavy metals was justified, I don't think this is the case for Native metal --> Native metals. Parallelism doesn't cut the mustard pass muster. Sandbh (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I still think "native metals" is a bad idea because it is emphatically not a category of elements, but of minerals. You can talk about a deposit of native aluminium (which can indeed occur in highly reducing environments), but you cannot say aluminium is a native metal. (Actually, shouldn't this be merged with native element minerals? That seems like a better title, and is one that does make sense with the plural. Because it's not only metals. You can get arsenic, antimony, sulfur, selenium, and tellurium in nature, and even fluorine under specific conditions.) The rest, I think, are OK. But do bear in mind that one good reason for the pluralisation is because "heavy metal" can refer to the genre of music as well, and there's no disambiguation that isn't terribly awkward. Hence overriding WP:PLURAL made sense in that case. The argument is a lot weaker for things like alkali metal or pnictogen. Double sharp (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think any of these proposed moves should be considered to be "overriding WP:PLURAL" as DS said. Rather, these renamings fit into one of the two standard exceptions to the general rule. But while parallelism is of some benefit, especially for folks like me, it certainly doesn't override everything else -- it is just one factor as things are taken on a case-by-case basis.
Anyway, I've restored the {{Nay}} (without {{Qmark}}) on native metal→native metals. My point above about rewording the lede was intending to explore the appropriateness of the renaming. But what DS said above about native element minerals helped my thought process quite a bit -- it reminded me of a recent move discussion that resulted in dietary element → mineral (nutrient).
So my proposal as it stands is for the 17 moves listed above - 6 groups, 7 metallicity trend, and 4 other sets. Comments? YBG (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Input requested

I'd forgotten this discussion for a while, and now I'm wondering what direction to take with the following suggestions:

Proposed moves (with links to history of target)
PT Groups Metallicity trend Other sets
target(hN*) Target=redirect with N-versions (some with content)
target(hN) Target=redirect with N-versions (none with content)
target Target=currently non-existent page

Here are the possible options. Let me know which is your preference.

  • WP:BB - Boldly move all 17 articles as shown above
  • Part - Only move some of them
  • None - None of these moves should be made
  • WP:RM - Propose these moves for more broad discussion

Thanks for your input. YBG (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Preferences

  • WP:BB - My proposal. YBG (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
    Reasoning: I base these suggestions on WP:PLURAL § Exceptions, where "articles on groups or classes of specific things" is listed as one of the two main types of exception. This does not mandate our use of the plural, but leaves it open as a viable option. The lede of that page gives two reasons for the general rule for using singular article titles: (a) promoting consistency in article titles and (b) slightly more concise titles. As we have already concluded for unrelated reasons that heavy metals is preferable to heavy metal, it seems that we have a choice of making these articles consistent with each other or making some (but not all) consistent with the larger pattern of using singular titles. I am in favor of local consistency. YBG (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • None These are classifications, not listings. And class names stay singular. Also, there is no intrinsic plural involved. (Worst example, still to get rid of: Group 1 element. List of members do not define the class).
    Compare: "A noble gas is an element that ...", "Xx is a noble gas", "The noble gases are: Xx, ...". The class is the primary topic, not the listing. See WP:PLURALPT.
    -DePiep (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
    How do these sentences compare with "Nobel gases are elements that ...". Such a lede sentence would make this article look like the lede of Romance languages. YBG (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Is another listing (so, bad). It can only be: "Nobel gases are elements that are a noble gas". Lede could be: "A noble gas is ...". -DePiep (talk) 06:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Atomic number in the PT

In a periodic table, we should write the atomic number where it belongs:

80Hg

Not in a separate line like

80
Hg

-DePiep (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I sympathise, but then why is it that everyone does it the second way? Double sharp (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
20th century habits. "I'm use to this, ". "Is how I learned it, so ...".Old-fashioned. As we know it, so don't change it. (I'll make a demo). -DePiep (talk) 01:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
FWIW - yes - agreed - the first way - ie, atomic number on the same line - seems better - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
No, this is not about PT structure. format is free. -DePiep (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Struck my comment, looks wrong-placed. -DePiep (talk) 15:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Then where are you going to put the atomic weight? Something ridiculous in this context like 232
90Th? IUPAC follows our current scheme, as does Greenwood and Earnshaw, Holleman and Wiberg, and just about everyone. This scheme seems to be a conflation of the table with nuclide symbols: they're not the same. Double sharp (talk) 02:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Atomic weight be hereXx too? What do you mean? DePiep (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
For monoisotopic elements, atomic weight to the nearest integer (taking into account mass excess) goes above as a superscript, viz. 103Rh. Double sharp (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
OK. So how would that interfere with writing
90Th
What is "rediculous"? Apart from what the dinosaurus's wrote? -DePiep (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Rereading this, does this say about atomic weight: "If you change X, you must change Y too"? Strange. -DePiep (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Essentially, while I find your proposal logical, I am not comfortable with it unless we can demonstrate a significant number of people using it - because this is supposed to be a very general PT, representative of the average one you find in the literature...and people would look to us to know how to read that, I think... Double sharp (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment - and for noting the "IUPAC PT version (28 November 2016)" ("numerous variations") above - the better (official) reference version after all? - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I am personally mildly (too minor a question to be too concerned about) opposed to the new configuration. "80 // Hg" is correct. "80Hg" is a way to refer to element that is equivalent to the standard "Hg." "80 // Hg" visually separates the idea of symbol and that of atomic number. There's no mistake in this.--R8R (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course there is no mistake in there. OTOH, we are free as editors to choose a presentation form (as we did with category colors). The improvement is: the number is tied to the element. And that is what it is about. -DePiep (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
As it is presented now, the number looks like "box number" only. Tying it to the symbol is connecting it to the element. It is a property. -DePiep (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • A demo is available. Note how the numbers and symbols are lined up nicely, so the glancing/searching human eye will easily recognise. The alignment can be improved btw (into perfect positioning). -DePiep (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

n for period

Per Scerri 2007 (The PT, Its story and Significance): the period number = n. I have added this to the infobox. -DePiep (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

This is a bit of a misunderstanding. n usually means the principal quantum number, but starting from 3d (n = 3, but period is 4) it is wrong. Double sharp (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Sigh. Then revert it. Bad experience: I do not see QM in the PT.-DePiep (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 Done Double sharp (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Allotropic-carbon-munching live-wire silk worms

here. Sandbh (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2016‎ (UTC)

Metals other than the alkali, alkaline-earth, lanthanide, actinide and transition metals

Metals other than the alkali, alkaline-earth, lanthanide, actinide and transition metals, a redirect to Post-transition metal, has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 29#Metals other than the alkali, alkaline-earth, lanthanide, actinide and transition metals. My initial investigation suggests things are not quite as simple as might be expected so your comments are invited at the linked discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

New element names are approved

Periodic Table by Quality

See This

Please move Ununtrium to Nihonium, Ununpentium to Moscovium, Ununseptium to Tennessine, and Ununoctium to Oganesson.--Abelium (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  • To edit:
  1. move articles
Done by User:Anthony Appleyard. Should we unprotect these articles now? DMacks (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think it should be fine now; the only reason why they were protected is that, back when the names weren't official yet, you'd get people who hadn't read the IUPAC website carefully enough "updating" the names in advance. Now that that is no longer an issue, there are no longer grounds for protection. Double sharp (talk) 09:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  1. Move infoboxes, rm 'proposed name' 4×
  2. Search texts for the abandoned names (But: do not change them in quotes)
  3. Search What lnks here on old names
  4. Change templates periodic tables
  5. Change images with periodic table & individual elements
-DePiep (talk) 09:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I've updated the periodic table by quality first! (Element symbols only; can't get the names in with very lame MS Paint.) Double sharp (talk) 09:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of the PTQ, should we probably finally move from the current pic to a vectorized one? Stone once set it up, and it's far easier to support.--R8R (talk) 10:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea, except that I have absolutely no idea how to update such an image... Double sharp (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Install InkScape. It's free and easy to use.--R8R (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
SVG are even editable as plain-text files. You can download File:Periodic_Table_by_Quality.SVG carefully replace the string "Uut" with "Nh", etc, save, and you're all set. DMacks (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, except that there are so many differences between the two files (the SVG hasn't been updated for a long while) and I can't figure out how to change the colours... Double sharp (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
The "fill:#______" values. Look for the "FA article" and similar strings about a quarter of the way down the file for the different values. Which is silly...that should be at the top, or use a template to make it easier to change without screwing it up. Will do it tomorrow if nobody gets it done before then. DMacks (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Done. Sandbh (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
OK. Good idea to change that filename too. -DePiep (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@Sandbh: Thank you! But why does group 2 have the transition-metal colour? Double sharp (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Don't know but it should be fixed now. Sandbh (talk) 11:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Todo

-DePiep (talk) 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Note: While this PT (bottom-right) is interestingly complete wrt information, the category colors are deviant from our standard set (e.g., no category halogens), member elements (At, Po), and their key colors.
Maybe other info (like atomic mass) may be outdated too. -DePiep (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

General notes

  • This creates a very interesting situation that has never happened before. For the first time in history, the periodic table is complete: every element takes its place in every row, without gaps, from hydrogen as the "queen of elements" to oganesson, the heaviest known noble gas and current full stop to the table. Every known element is named and confirmed and there are none that have been synthesised but still await confirmation. So for the first time in history, there are no IUPAC systematic names appearing on the table! (We still have elements 119 and 120 as articles, but they haven't been discovered yet.) Double sharp (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Wonderful. Shall we ask them to stop research, and declare the periodic table finished? Sure I'll print this final version from our wiki and illuminate my wall.
There is a second time one too: an element is named after a living person. Yuri Oganessian (Russian: Юрий Цолакович Оганесян, Armenian: Յուրի Ցոլակի Հովհաննիսյան) will have to get used to seeing his name starting with lowercase. OTOH, he is now legally allowed to abbreviate it to "Og". There is this job in science: someone at IUPAC had to write that letter to congratulate him. -DePiep (talk) 07:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Double sharp, your material is worth noting in mainspace. For sourcing, I remember Scerri wrote this (without the element names of course) earlier. -DePiep (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
We can get it from IUPAC themselves: "Finally, as serious claims associated with elements having Z = 119 or above have not yet been made, we note that, for the first time, the Periodic Table exists with all elements named and no proposed or pending new additions. This, however, does not mean that the Periodic Table is complete, and a new JWP is being planned already by IUPAC and IUPAP." (I like how they wrote "serious", very gracefully brushing aside Marinov's usual nonsense on Z = 122.) Onward to new shores indeed! Now, where do you think we should put this? Double sharp (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
element pageviews Tue 29 Nov Wed 30 Nov Sat 3 Dec
Main page: In the News[1]
113 Nh [1] 250 4.000 14.000
115 Mc [2] 250 2.000 10.000
117 Ts [3] 35 4.000 12.000
118 Og [4] 2000 6.000 16.000
In other words: when new Nh, Mc, Ts, and Og were on main page, they got 10k++ hits. For a non-visible element. -DePiep (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Today, Og shows spectacularly. [5]. -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Nucleosynthesis

No article on an element or its isotopes is complete without information on its nucleosynthesis—whether primordial, stellar, explosive stellar, spallation, or radioactive decay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.231.248 (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating is an FA

I have added to our Trophy list Radiocarbon dating (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch. It was promoted as FA in March 2015. Please take a look. -DePiep (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Allow me: "Q: How did yo discover this?" — "A: I was dating!". (I got more of these. Just ask). -DePiep (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
"Did you have your Periodic Vegetables today?" (Hmm) -DePiep (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Infoboxes: split table Isotopes into new infobox

This is about our 120 element infoboxes (for example infobox U). Below I propose to split the isotopes table into a separate, new infobox. It would remove the very detailed and not-in-articlebody data from the top infobox. The new infobox can go into the ==Isotopes== section, and also as a regular infobox in page "Isotopes of <element>". I've arranged the proposal/discussion into: 1. Changes in infoboxes and articles, 2. What would the new infobox be like?

My hat tip for this brilliant information approach goes to YBG. Thinking out of the box—into another one.

TL;DR
  • For all 120 {{Infobox element}}s, copy/paste table section "Most stable isotopes" into new {{Infobox <element> isotopes}}. Then put this new infobox in article section ==Isotopes==, and remove this table from the top infobox. Also add it as top infobox in [[Isotopes of <element>]]. No other changes in Infobox element. Demo for U: Uranium/sandbox (article), isotopes of U, new isobox U. Discussed in two talk subsections: #Moving data, #The new infobox.

Please do not discuss in this intro section. Use subsections instead. -DePiep (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Moving data

This section is about proposed information changes between infoboxes and articles. The new infobox itself is discussed #below

Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE (the paragraph is worth reading), the infobox should summarize information that is already in the article body. There is some leeway for this (we want the melting point in there, even if it is not described in the article body text). But there is a treshold for less relevant data.

Step Create. I propose to create a new infobox for the 'most stable isotopes' table ('Isobox' for short; × 120 elements). This step is a preparation (no content changes happen). This infobox is described in #The new Infobox <element> isotopes.

Step Remove. Now I do claim that the isotopes table does not belong in the infobox. For starters, they are not mentioned (that specific) in the article, so why should the infobox 'summarize' them? Then, the table adds too much detail, both in number of isotopes and in data columns. Also, the total list of infobox parameters is very, very long (which is too long to be an effective summary of the article). And compared to the other data present, I see few or little information that could be removed instead of this table (info with lower rights to be there). Other data can be up for discussion too, at some other time and place. Concluding, I propose to remove the isotopes table section from the element infoboxes.

Step Add. The new Isobox is added to the element's ==Isotopes== section. For any element the steps Remove and Add are performed at the same moment, so there will always be exactly one table in the article. Also, the Isobox is to be added to the article "Isotopes of <element>" (120 P), as a regular top infobox.

What will not change. Apart from the disappearing isotopes section, {{Infobox element}} will not change per this proposal. Also, the mentioning of isotopes in the lede is unchallenged (a good lede should not/will not require rewriting for this removal). The isotopes table itself will not change, because the Isobox is first of all a cut-and-paste copy. To keep this complex data move (and its discussion) manageable, content/structural changes in the 'most stable isotopes' table are not considered. Such improvements can be initiated once the new 120 Isoboxes are alive & well.

-DePiep (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments on Moving data

Looks like a good approach - and thanks for the hat tip. One idea that might remove a bit of the dependencies: Initially, create an empty isobox and add it to the ===Isotopes=== section. This should make zero difference in the appearance of the article itself. This could be done to all of the elements before anything else is done. Then element by element all that is required is to simultaneously remove stuff from the element infobox and add it to the already-created isotope infobox, without needing to do anything to the article itself. YBG (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

tangential discussion of process
That assumes we can make that Isobox right in one edit... I prefer some harmless tweaking time for these boxes, both individually and federal (master template). Then change the article in two simple edits.
More important is that we must be sure that each article can receive that new box. Both by content and by layout (eg, FA's have nicely spread images, adding this table could disturb that. eg, some articles have no ===Isotopes=== section at all, they need rewording?). It must be ok for all 120. -DePiep (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Yea, I can see that. But what about using template sandboxes as follows
  • 1. Create empty isoboxes for all elements
  • 2. Copy empty isobox to its respective sandbox for all element (depends on 1)
  • 3. Copy all element infoboxes to their respective sandboxes
  • 4. Add transclusion of isobox in every element article (adding ===ISOTOPES=== as needed) (depends on 1).
  • 5. Move data from element infobox sandboxes to element isobox sandboxes (depends on 2,3)
  • 6. Validate that a given element (depends on 4,5)
    • 6a. Edit element isobox and copy from sandbox but do not save. Preview element article and modify ===Isotopes=== if needed for formatting.
    • 6b. Edit element infobox and copy from sandbox but do not save. Preview element article and modify lede if needed for formatting.
  • 7. Implement for a given element by copying infobox and isobox from their sandboxes (depends on 6)
Steps 1-4 can be done for all elements and in any order except that for a given element, 1 must be done before either 2 or 4.
Steps 5-6 can be done iteratively as a part of the isobox design. If you need to go back to the drawing board, just redo steps 2 and 3.
Step 7 should probably wait until 6 is completed for all elements.
Not trying to tell you what to do, but thought these might help you formulate your own ideas. YBG (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Will read this in detail later on. Edit sequence not major, and no bottleneck (because it's just editing, not content). Way more important is whether we can be sure that this change can happen positively for all 120. A big concern is whether the new box will land nicely in all pages (so checking the 20 FA's is key). Last thing we want is having to revert or skip after 115/120 have changed. -DePiep (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Step 6 will allow you to do the necessary checking before implementing anything. Doing steps 5-6 for the FAs first will take make sure you do the most important first. YBG (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Why create sandboxes for 120 new Isoboxes? Right now {{infobox uranium isotopes}} is the sandbox.
Why work through sandboxes for 120 infoboxes? Their only edit needed is: when the Isobox-U is added to the article, remove |isotopes=, |isotopes comment= input from {{Infobox uranium}}. That's all (×120).
Please don't spend too much time on this process. What we need is consensus that we can push this into all 120 elements. Todo: refine the federal and individual Isobox template (no big issue, also possible after publication), and assure beforehand that no articles (FA, GA) are spoiled by this extra table/infobox. That is what I am asking for. If this talk says "OK", someone will enforce an Isobox into 120+120 articles. -DePiep (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
No worries. I just laid out how I would go about doing this, but it is only one way to do it. I detailed it out so that it could be understood, but the responsibility for determining what the process is lies with the person who does the heavy lifting. As it won't be me, my comments are only suggestions, to be used or ignored at will, with no heard feelings. I'm very glad you've taken the initiative on this and look forward to the result. YBG (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Is how I understood it :-). I'd like to have feedback on the resulting article from all of you, like on Talk:Uranium/sandbox. Y'know, putting an infobox halfway an article is borderline stuff, so we need a tough base (aka consensus) to do that. BTW I noticed that Double sharp has updated all the Isotope lists in the infoboxes. -DePiep (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • New issue: maybe we should keep mentioning important isotopes in the top infobox. Say, those that are mentioned in the lede, or the top 3 by relative abundance. Now the U example is extreme (~6 notable isotopes; I'd say 4 is the max), but the oxygen infobox could mention just oxygen-16, or all three. Add the percentage?, described how? New parameter could be in "Atomic properties"? YBG -DePiep (talk) 10:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    I have no objection per se. But I don't think that the mention of isotopes in the lede necessitates their mention in the infobx; there is no requirement that the infobox include all the details found in the lede. So I guess I'd generally lean toward not including any isotopes in the infobox, but I don't have a very strong opinion and will present no objection if you decide otherwise. YBG (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    No, not because they are in the lede. But for the same reason that they are in the lede: they are important. (I am also looking for a treshold, reducing the number of them we would mention in the infobox). -DePiep (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    Thank you, that is an important distinction. Although I'm generally an inclusionist, I would in this case tend to be a deletionist, but as I said before, I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other. But it seems to me that you have a similar sentiment that there be some sort of a threshold test for inclusion. I guess my biggest concern would be that inclusion of some important isotopes in the main infobox not undermine the case for having a separate isobox. That result would be a great loss. Thanks for your thoughtful consideration of this proposal from many different angles! All the best! YBG (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The new Infobox <element> isotopes

This section discusses the new infobox. Pilot is {{Infobox uranium isotopes}} for U (FA)
  • The Isobox. For each element, a new template {{Infobox <element> isotopes}} will be created ('Isobox' for short parlance, 120 P). By intention it has the look and feel of the {{Infobox element}} family.

It is an infobox with parameters: 

{{Infobox element/isotopes
| name=
| isotopes=
| isotopes table footnote=
| relative atomic mass=
| relative atomic mass ref=
}}

The existing table 'Most stable isotopes of <element>' will be copy/pasted into the new infobox (that is, the existing |isotopes= input from {{infobox <element>}}).

Isotopes of uranium (92U)
Main isotopes[2] Decay
abun­dance half-life (t1/2) mode pro­duct
232U synth 68.9 y α 228Th
SF –
233U trace 1.592×105 y[3] α 229Th
SF –
234U 0.005% 2.455×105 y α 230Th
SF –
235U 0.720% 7.038×108 y α 231Th
SF –
236U trace 2.342×107 y α 232Th
SF –
238U 99.3% 4.468×109 y α 234Th
SF –
β−β− 238Pu
Standard atomic weight Ar°(U)
{{Infobox element/isotopes
| name=uranium
| isotopes=
 {{infobox element/isotopes decay2 | link=uranium-232 | mn=232 | sym=U
  ... }}<!-- one isotope, table row -->
 {{infobox element/isotopes decay3 | link=uranium-238 | mn=238 | sym=U
 | na=99.274% | hl=[[1 E17 s|4.468×10<sup>9</sup> y]]
  ... }}<!-- another isotope, table row -->
}}
|isotopes table footnote=Some footnote here
|relative atomic mass=238.02891(3)
|relative atomic mass ref=<ref>[http://www.ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm Standard Atomic Weights 2013].</ref>
}}
  • Parameters
|name= Element name.
|isotopes= Parameter that has the table rows (the subtemplates). Same as in {{Infobox element}}
|isotopes table footnote= Footnote tied to the table. Replaces |isotopes comment=. (Used in Li, Ba, Na)
|relative atomic mass=, |relative atomic mass ref= (Ar) Added here because the "Isotopes of ..." articles add this to their lede. Can have a reference, preferably CIAAW. This value is labeled "Standard atomic weight (±) (Ar)" in the main infobox. Something needs a change?

Omitting:

Template name: the descriptive name would be like "Template:Infobox most stable isotopes of uranium". But we don't have to.
No category-colored header bars. The category is not relevant for isotopes.
No 'References' link in the bottom bar. No standard references available. References should first be in article body.
No QID (Wikidata link). There exist d:Q1369686 (isotope of uranium) and d:Q8556554 (Category:Isotopes of uranium) in wikidata, but these offer no help to the enwiki editor.

-DePiep (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:In_the_news&diff=752795614&oldid=752723949
  2. ^ Kondev, F. G.; Wang, M.; Huang, W. J.; Naimi, S.; Audi, G. (2021). "The NUBASE2020 evaluation of nuclear properties" (PDF). Chinese Physics C. 45 (3): 030001. doi:10.1088/1674-1137/abddae.
  3. ^ Magurno, B.A.; Pearlstein, S, eds. (1981). Proceedings of the conference on nuclear data evaluation methods and procedures. BNL-NCS 51363, vol. II (PDF). Upton, NY (USA): Brookhaven National Lab. pp. 835 ff. Retrieved 2014-08-06.
  4. ^ "Standard Atomic Weights: Uranium". CIAAW. 1999.
  5. ^ Prohaska, Thomas; Irrgeher, Johanna; Benefield, Jacqueline; Böhlke, John K.; Chesson, Lesley A.; Coplen, Tyler B.; Ding, Tiping; Dunn, Philip J. H.; Gröning, Manfred; Holden, Norman E.; Meijer, Harro A. J. (2022-05-04). "Standard atomic weights of the elements 2021 (IUPAC Technical Report)". Pure and Applied Chemistry. doi:10.1515/pac-2019-0603. ISSN 1365-3075.
Changes in the proposal

Comments on the new Isobox

  • Just wondering whether the new template name ought to be "infobox isotope <element>" or "infobox <element> isotopes". With the former, typing "template:infobox isotope" in the search box would bring up a list of isotope infoboxes. With the latter, typing "template:infobox uranium" in the search box would bring up a list that included only {{infobox uranium}} and {{infobox uranium isotopes}} and their various subpages. Also, the latter seems IMO to be a more natural-language approach. Just a thought, I'd be fine either way. And thank you for putting the thought required to turn my ramblings into a full-blown, well-thought-out proposal. Great work! YBG (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Probably better. btw, I always name things 'isotopes' b/c I don't want to have to remember that. -DePiep (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
checkY Yes, name pattern better be {{infobox <element> isotopes}}. Will change this in a few days. -DePiep (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 Done, "infobox isotopes <element>". Name pattern now is {{infobox <element> isotopes}}. (I've boldly edited the proposal, to root out the old name). -DePiep (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
#1. As with the element infoboxes (each of which is transcluded only once), such a set of templates is hugely easy to maintain. By WP:AWB or manually, edits are easy to check. For example, adding the wikidata link (adding |wdQID=) was a piece of cake. Problem with in-article edits using WP:REGEX is that the body text can give undesired hit-and-edits to be handled.
#2. These isotopes infoboxes are transcluded twice (in this proposal): first time the in article uranium section ==Isotopes==, second time in top of article Isotopes of uranium as a plain infobox. -DePiep (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • A few other ideas
  1. Have you given any thought to making some of the sections of the infobox collapsible? This would be one way of reducing the bulk of what is (even after splitting out the isobox) still a very large infobox.
  2. Alternately, we could break out additional sections of the infobox, for example, physical properties, chemical properties. Even without isotopes, the infobox will be very very large
  3. What about adding links to facilitate navigation between the infobox and the isobox? Probably not really necessary with just the isobox, but it would be very helpful if additional sections were to be broken out.

None of these is particularly pressing, but I thought I'd mention them while I was thinking about this. By the way, in order to establish a consensus, it would help to have a section for !Voting. YBG (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

re 1: (Is a separate topic, not an argument in this discussion. That said, I'll reply). We could collapse parts of the top infobox. However, in mobile view, no collapsing exists. In mobile view, any collapsible table or block is always uncollapsed. (Check the infobox aspirine, bottom data SMILES and InChI: collapsed in desktop, uncollapsed in mobile view). So we must design always an uncollapsed infobox. Collapsing is an extra, only available for some.
re 2: (Separate topic too, should not play role in this proposal). Sure, other sections could break out. Isotopes box is the lowest hanging fruit. If this works out well, more proposals could follow. But only then, after this. Another option is that we really can discuss to remove certain data rows. Say: which 10% of the rows should we remove? This is a difficult discussion, because no one wants it.
re 3: Like adding a link that leads to the Isotopes section(-infobox). I don't think that's a good idea. With other data we don't do that either. While, remember, the Infobox should present the main data that is below in the article. IOW, this way almost every data point in the infobox could have a link to a place in the article! Also, the TOC is the primary navigation place, that´s its job. BTW, the Isobox does not link to Isotopes of uranium any more. Because 1. no links allowed in an infobox title, and 2. the Isobox will be right next to the Main article: Isotopes of uranium section hatnote. DePiep (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
What an interesting topic this is. (And please don't archive it, botty!) -DePiep (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Group 3 into -La-Ac

Implementing -La-Ac in our Periodic table article

Further to RFC consensus to use the -La-Ac table, there is an updated version of our periodic table article in my sandbox.

I could go ahead and post the thing but thought I'd list the changes here first in case there were any comments. You can also view the history of my sandbox and compare the current article (03:04 17 Jan) with the proposed article (03:05 17 Jan). (diff current versions).

Whole article
Replaced the note tags with a version that supports the citation template within the notes.

Section: Lead
Table updated (as a jpg, not an svg)

Section: Overview
Table updated (as code, not yet the template)

Section: Grouping methods
Groups subsection
Table updated (as code, not yet the template)

Section: Periodic trends
Name change to "Periodic trend and patterns" -- Sandbh (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Electron configuration subsection

Have asked the graphics lab to updated the periodic trends table

Done (by me). Sandbh (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

New subsection added
"Linking or bridging groups" -- Sandbh (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Section: Different periodic tables
Paragraph 5: Added new note 12 that goes "But for the existence..."

Paragraph 6: Copy edited to explain that the -La-Ac table is chosen as the most popular table. Old note 15 re gas phase and solid phase electron configurations has been removed and replaced with a simplified mention of electron configurations in the "Open questions and controversies section", "Group 3 and its elements in periods 6 and 7" subsection, paragraphs 3 and 5.

Periodic tables by different structure subsection
32-column table updated

Section: Open questions and controversies
Group 3 and its elements in periods 6 and 7 subsection
Paragraph 1: Small copy edits. The order of the Group 3 options images has been swapped.

Paragraph 2: Sentence referring to further spectroscopic work as to the electron configuration of Yb relocated here from the old paragraph 3. I removed reference to Matthias describing the placement of La under Y as a mistake. I removed reference to Lavelle's support from La under Y. I added a sentence about lanthanum's incumbency advantage.

Paragraphs 3 and 5: These are new and briefly discuss the chemical behaviour of group 3, vertical trends, and the electron configurations of the f-block, for -La-Ac and -Lu-Lr.

Paragraph 4: Added new note 19 re the expected chemical behaviour of Lr.

Footer
Updated the Periodic table (as code, not yet the template)

Pending items
Ask for an svg version of the lead jpg table

Have asked De Piep to updated the table in the "Grouping methods" section, "Metals, metalloids and nonmetals" subsection

Will ask the graphics lab to update the discovery of the elements periodic table, in the History section, First systemisation attempts subsection

Will ask Double sharp to update the eight-column table in the History section, Second version and further development table

The 32-column 8-row table in the Open questions and controversies section, Further periodic table extensions subsection, needs to be updated.

-- Sandbh (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Also -La -Ac in Janet's Left Step? Shows the issue of the gap (no need to hide that). -DePiep (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    It remains -Lu-Lr in Janet's table. The idea is that it's -La-Ac may break the rectangular block patterns, but in idealized rectangular table, rectangles remain rectangular. For comparison, we display He above Ne in a regular table (because that's what chemistry dictates), but still display it above Be in Janet's (because that's what electron configs dictate). Same applies here: display Sc and Y above La in a regular table, but above Lu in Janet's.--R8R (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • About User:Sandbh/sandbox#Group_3_constitution_variants:
These constitution variants do not belong here. This should be addressed in #Group 3 and its elements in periods 6 and 7 only (similar to issue of H and He positioning, for example). Nobody is helped at all by mixing presentation form with scientific statements. -DePiep (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
That is something I feel we should revisit once IUPAC has made a decision on Group 3. For now, the periodic table article captures the situation as it currently is. Once IUPAC make a decision, either Sc-Y-La-Ac or Sc-Y-Lu-Lr, and Sc-Y-*-** can be consigned to historical status. User:Double sharp has previously commented along the same lines. Sandbh (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Is not about what I meant.
1. I'm not talking about 'send to history', nor 'describe as historical'. (Indeed this would be in view after IUPAC/Scerri concludes. Their 28 November, 2016 version with the new names & symbols, still uses the /*/** graphic ;-) ). I do say: describe this as three different scientific statements for group 3 composition. And so: put & keep this in the "Open questions" section. Will also have the note on what the preferred, popular option is.
2. I am talking about: do not mix up presentation form (18- or 32-column) and scientific statement. There is no argument relation between from and statement. This is what the #IUPAC on group 3 project remit explicitly says: group 3 is not does not depend on presentation form (not in both ways). So, of three-for-3 variants are not structural PT variants as is the list Left Step, ADOMAH, Benfey, ... Just as, for example, the H, He positioning does not create a new PT structure.(wrong place) So, group 3 composition should not be discussed in the '18- and 32-column' section.
3. In overview, the article should have different sections for different topics (not per se this order or ==-level):
a. PT with different structure (Left Step, ...)
b. "Group 3 and its elements in periods 6 and 7" (sub of "Open questions and controversies")
c. "Presentation forms (18- or 32-column)" (topic=title suggestion)
To be removed from a: paragraph "... 32-column form by reinstating the footnoted f-block elements into their natural position between the s- and d-blocks. Unlike the 18-column ...".
To describe this for the Reader, and in general in science, keep independent (unrelated) issues separated (unrelated). -DePiep (talk) 08:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Struck and new phrase to make my point. -DePiep (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Done. Content re group 3 constitution moved into Open questions section. Sandbh (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Let me think some more about what to do with the 32 column form. Sandbh (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, that one's Done too. How does it all look now? Sandbh (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Great! The TOC now says it all. Hope other ELEM regulars can agree. (Thanks Sandbh for trawling once again through my hammering remarks). -DePiep (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Made two minor textual suggestions [6] [7]. Revert if you want to. -DePiep (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
This is all good! The 1945 thing could be worked in with a little ce and a ref. I'll be busy for the next 1½ days or so. Any volunteers? Then feel free to copy and paste my sandbox into the live article. Sandbh (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
On sourcing the Seaborg PT (~1945). Some weeks ago, you gave source here (p. 128); I can not open this page. Scerri's PT-S&S (2007) says: "[Mendeleev labeled U=240 in 1870!, and put it in group VI = Chromium]. Eventually Seaborg's discovery of the actinide series prompted a major readjustment of the PT, which included the repositioning of uranium" +footnote saying '1946' ('Uranium', p. 129). -DePiep (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Try here http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/pt_database.php?PT_id=522 Sandbh (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Contrary to expectations, I find myself with some available time. I adjusted the sentence you added, and added a citation. (Seaborg's role is discussed in the previous section so I feel we don't need to go into more detail). Sandbh (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I feel we should use templates and change the live ones. The footer one looks sweet. Sandbh (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Unrelated to the group 3 change, but since we are sandboxing: how about reordering section #6 into
6 Open questions and controversies
   6.1 Placement of hydrogen and helium
   6.2 Group 3 and its elements in periods 6 and 7
       6.2.1 Lanthanum and actinium
       6.2.2 Lutetium and lawrencium
       6.2.3 Lanthanides and actinides
   6.3 Groups included in the transition metals
   6.4 Elements with unknown chemical properties
   6.5 Further periodic table extensions
   6.6 Element with the highest possible atomic number
   6.7 Optimal form [or up? 6.1? DP]

Unless I am missing something, current order is random. This proposal has some logic to it (low to high; simple to complicated). -DePiep (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the logic of the current order goes like this:
6.1 Elements with unknown chemical properties -- because we have categorised some elements like this in our table
6.2 Further periodic table extensions -- because once we address the 6.1 question people usually ask this next
6.3 Element with the highest possible atomic number --- and then they want to know where it might stop
6.4 Placement of hydrogen and helium --- once the big questions have been answered, we get down to the fine details and the H question might be the most common of these kinds of question
6.5 Groups included in the transition metals --- sort of goes here because the transition metals are in the main body of the table
6.6 Group 3 and its elements in periods 6 and 7 --- sort of goes here because after the main group elements and the transition metals, you are left with the Ln and An
6.7 Optimal form --- kind of the ultimate question about the periodic table
-- Sandbh (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Not convincing for me. 6-4,-5,-6 still disflow. I prefer (my own) principles: low to high; simple to complicated. Opinion, anyone else? -DePiep (talk)
I've rearranged the section as per your suggestion. It looks quite good. Sandbh (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Outside of the PT article

  • Group 3 in the extended periodic table
See for example: Template:Extended periodic table (by Fricke, 32 columns, compact)/sandbox. Of course first we (mentally) replace the placeholder asterisk with the bottom row (turning the 32-column PT into a nice 53-column PT).
So far, the current change turns group 3: from Sc/Y/Lu/Lr/element-153 into Sc/Y/La/Ac/element-143. Does this fit within the extended PT theories? (Or element 121 be in group 3, with the gap between La-Ce, Ac-Th?) ping Double sharp. -DePiep (talk) 08:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The one source I know which gives a -La-Ac extended table (Fricke) has E121 below Ac in group 3. Double sharp (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Sandbox gone live

Need to replace some code with templates, and update a few more images as per list of changes in Implementing -La-Ac in our Periodic table article subsection above, but there you go. Sandbh (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Good. You want the top image to be svg again? It's the general advice ('svg when not a picture'). -DePiep (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, please go ahead Di Piep. Sandbh (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
This is why we do all this: PT has 15k hits per day. -DePiep (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Translated to a year, the metrics suggest over 5,000,000 views year! Sandbh (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Details say: low on sat/sundays, and during Christmas holyday weeks (Western world). That points to overly professional & scholarly searches. -DePiep (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
It had 5,772,939 views in 2016.... (The 233. most viewed article in 2016) - (see User:West.andrew.g/2016 Popular pages) Christian75 (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Lanthanum and actinium infoboxes

Is there a way to get them to show their group as "3" instead of "n/a"? Even editing the field doesn't quite work. Double sharp (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Shortcuts,_revisited

There is currently and RFC on what do do with the shortcuts used for the chemistry-related projects. Please comment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Lighter notes on lead

  • Let me note that I enjoyed the edit gulf on lead. For me, I can only count the spaces: [8], [9].
  • Did you see the DAB page Lead (disambiguation)? It really says: 'If you pronounce it this way, it means ABC', etc.
When pronounced /ˈlɛd/ (rhymes with "bed")
When pronounced /ˈliːd/ (rhymes with "need")

-DePiep (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it's smart. Just as the visual looks of the letters, pronunciation of what you're reading/writing is also important in reading or writing. Adding pronunciation is helpful.--R8R (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree. But I'd say better not make that the main dab-page structure. Better would be like, sections: "When derived from the metal 'lead': section 1 (btw, pron is ...). When derived from the verb 'to lead': section 2 (btw pron is ..)". -DePiep (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the average native-English speaker is unlikely to know about word origins, but is quite likely to know about pronunciation. I'm not sure I like this organization, but I'm not sure what else to use. Is there anything about this at WP:DAB or WP:WikiProject Disambiguation? YBG (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
To continue over there. -DePiep (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

+X and +Y in Isotopes of a element articles

What is meant by "+X" or "+Y" in a excitation energy column? Please see Isotopes_of_rhenium. There are also some other confusing values - without a explanation - in this article, including "non-exists" for 168mRe and "0(100)# kev" for 172mRe. 89.166.13.36 (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

"+X" or "+Y" probably mean that the excitation energy is not well-known, so the figure is probably a lower bound. "0(100)" probably means a notional "000 ± 100": since the "#" means it is extrapolated from trends somehow, I assume the source's extrapolation gives a silly figure of 0, but the uncertainty would make half of its possible values fall in a sensible range. I have no clue why that is listed for 168mRe, since it certainly does exist (the link is to the paper describing its first identification). Or is the idea that no data was available in the source? I'll need to go hunt through some nuclear databases...in the meantime, here is a level scheme for 168Re. Double sharp (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
And the plot thickens: 168mRe is not in NUBASE 2012 at all! Double sharp (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, the Lutetium has some exciting (pun intended) meta states: 153m1,153m2,153m3Lu can be converted to 153Yb without β+ decay. I cannot find any sources to these daughters and if I understand correctly, the IT decay should only emit some high energy gamma rays and daughter should be same nucleus at lower state. I made some edits to Isotopes_of_lutetium table. 89.166.13.36 (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Supposed closure of Lead FAC

See here for the nomination and closure, and here for my response. A morning needlessly wasted. Sandbh (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Disputed edits in discoveries

In recent weeks, User:Squee3 has changed discovery details of several elements' infoboxes (contributions)

Today I had to revert a Template:Infobox technium change, back to the year that was plainly in the article's source. Earlier, a back-and-forth at Template:Infobox arsenic (es saying 'As far as I can tell' as a source). In both examples the infobox deviates from the article body text & sources. Last month, in Timeline_of_chemical_element_discoveries only one source was added (again deviating from Tc article source).

Seeing that the edits are badly sourced if at all, I propose that all their edits in this area are reviewed, and that Squee3 be notified that no unsourced edits are disputed a priori and so must be discussed. -DePiep (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I think Talk:Bromine#Discovery year may shed a little light on the problem. S/he seems to be working on some kind of project in which s/he can only write down one discovery year for each element. This of course necessitates some ingenious rationalisations of history, because in this case Löwig discovered Br in 1825, Balard discovered Br in 1826 and published his discovery the same year, and Löwig published his in 1827. Surely we cannot usually know for how long people were working on something (relevant recent xkcd), so in general the date of publication is surely more important, for that is when the result was made known to the scientific community as a whole. (Obviously, the ancient elements need to be handled differently; a deliberate use or knowledge of the pure element should suffice in this case.)
There are also some cases where in retrospect, it turns out that the team which claimed to have discovered a new element was honestly mistaken (e.g. nobelium), that two people independently found an element at the same time but one had much purer samples (e.g. lutetium), and that somebody had indeed found a new element, just not the one he thought he had found (e.g. Masataka Ogawa on rhenium). Clearly, there is no way you can get all of that across in a small infobox field.
So I would think that the simplification that is necessary in rationalising history this way actually does a great disservice to interested readers, even further than the necessary one that is needed in filling the infobox field. I may have to admit on the other hand that most readers are not that interested, and that they just want a date to put in a colourful "science project" that does not involve any actual science or understanding. Still, I would argue that the "History" section ought to give the detailed account, while we should base the dates in the infobox field on published sources. Double sharp (talk) 09:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

when TFAs can be rerun...

Since there is now a discussion about that, a great date for rerunning periodic table would be 6 March 2019 (150th anniversary of Mendeleyev presenting his first periodic table to the Russian Chemical Society). Double sharp (talk) 09:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Should be Mach 6, 1869 by Western calender (which also puts the October Revolution in November), to make 150. Not O.S. -DePiep (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
On first publication.
So Glenn Seaborg mentioned that date, unqualified wrt OS/NS calendar. From Scerri, 2007 (chapter 4 (Mendeleev, The Crucial Discovery). pp 105– and footnotes).
On backside of an unrelated letter, Feb 17, 1869 Julian calendar (OS) (the Cheese factory letter), earliest sketch of the PT as published. In today's European Georgian calendar: Mar 1, 1869. Looks like the letter was written (dated) the same day M. received & used its backside.
On that same date (stated/unsourced by Scerri): manuscript of his full PT (Scerri fig 4.2), 'horizontal groups' i.e., transposed rows/cols compared to current day 'vertical groups'. (please always add descriptive word groups or periods when using this description; a table always has something horizontal, not is horizontal).
M.'s announcement (publication) of this PT: M. had made 200 prints in Russian, sent to chemicists in Europe. "N.A. Menshutkin communicated the initial discovery to the new Russian Chemical Society on March 6". Journal publication (Scerri fig 4.3): same month, "1869".
A question about this Scerri section (Scerri 20017, p 106 in my copy, more recent isbn-13 978-0-19-530573-9):
"This first published periodic table version of Mendeleev's (figure 4.3?) contains divisions into main and subgroups... first column ...". However, this seems to be about fig 4.4!, a 1871 publication. That 'first column' being ~group 1 (transposed, modern). All in all this 1871 paragraph looks out of place as Scerri is describing 1869 happenings. -DePiep (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Biological role of nitrogen

Biological role of nitrogen is a redirect that currently points at a non-existent section of the main Nitrogen article. I've nominated this redirect for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 9#Biological role of nitrogen where your comments are invited. Thryduulf (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

On the standard atomic weight

I am working to understand and improve the standard atomic weight and its related/unrelated quantities. Aim is to publish the right values with the right quantities (definitions, names, numbers, units, values, nonconfusing).

Main terms
  • relative atomic mass (r.a.m.): physical quantity of a sample (any sample), reflecting isotopic composition of a single element in that sample. Dimensionless ('no unit', aka 'unit=1').
Ar
  • standard atomic weight (s.a.w.): a r.a.m. for specific samples, as published by CIAAW. Specific samples: must be terrestial, natural, stable wrt radioactivity. Most commonly published value, especially in periodic tables. 84 elements have one.
Ar, standard (quantity symbol, my way of writing following SI). Examples:
helium: Ar, standard(He) = 4.002602(2). The "(2)" notes the uncertainty in the last digit (so read: 4.002602 ± 0.000002.
hydrogen: Ar, standard(H) = [1.00784, 1.00811]; an interval. No uncertainty added. Is not the same as an uncertainty range (rather, the sources differ systematically, eg H from ocean water and from air).
Not published by CIAAW. Mainly used for the 34 instable elements that therefor have no s.a.w. (Tc and heavier metals from and beyond 84Po).
Well, the full list to be precise is Tc, Pm, Po–Ac, and everything from Np onwards. Double sharp (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Mass number: 210Po = 210.
  • Terms to be avoided: relative atomic weight, standard atomic mass, atomic weight (confusing)

Derived from standard atomic weight:

  • conventional atomic weight: single s.a.w. value for interval. CIAAW published. Example:
Ar, standard(H) = [1.00784, 1.00811] → Ar, conventional(H) = 1.008
  • abridged atomic weight: s.a.w. value, rounded to 5 significant figures maximum, has uncertainty or is again an interval. CIAAW published.
Ar, standard(He) = 4.002602(2) → Ar, abridged(He) = 4.0026(1) (note: "(1)" is usually omitted, but not "(2)").
Work in progress
Main: Use "standard atomic weight" and its value where possible, and not where not applicable. The CIAAW value is sacred. Root out wrong or misunderstood usage.
Standard atomic weight: new article, should cover CIAAW aspects. Started with text copied from Relative atomic mass, to be teared apart.
In Wikidata: trying to have properties accepted. proposal:Property s.a.w., proposal:Property r.a.m.. Not an easy exercise.
References
Published table: "Standard Atomic Weights". Commission on Isotopic Abundances and Atomic Weights (CIAAW). 2015. Retrieved 2015-09-20.
Technical Report 2013: Meija, Juris; et al. (2016). "Atomic weights of the elements 2013 (IUPAC Technical Report)". Pure and Applied Chemistry. 88 (3): 265–291. doi:10.1515/pac-2015-0305.
CIAAW update 2017: s.a.w. of ytterbium was formally changed into 173.045(2).
Questions, todo
  • Improve core articles
  • Use {{val}}, produces spaced numbers: 4.002602(2).
  • Clarify which term to use for non-s.a.w. (instable elements).
  • What to have in our infoboxes? Which labeltext, data values. s.a.w.: always when exists (84×), Conventional: sure; abridged: no. What with instable elements (that have no s.a.w)?
    • Unstable elements use the mass number of the isotope with the longest half-life in square brackets. So Tc gets "[98]" and Pm gets "[145]". Although what I might want to do is to put a little table in the article (not the infobox) giving the Ar of the most common ones (Po would have 207.9812, 208.9824, and 209.9828 for 208,209,210Po respectively). Double sharp (talk) 09:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
So 'Mass number' should be the labeltext in these situations, definitely not s.a.w. Maybe a minor explanation with it (isotope symbol).
I think the three values you give are not an Ar (dimensionless, and from actual samples) but are an isotopic mass or a relative isotopic mass (per specific isotope, no averaging done). Could be a true mass (in Da) or relative (dimensionless when divided by 1 Da). btw the isotopic mass (in Da) is in Isotopes of Po#table. -DePiep (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC) -DePiep (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Good catch, though in this specific case I do mean Ar. This is because a realistic sample of Po will usually only contain one of the isotopes: you select for them by deciding what to bombard your bismuth target with, and at what energy, and then one will dwarf all the others in the amount produced. I agree with you, though: we should probably not label them as such in general. Double sharp (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
(Of course, I was not out for a 'catch', I am studying the topic and testing my understanding ;-) ). -DePiep (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
About the new isobox, developing. For isotopes of oganesson I made and added {{infobox oganesson isotopes}} (a full copy from {{infobox oganesson}}). Intention is to add this to oganesson#isotopes section too (and remove table from main infobox). When done, those isotopes masses could be added to that box (Oganesson is a trivial example with just one isotope). -DePiep (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, but I do think that I would want some consistency in what the infobox contains, and it seems to me that the visible elements should set the tone, no? The isotopic abundances are an important properties of the element as it naturally occurs and so I think the major isotopes should be in there.
One thing I do want is an extra column squeezed in for nuclear spin, which is very important for NMR. Double sharp (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Will be back on this later. I am making this much to complicated, raising too many issues at once. DePiep (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed changes

technetium,  43Tc
Current Red X 10pxN
Standard atomic weight (Ar)[98]
Proposals
a. Mass number (A)98
b. Mass number (most stable isotope)98
c. Mass number (most stable isotope)98Tc: 98
d. Mass number of most stable isotope98
  • About the instable elements, and their infobox. These elements do not have a standard atomic weight, so we should not use that label (label=the lefthand text in infobox). Also, the bracketed notion [98] is not clear of what it says, may be a own invention(?), and square brackets are also used formally for the interval notation of other elements (hydrogen: [1.0084, 1.00811]).

The new label should have "Mass number", which has symbol A and is dimensionless. Adding "(most stable isotope)" would be the clearest descriprion IMO. Quite trivial, but also very clear is adding the isotope: "98Tc: 98". (a, b, c are added for reference here only).

Comments? Other variants? -DePiep (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It can't be our invention if Greenwood & Earnshaw also use it for Po and At, but yes, "mass number of most stable isotope" would work, and it is exactly what they use for the actinides (except of course Th, Pa, and U). Double sharp (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Added d. Admit, 'own invention' is a bit charged but it is not a regular format and requires description somehow. The proposed labels solves this. In a periodic table, things are different. -DePiep (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done b., See technium. -DePiep (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


magnesium,  12Mg
Current
Standard atomic weight (Ar)24.305 (24.304–24.307)[1]
Proposals
a. Standard atomic weight (Ar)[24.304, 24.307][1]
conventional24.305
b. Standard atomic weight (Ar)
  • [24.304, 24.307]
  • conventional: 24.305[1]
c. Standard atomic weight (Ar)[1]
  • [24.304, 24.307]
  • conventional: 24.305
d. Standard atomic weight (Ar)[1][24.304, 24.307]
conventional: 24.305
e. Standard atomic weight (Ar)conventional: 24.305
[24.304, 24.307][1]
f. Standard atomic weight (Ar) Nconventional: 14.007
[14.00643, 14.00728][1]
  • Twelve elements have an interval as their standard atomic weight value (which is not an uncertainty range). For these, CIAAW also publishes a "conventional" atomic weight for more practical use like in trade and commerce.

The interval is written, by SI convention, with square brackets, comma, and a space. We should follow that. Then, I think it clarifying to add "conventional" to the second value. The source ref (CIAAW) could go with the label? Example e. has the order reversed. Examples b and c are using {{unbulleted list}}, d and e have a <br>. The data being in two rows, one should also check mobile view (makes a. look bad). f is nitrogen. Comments? -DePiep (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI: The sqaure brackets is the mathematical notation to show its an interval. [a, b] means from a to b including a and b. ]a, b[ means from a to b excluding a and b. (a, b) means the same as ]a, b[. Christian75 (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Is what I tried to say. So current writing (a–b) is wrong. CIAAW uses this because there is variation between sources, not uncertainty. btw, any preference? -DePiep (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
a-b is ambiguous because you do not know if a and b are included or not. But most people understand the notation. Not many knows the meaning of [a, b], and I think the current infobox for Mg: "Standard atomic weight (Ar) 24.305 (24.304–24.307)" will confuse most people because its an atypical way to express Ar. Maybe some "see text", or an explaining footnote. Christian75 (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Agrees. The problem for a reader is not the notation, but it being an interval at all. "Whhhat is that supposed to be?". So once we want that interval value showing (and here we want it), we better stick to the formal notation (and as CIAAW publishes it). The reader is helped by the nearby 'conventional' plain number, and the wikilink standard atomic weight. I note that that article was split from relative atomic mass only a week ago, to improve this explaining (for myself at least). A footnote I don't think applicable (is not article-specific enough). -DePiep (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 Done b., see hydrogen, helium. -DePiep (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Notes

  • See target examples hydrogen, helium and technetium.
  • From now on, any mentioning of relative ... mass is suspect. It should be either standard atomic weight or mass number. -DePiep (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g Meija, Juris; et al. (2016). "Atomic weights of the elements 2013 (IUPAC Technical Report)". Pure and Applied Chemistry. 88 (3): 265–291. doi:10.1515/pac-2015-0305.

WP:CHEMISTRY/WP:CHEMICALS shorcut updated

Note that per this RFC, the shortcuts to WP:CHEMISTRY/WP:CHEMICALS have been updated.

Old discussions have had their shortcuts updated already. If I have made a mistake during an update, feel free to revert. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Standard atomic weight in Wikidata

Working on relative atomic mass and CIAAW. From there, over at Wikidata I am proposing to add two Properties for elements:

d:Wikidata:Property proposal/standard atomic weight
d:Wikidata:Property proposal/conventional atomic weight

-DePiep (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, here at enwiki I have put content into standard atomic weight (copy/pasted from relative a.m. to start with). -DePiep (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata timely thoughts

A general note from me. What is happening now in Wikidata is serious matter (however you and I dislike it). also 'www.webchems.com' and 'www.DePiepSmartServices.com' (projected) will pull data freely from Wikidata (legally, and no source need be mentioned). Wikidata will be the source google pages pull this data from (and not enwiki any more). The problem is (for me at least): how to work with Wikidata as I am used to work with enwiki? At least for the standard atomic weights now, I could pick up and work there. -DePiep (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion

The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.[1][2]. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia.

Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas:

Editors

  • See submissions through external academic peer review
  • Format accepted articles
  • Promote the journal

Authors

  • Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
  • Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review)
  • Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram

If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

  1. ^ Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M (2017). "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001.
  2. ^ "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Check in and Kudos!

15 years ago I started this project with the goal of turning the Periodic table by the quality blue. I see now that it is almost all green with a lot of blue. Great work and keep it up! I no longer have time to help, but continue to be proud of what everybody who has contributed to this project has done. --mav (reviews needed) 03:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much! We still have to turn all those greens blue, though! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, mav. Nice to see your name in all those earlier versions (a WP Grand History we are building). The Quest for a Blue PT continues. And don't forget: people in this project are the nicest to work with! (will have move this to archive shortly: this is a very lively talkpage ;-) ) -DePiep (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

If only I could read German…

103rd edition (2016) of Holleman-Wiberg's Inorganic Chemistry; only 2,622 pages. Sandbh (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2017‎ (UTC)

Periodic table form for first introduction

I think it worth considering, to introduce the periodic table initially in the left step form, and have all classrooms wallpapered with it. Instead of the crumbling-castle like figure.

  • The advantages are, that the structure showing is much more regular (or just: regular). It nicely shows the shell-filling, inviting some pupils to ask: "why is that step two-rows high?" (send that pupil to a university for chemistry or physics).
  • Of course the valence-ordering by I-VIII-0 groups is lost, partly. Ordering the groups by valence (1–8) of course was the original building principle for periodicity, being the discovering's entrance before electrons and orbitals were known (in 1871 and ever since the columns were already split into series A and B by M.—but is that really helpful for a first introduction btw?), but that does not say today we must introduce the periodic table that way. And for those who adhere to and 18-column form (any 18-column form): the f-block still nicely can be moved to the bottom again, where the irregular "f-block filling" can be avoided by omitting column headers.

How is the periodic table introduced anyway? I am open for teachers who say that one form or the other is way too complicated to teach. Note: this post is to datastamp this idea, although I probably am not the coining one. -DePiep (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, the chemist's answer is that helium behaves nothing at all like beryllium. I would also add that this form makes the most salient divide look like it is between groups 2 and 3, when in reality it is at group 18 as the eye of a hurricane that envelopes groups 17 and 1. But the main reason is of course valence, since the standard format (if you ignore the d-block) lets you show a cute little picture like:
I II III IV V VI VII 0
H He
Li Be B C N O F Ne
Na Mg Al Si P S Cl Ar
K Ca
which shows you the first 20 elements lined up under the number of electrons in their outermost chemically active shell, taking 0 for the inert cases of He, Ne, and Ar. (Yes, yes, I know Ar can form a compound, but we're not going to tell them that yet.) We don't teach people to run before they can walk, so we start here first before going on into other elements and trends. Even then, we gingerly thread down the groups with the most similarities (I, II, VII, and 0) or the one with elements that everyone's heard of (IV), and then gingerly show the first row of transition metals to see what lurks beyond the first 20, enlarging it to 30. In fact, in some cases we might not even teach spdf until after the basics of the octet rule are finished (and first handwaving it as "there are exceptions and you'll learn them later"). It's only much later that we go to the rest of the 4th period, and most of the 5th, 6th, and 7th lie in darkness even when high school is finished. Everything needs to be progressive, after all! Double sharp (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah, so that's how to introduce it all. Then at some point, when in a classroom I'd like to get more familiar with the physical trends and shell filling and aufbau (I probably skipped that in highschool, this is my punishment). DePiep (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
IIRC Aufbau and the shell filling came the next year. With the first 20 elements (and a few examples of homogeneous groups like I, II, VII, and 0) we were made aware of the trends, along with the metal–nonmetal divide and the admittedly fuzzy but mighty useful division of bonds into ionic, metallic, and covalent. Then we later revisited them in more details (I remember going through group VII in way more detail in the last year of high school; I'm not saying it was as comprehensive as I've made the WP articles for Cl, Br, and I, but a significant amount of what you see there I do remember, IIRC. ^_^) But this is from my own memories, so it might not be done now, and might not be done the same way elsewhere. Double sharp (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Recoloring our PT

We had a great discussion on changing colors of the current categories about a year ago. I re-discovered my suggestion a few days ago and found it great. DePiep also had a draft for one but it at the moment didn't comply with the web design color criteria he introduced me to (DePiep acknowledged this, saying this would be worked on in a later revision).

Is anyone still interested in developing a new color scheme? I'd want to reignite the discussion for now if that's possible.--R8R (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It's on my todo list for over a year, I'd very much like to redesign that. Colors we had have drawbacks, maybe full restart needed. Colorbrewer is a nice inroad. (Just finished an excercise with YBG for this). -DePiep (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Could you explain to the amateur that I am what's wrong with them? I'd see if I could contribute some ideas for improving this if I knew what to do.--R8R (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
User:DePiep/pt-2016 is where we were at last year. I just edited them with Sc-Y-La-Ac and the new element names for Nh, Mc, Ts, and Og. Double sharp (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
That version is still far from it in terms of color contrast according to the standards DePiep introduced me to. For one, red on orange for nonmetals gives a contrast of 2.97 whereas we aim for 4.5. I resolved this at the price of having a not-so-red red, which I find to be a poor solution. I just got a new idea and I'll give it a try. Want to hear from DePiep on bad colors, though.--R8R (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@R8R Gtrs and Double sharp: My late reply on these individual points, and why I think we should restart design from blank (so skip January 2016 results, mostly). My general reply is already below, aiming at a grander approach. We know that category-coloring has nothing to do with the categorisation itself, it's just putting a color on a category 1:1 (unless science requires more categories than current 10—we'd be in trouble).
Hmm, that might be a problem when element 121 gets discovered in the near future and we start the superactinides row... ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. I've had this in mind. It's only two elements away from what we already have so may be expected to appear in a reasonable period of time.--R8R (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Sort of spoiler. But yes, that should be covered indeed. Will try to add this as an outlier (instead of treating as a straight color #11 to be available: too many restrictions). Or maybe ask Sandbh to rewrite the category scheme by then ;-). -DePiep (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
We would have a bit of time before it appears on the standard (non-extended table), because surely it wouldn't be chemically characterised for a while longer: meitnerium was synthesised in 1982 and is still waiting for a chemical characterisation 35 years later. Of course everyone is sure that it will be a good eka-iridium, but we do not know it yet.
Something I would wonder about, though, is how the PT would look as the eighth period is illuminated. I think we can just put in elements that have been discovered, even if it leads to a "gap" in the brick wall like tennessine was for a while. It'll be nice to see the bricks being put on, one by one. (There is no conflict between the various models from Fricke, Pyykkö, and Nefedov until we get to element 139; by the time that happens, presumably there will be a better model. ^_^) Double sharp (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
We'll add one category color (11th) for this, with reduced requirements. Once we get to element 139, we don't need more elements but we would need more colors (extended rainbow). Come to think of it, is it correct that actinides and lanthanides are a different category when categorised correctly? (And having no border exceptions at that). Or is this an old split into some indiscriminate 'series', e.g. from discovery history? (If they are actually the same category, we could give them the same color. And, of course, superactinides too). -DePiep (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
There is a name for the union of lanthanides and actinides ("inner transition metals"), but it is not used very often. Almost all descriptive inorganic chemistry textbooks I know of classify them separately, and I think the main reason for that is that the average Ln behaviour is quite different from the average An behaviour. (If you actually took all the actinides into account it would be a lot closer, but because the only actinides people usually work with are Th and U, and those do not behave at all like lanthanides, things are set further apart. In general, Th–Am and borderline Cm don't act like lanthanides, and all the rest do.) Double sharp (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
We all know what is wrong with the 2013 colors, those we show today. About every proposed January 2016 scheme would be an improvement that kills those bads (text contrast, five reds one green one yellow one blue, extreme teinte changes, grey and brown used, color blindness effects). If we propose a change to say any latest Jan 2016 proposal, that could win an RfC. Then we'd loyally change our 100+ colored templates & legends & images accordingly of course. But please do not propose that. Because: our Jan 2016 proposals have flaws too, they are not perfect. Not perfect.
And I want a perfect color scheme. One that is sound for our enwiki categories of course. But not only that. Also for other lang:wikis (who sometimes happen to copy our images & templates, blindly in trust). Wikidata should follow (!). Our commons images are used published outside of Wikipedia. They should be perfect in this. en:wiki should be the goto-site.
Also: there is off-internet. Printing a PT from us? Should be perfect (print the large-cell form as classroom wallpaper, why not). CMYK colors, for professional printing? Go enwiki. Beaming a WP page with a PT? Needs attention (beaming makes colors lighter compared to screens). Did you know today a table is not rendered into a Wikipedia-into-pdf at all?
And not in the least: in the professions. Broadcasting a perfect color scheme, will make our colors the standard colors. Think scholars both chemical and physics. IUPAC needs guidance in this. -DePiep (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I understand your noble goal and want you to keep on. You have my greatest sympathy in this.--R8R (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Quick re (playtime ahead): Recently I worked with YBG towards this result. Intense, and very fruitful. See especially this table for the development. (Notes: only two editors were involved; just nine colors to solve—the PT needs ten+unk; bg-colors only, not yet text-contrast issues; and in between we did solve that Nixon-Cheney 36/46 issue).
I found some new improvements I want to introduce here: Colorbrewer.org (and its background research book) is very smart (in map coloring, so it is closely related. Nice to play with the options, read about colorblndness, and missing option 10...).
I also came up with my "al-most opposite color" theory. Will arrive here!
Will reply to (describe carefully) the topics mentioned (including contrast rules, and degrees-of-freedom).
Want to set this standard once and for all (though maybe not for ever). -DePiep (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm already excited to see what you have there. Waiting for updates from you!--R8R (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isotope lists (2nd nomination)

Please comment. This would affect a few templates as well. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, this article was meant to be there as List of isotopes by atomic number. since Alphabetical listing and Half-life listing are there. we can either Keep, Move(to more accurate name), Delete it. by the way, it is not finished. I was working on it and if this AfD ends with keep, I will continue to. Product0339Talk  • Project
Contributions 06:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Uncoloring Fl

We originally colored Fl as a metal following a 2014 paper authored by Yakushev et al.. In 2016, another Yakushev et al. paper was published, however, that, despite admitting the results of 2014, now says, "Two contradicting conclusions on the chemical behaviour follow from the first gas chromatography studies on the flerovium-gold interaction: one suggests weak physisorption of Fl upon the deposition on gold, another suggests a metallic character. The question “is flerovium a metal or a noble gas?” is still waiting for an unambiguous answer."

This means we should uncolor Fl for now. Any objections?--R8R (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

All IMO. Two sources only? (Both by the same authores I understand). A bit meager. Why would the first publication be less trustworthy than the second one? While "admitting" the first results? (isn't that a strange word in this btw? Confirming?)? We need a number three. Sure, with those two at hand, we might not have colored it—all right. And uhm, metal or noble gas -- why not considered "metalloids aka weak nonmetals" at all (or halogen for that matter)? But alas, to uncolor it, I'd like to have a broader set of sources. Can time help us? -DePiep (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
The thing is, we need good agreement in sources to use a color. If we don't have this agreement, we shouldn't use a color. We're not doing action here; we're undoing action given that the old data that action was based on is now partially contradicted by the same authors.--R8R (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
The 2016 source does not contradict the 2014 source. It only adds, like: "but could be an inert gas too - much uncertainty in this, and more research needed". If we add this to the infobox textually, it would be ok. Then, new sources will shed more light. -DePiep (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
You're correct, and you're displaying the very reason for this change: more research is needed until we can be confident about its category and color. Until we know, let's say, "unknown."--R8R (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
As I read it, the uncertainty is only about the being inert claim, not the other claim re being metallic. That would imply only the first claim is not strongly enough rejected (color can stay). -DePiep (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
The reason is that the first experiment showed weak physisorption on gold for Fl (noble-gas behaviour), while the more recent one showed more metallic behaviour, and if you read Flerovium#Experimental chemistry there were also some experiments in between those that were more inconclusive, with the volatility of a noble gas and the absorption characteristics of a post-transition metal! If it were as you suggest, I think they would have phrased it along the lines of "Fl is a group 14 metal, but the extent of possible noble gas character is unknown". Yet they don't even dare to say that they know that Fl is a metal at all. Double sharp (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I would support the uncolouring, now. It's not that we have no data, but that the current data is still being rather inconclusive. I did a bit more searching for recent presentations, and this one from Lotte Lens at GSI says it the best: the experimental value of −ΔHads for Fl on Au is listed as "Under discussion". The last slide, on more recent experiments from 2015, says "Data are currently being analyzed". It is still okay, I think, to call it a predicted post-transition metal, but if they are no longer so certain, I don't think we should be either. Double sharp (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Looks like that last slide is about the third experiment. And, a slide show as an enough source really? -05:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Given that they are directly from the discoverers, and that it corresponds exactly to what is stated in the more reliable sources already given , I should think that the slide shows are enough here. (Besides, for elements like this at the furthest reaches at the table, these are often the only sources for what the researchers plan to do next, as opposed to what they have done.) Double sharp (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

As a first step I have done some preliminary "uncolouring" of Fl in the most obvious periodic table pictures we see on Wikipedia. The rest will take a while longer. Double sharp (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Why I periodically write about the elements on Wikipedia

Thought you might be interested. A couple of weeks ago, I was contacted by Wikimedia staff member Ed Erhart; he asked me if I would write an article for Wikimedia blog about why I keep writing articles about the elements, to which I agreed. Just very recently, it went live and you're free to give it a read :)

BTW sorry for not being able to take part in the discussion of the scheme proposed by Sandbh. I have a lengthy reply in mind but I am unable to write it down for the next couple of weeks (or more) due to lack of spare time.--R8R (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Ye gods, the fluorine article really did suck back then, didn't it? ^_^ And thanks for the mention!
I am very much amused by your description of why you chose F. In fact, it was for much the same reason that I went for alkali metal (well, that and the thought process "why write on all six individually, when I can just put them all together?"). Then I kept finding more stuff and more stuff and it's become incredibly long. I would note by the way that doing what we did has become a lot harder for the element articles (too many have been done), except maybe in the lanthanides (which are really boring to do: maybe I'll finally dust of praseodymium, which is mainly notorious for its impossibly long name). The ripest pickings for those who want to do this kind of thing are probably group articles: alkaline earth metal and halogen are good choices (but certainly not any of the others). I should also take this opportunity to clamour for the much-anticipated Sandbh rewrite of transition metal. ^_^
And indeed, despite being the closest thing we have to a resident Stakhanov at the moment (who nevertheless sees fit to disappear for a few months at a time), I fully appreciate that we can't possibly do everything all by ourselves. Double sharp (talk) 09:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Having worked on some of your (R8R's) articles it is remarkable how much your Wikimedia article adds to you as a real person, rather than someone I usually think of as R8R Gtrs. That was a good read. I shall wait patiently until you are ready to provide some comments on my proposed scheme (and for the return of YBG). Meanwhile I think I'm still learning about the scheme (= sharpening my approach) in the course of my chat with Double sharp. The transition metal article rewrite is still there in the background, as is some more work DS and I have been asked to do on the Group 3 question, and then there is the lead FAC to get ready for again, and I have another RL commitment coming up soon, followed possibly by further university studies, so who knows when I'll get round to everything. No matter. Sandbh (talk) 11:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, please take my comments as an attempt to focus the spotlight on the issue! Regarding group 3, I have also been mulling about the block-definition thing (and how there does not seem to be an agreement as to exactly how the blocks are defined): you will see this when I feel it is ready for your comments (which is a status it is not anywhere near yet ^_^).
P.S. to R8R: "Soviet-styled" is now in my mental dictionary as a synonym of "the highest quality of pure scientific scholarship". ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
LOL! Sandbh (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I like how you mention Au as a far-future project, BTW. It is another of those things I have wanted to tackle in a group, but have a phobia of doing alone.

Silver is a good example of this sort of phobia: the first three sections, dealing with the properties of the element, are fine, but doing the rest of the article absolutely terrifies me. I got over it for iron mostly because there was already a good base there and all I had to do was to find citations. I will definitely need a PR for this to continue further into applications, history, and the cultural background. Double sharp (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

(Shh...I'm getting over that. The sandbox is going through!) ^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Visually, it looks superb. Sandbh (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Antimony: Most stable oxidation state

The antimony article says that, "The +5 oxidation state is more stable." Is that right? I do know that the +3 oxidation state in Bi is more stable, and that Sb(V) shows less tendency to revert to (III) than P and As. Sandbh (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Sb shows no reluctance to be oxidised to the +5 state, unlike As (another side effect of the 3d contraction). I would note that SbCl5 exists and is reasonably stable, while AsCl5 leads only a fugitive existence and even BiF5 is vigorously reactive. I am not sure that I would say that +5 is "more stable" but I would have no problem with saying that like P, both +3 and +5 are important oxidation states for Sb. Double sharp (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I am trying to do two things at once, so don't have time to to respond yet other than saying thank you and that I found a quote from an old piece of work I did once: "The higher valency state (+5) is the more stable in arsenic and antimony… The reverse is true of bismuth… Bi+5 compounds are uncommon." (Steele D 1966, The chemistry of the metallic elements, Pergamon, Oxford, p. 69). Perhaps that is where it comes from. More later. Sandbh (talk) 04:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
A more important question for that article: why isn't there anything about Sb cluster compounds, since the As and Bi ones are pretty well-known and get a mention in the articles for those elements? (Because they don't fit the chosen classification into Sb(III) and Sb(V) compounds, maybe?) Double sharp (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

IUPAC on group 3 (sidetopic)

About IUPAC writing 'itselve'
<rant>Has no one else cringed at "The task group will only concern itselve [sic] ..."? I checked, and it is actually on the IUPAC website. By my en-us ear, it should be "The task group will only concern itself ..." but it may be that en-uk would prefer "The task group will only concern themselves ..." but unless I'm missing something, "itselve" would )be equally unacceptable in any ENGVAR. Does someone have a contact who could suggest they fix this? It certainly makes the IUPAC look to be a bit illiterate. </rant> YBG (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Send an email to the task group Chair, Eric Scerri. Sandbh (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Why didn't I think of such an obvious thing? (Probably 'cause I was wrapped up in my rant.) I'll e-mail him in a day or two. YBG (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I am beginning to get why such a process can take 15 year. -DePiep (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I checked, and it is actually on the IUPAC website. [YBG]. Yes, I did copy well ;-) -DePiep (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC).
👍 Like I generally can also, but then my cursor goes all weird on my and I wind up typing someplace I don't expect, which is fine when I notice it but when I don't, I've been known to unintentionally edit other folks contributions to talk pages.  Dislike . YBG (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Allow me to make this singular winning point. On average, 45% of my 1000 edits are spelling fixes. -DePiep (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Do you have a WP:RS for that factoid? Or is it WP:OR? Oh, wait a minute. It doesn't meet WP:N. All I can say is I'm glad no one is keeping a running count of the spelling errors I create. Cheers! YBG (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Calcium, strontium, and barium

Has anyone actually ever seen any of these three elements (except Sr in the fabulous Wikipedia picture) without an oxide layer? Only in the aforementioned fabulous WP picture do you see the "pale yellow" colour that Greenwood and Earnshaw refers to on page 112. (Same goes for europium and ytterbium.) Double sharp (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  • "Nodules of very high-purity, completely un-oxidized calcium metal in an argon-filled ampule", here
  • "About the purest barium you'll ever see", here

That what you had in mind? Sandbh (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, yes, ten thousand times yes! But we'll have to ask him for permission to use them... Double sharp (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see. There is one other source I can check. Sandbh (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I had a look at the CD A walking tour of the elements, which is where I was able to access, with permission from Dr Marshall, the picture of boron. It has pictures of Ca, Sr and Ba but unfortunately they are all stored in liquids, rather than inert gases, so you can't properly see the purty colours of the real things. Pity. Sandbh (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead FAC2

It begins now. Anyone reading this, good at chemistry or not (not only chemistry PhDs will read this article), please, take some time to give it a good read and write some comments: this would help a lot, whether it's going to be plain support or a list of issues (this is actually great; if you see issues, please don't restrain yourself from writing them down). Any comment is helpful, so please give it your time!--R8R (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Created: Infobox <element> isotopes

I have created an {{Infobox <element> isotopes}} for the 120 elements. I added this infobox to each article [[isotopes of <element>]]. The new infobox has a full copy of the "Most stable isotopes" section in the main element infobox. (see new infoboxes, isotopes articles. Example: Isotopes of uranium).

Copy/paste mirror note

As of today, 2017-03-31, for each element. The 'most stable isotopes' table is copy/pasted from the main infobox into the new isotopes infobox. So today: they are the same.

However. By each edit in this, the two infoboxes may deviate more and more.
Which is an argument against splitting the tables (and for: use the same infobox for this table everywhere). Any change to the table should show in both element's articles. -DePiep (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we should not split them: I just read a cool article from the GSI about reassigning the old 1998 Dubna Fl chain to 290Fl, and this cascaded down into Nh, Mt, Rg, and Bh, so I had to make ten edits instead of five to infoboxes.
(The doi is 10.1140/epja/i2016-16180-4 and it contains a report of some experimental indications of 299120, BTW. So while they admit that it's weak and didn't claim it despite observing it in 2011, the PT may not remain "complete" for long as the eighth row dawns with eka-radium! ^_^) Double sharp (talk) 09:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
No, a misunderstanding. First of all, infoboxes do not need a reference. Good infobox pulls (repeats) its data from the article, and so the reference should be in the body text. The new doi you found should have been added to body text of both meitnerium and isotopes of meitnerium. Their two infoboxes needed no change. Possible exception: if the new isobox is also used (transcluded) in meitnerium#ISotopes (as the overview table), it might need this edit. -DePiep (talk) 09:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, but the new tentative isotopes need to be in both infoboxes anyway, even if the citation is elsewhere. Double sharp (talk) 10:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Also true. I wrote about a new reference, but I missed you also added an isotope. In that case, it is quite reasonable it should be added in multiple places (including a summarising infobox). -DePiep (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:INFOBOXREF does't say that. It says it doesn't need references if there is a reference in the articles text. The page (MOS:INFOBOX) tries to cover all cases, and one big exception is chemical infoboxes (WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE (still MOS:INFBOXES) where it states: "As with any guideline, there will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox. Prominent examples include the ICD codes in {{Infobox medical condition}} and most of the parameters in {{Infobox chemical}}." As I see it, there is no problem having infomation in the infobox which isn't in the article text. Christian75 (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
About ref in infobox: is what I tried to say in two posts. Double sharp noted that he had to edit two pages for a same (infobox) change. Well, a ref in the article is not needed again in the infobox, but when a complete isotope is added, that could require edits in multiple places & tables & infoboxes.
Sure not all data in infobox must be in the article. But that does not mean we can put in indiscriminately wide batches (it says "key specialised information"). We are looking for good criterium here. And for isotopes, I maintain that the section must be the base, and the infobox just representing (summarising) that—not showing a new set. -DePiep (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Infobox element (main)

DePiep: since we now have isotope infobox out in lead, it seems the right time to remove this information from the main infobox. Many articles yet don't have an isotope infobox, but maybe you could make the isotope section of the main infobox be visible or not?--R8R (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I still really don't think it is a good idea and think that it needs some more discussion to see if there is a consensus for it. The main problem, as I see it, is that the most stable isotopes are enough of a fundamental property of the element that they feel like something I would want to know in an infobox.
When I first came to English Wiki, I thought, "how cool they have just everything!" It was more than people needes, I thought, but lots of data is fun! I'm changing that attitude now.
As a pragmatic editor, I'll note we almost always have a chance to add that box there space-wise and we necer have room for the first subsection(s) of our articles.
Wiki is for readers, though, right? Well, I think a reader will benefit as well since it would probably result in another picture and the isotopes table wouldn't move too far away.
Well, maybe our readers will benefit from a good article structure more than a picture?
DePiep will say, "the reason is that we keep too much data in the lead section." well, yes. This table has always stood out from the infobox. An equivalent to match the rest of the infobox would be two fields: "stable isotopes" and "notable radioactive isotopes." Imagine we had not only temperatures for several vapor pressures but also many density and conductivity and so on for different temperatures. If that was our precision of this infobox, the current isotopes table would fit in.
Also maybe we have too much data tight now. An example field would be speed of sound in pure element (a very specific piece of information).--R8R (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree: that is a bit excessive, with the only consolation being that removing just that really makes about no difference to the height of the infobox. But surely the isotopes are much more important than that! It's almost "first-chemistry-lesson" knowledge, when you know that the protons give an element its identity, the electrons give it its personality, and the neutrons control its stability (at least to a first approximation). And I'm not sure if most readers actually read much beyond the lede, or just skim the infobox for facts that they can easily put in their science project.
Now if you have isotopes, what are the most salient facts about them? The natural abundance, if they're stable; and the half-life and decay mode, if they aren't. We have that, and it makes sense.
By the way, we kind of already do have density at different temperatures and that level of intricate detail. Indium gives m.p. and b.p., but also triple point, heat of fusion and vaporisation, molar heat capacity, and vapour pressure at various temperatures. It even has the density listed at both STP and the melting point! Even the really radioactive radon has this stuff (with critical point instead of triple point)! Rn doesn't have speed of sound, but it is actually really easy to calculate and predict (about 140 m/s). So I think that the current isotopes table does fit. (If anything I'd add a column for nuclear spin, which is very important for NMR.) Double sharp (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
When we consider what people want to see in an infobox, they want to see a summary of the key facts they need to know about the element. Those interested in chemical properties can look for those; those interested in physical properties can look for those. But if we take out the isotopes, those interested in nuclear properties seem to be left in the lurch. There have been quite a few times when I couldn't remember exactly how the line of stable isotopes looked somewhere in the lanthanides and was quite happy to be able to get to this most important region by just typing erbium instead of going all the way to isotopes of erbium and trawling a bunch of proton-rich millisecond-living isotopes that almost nobody cares about.
Don't forget also that the isotopes can still be very useful in chemistry in labelling, like 2H, 13C, 14C, and 32P. I think of this as related to the chemistry of the element and I would want to see these "most important" isotopes in the infobox. Of course, a few are excessive, but I think removing them entirely from the main infobox is not solving the right problem. Double sharp (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I find myself disagreeing with all points you raise, and I will show why. To begin with, there are many excessive fields.
Teaching about isotopes at chemistry lessons indeed mentions that in the very beginning. And stops right there, because isotopes aren't really chemistry. These are discussed in physics classes. I had this in the tenth or eleventh grade (don't remember). Anyway, I was introduced to the concept of speed of sound in solids years before that.
"Many readers don't read past the lead." That's correct. However, think about it for a second: will those people who only read the lead really also read this lengthy infobox that continues into the main text? Really? I can't take this argument seriously. For contrast, see Bill Gates: birth date, residence, what he is known for, family. All of that fits into the lead, no excessive detail here. That's an infobox people who don't read past the lead will read. Ours is not.
"Now if you have isotopes, what are the most salient facts about them?" well, why is this a question. Okay, suppose we have a list of them. Is there a reason we should have more? "Now if you have the speed of sound, what are the most salient facts about it?" we don't even have a linear approximation of the speed of sound change over temperature; does that make sense? I think, however, that we shouldn't have isotopes in the main infobox at all and can't provide a good answer on my part.
"the way, we kind of already do have density at different temperatures and that level of intricate detail." and the question is not, "what we should do to follow suit?" We should first see if it's good in the first place, which, I think, it isn't. Give it a good thought: what does that information give to a common reader? Really, what? It doesn't change all too drastically. It could illustrate the physical law of how things normally expand on heating, but element articles aren't about that. Really, what good (not neat) does it do?
"Indium gives m.p. and b.p., but also triple point, heat of fusion and vaporisation, molar heat capacity, and vapour pressure at various temperatures. It even has the density listed at both STP and the melting point!" mp and bp are fine, you're getting some basic description (is it a gas and is it almost gas, etc.) Triple point already is hardcore. Well, you're taught this in schools, but most adult people don't even remember what a triple point of a substance is. If we want (I do) to give some basic introduction to a reader into what "rhenium" or even "hydrogen" is, we're doing poor job. People who could read the basics will skip this unnecessarily detailed database altogether. Any other term here complies with this description. Two densities are bad, too: what do they illustrate that one couldn't?
"But if we take out the isotopes, those interested in nuclear properties seem to be left in the lurch." Perhaps it will come as no surprise to say that if a person is interested in nuclear properties, they will read the Isotopes section, and the isotopes infobox will be there?
"Don't forget also that the isotopes can still be very useful in chemistry in labelling" point taken. But also think about those elements uninteresting isotopes like tungsten-one hundred and... I don't know, something. I don't even remember those uninteresting ones; why should I care? (If there is an interesting tungsten isotope, think of the other ones. And other elements which don't even have one.) In theory, we could have some information for those elements you list: hydrogen, carbon, maybe uranium and a couple of others. In practice, there's no reason as the table is still going to be there, just in a different (more appropriate) subsection. This should also resolve your erbium problem.
And now look at another article, Niccolò Machiavelli. There's a chance you haven't heard about this person (or maybe you have, he's famous for an author). But then you have an infobox of reasonable length that introduces you into him and then you get it already what kind of a person he is. That's what a reader-oriented infobox should do.--R8R (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Here's an example of what it would look like. I am uneasy about conductivity and resistivity (could go away but maybe can stay, leaving in for now), but we would certainly do better without Young's modulus etc.--R8R (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Last but not least: to see how much we don't need most of the current data, remember we don't even use it in the text of a vast majority of all articles' texts.--R8R (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
As always, you make excellent arguments; I'll need to consider this carefully and think for a while longer before I formulate a reply. Double sharp (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
(ec) We should move the whole Miscellaneous info section from the infobox to a new, separate ==Data sheet== section. Because this is not lede/infobox material, it is not a summary of the article's major content. See what I mean?
About isotopes. In general (i.e., for most elements), the table in the infobox does not reflect the article (section Isotopes). So this infobox list is wrong. Other than Double sharp writes, the infobox is not exactly "key facts they [readers] need to know". The required 'summary' word makes this slightly different really. We only should allow in the infobox the important isotopes, and I doubt whether importance is valid for all current five data columns (Double sharp only mentions abundance and half-live, for starters). That importance for each data point inclusion must be shown, I say. IOW: the infobox isotopes table is up for discussion.
But first we must get the content right. That is: look at and improve the Isotopes section, because that is where the infobox data must be pulled from. Well, Rutherfordium#Isotopes is illegible and the table looks unreasonably detailed (too many rows and columns). For sure, the relevance of table elements is not reflected in the body text. And Lead#Isotopes mentions less main isotopes (four) than the seven (!) in the infobox. Consider this, preferably for all elements: the isobox can be larger and wider when used in there (and also used as infobox isotopes; this double usage would be nice and strong, IMO). An extra column for can be added per case (like nuclear spin, as asked). Once the Isotopes section is well balanced (text and isobox balanced), we should be able to see which isotopes are relevant enough to be mentioned in the main infobox. Still, we should not reproduce the whole table in there.
(And for now, I don't suggest to change Lead as R8R asked, indeed this needs fleshing out). -DePiep (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that the infobox says "Most stable isotopes of [something]". So if a short-lived isotope is notable, as it is for lead, we then get forced to put in a few more rather uninteresting ones that happen to have longer half-lives. I would suggest instead "Most notable isotopes of [something]", but then someone will point out that they are all on Wikipedia and hence all notable, because the term has kind of been hijacked that way. Perhaps "most significant isotopes of [something]" might be best. Double sharp (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Correct wrt the lead example. But no, if the header would be like "main isotopes", the article determines which could go in there, not the "notable because article exists" reason. On top of this, we must apply restictions to make the infobox effective.
Double sharp, the infoboxes are too big. What do you propose for reduction? -DePiep (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
For physical: keep m.p., b.p., and density (for gases, also keep density as a solid). The rest can go, leaving behind a link saying "(more)" to the data pages where the information will be kept (for the predictions, I suppose we can just trawl through the history for them when we want them). For atomic: keep everything (can't think of what to get rid of). For miscellanea: keep crystal structure, magnetic ordering, Mohs hardness, and CAS number (the stuff people will have heard of); the rest can go to "(more)". That should save enough space that the isotopes get to stay. (I'm mostly listing the stuff that even I don't really bother to look at most of the time.) Double sharp (talk) 09:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
What about this, for the isotopes list in there: change header into "Main isotopes of ..." (keep link), remove irrelevant isotopes from table, remove all columns except isotope, NA, HL. Any extra data should be in section Isotopes. (it's not just about 'space', also about removing non-relevant data). -DePiep (talk) 10:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd keep DM as well, but not DE or DP (the latter is actually redundant in that you can work it out from the DM). So four columns of the most relevant information, and no more. Double sharp (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
DM (decay mode) and DP (product) already are into the decay process. Can take multiple rows per isotope even. IMO too much detailed for an infobox, not about the element itself. Better simply mention the isotopes, and be more detailed in the Isotopes section (in/out of the Isobox there). -DePiep (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh and I strongly suggest to unlink any half life period, and remove any uncertainty values (Rf has 1.0+1.2
−0.3 min), maybe even round becasue it's just to compare and get an idea of the period length. -DePiep (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Agree on all but one: I still think decay mode needs to be there. If you look at any chart of nuclides, like this one, the default colour code used is either decay mode or half-life, and it is usually decay mode. Even if you zoom out so far that you can't see anything else, the colours for DM are still there. Evidently it is widely considered to be one of the most important things to give. For most cases one decay mode dominates all the others and is by far the most common, so we can just give that one.
(BTW the colours are pretty standard for the major decay modes: stable is black, α is yellow, β− is blue, β+ or EC is red, and SF is green. I am not sure why the one I linked above, which I think R8R pointed me to, is an exception; the Karlsruhe Nuclide Chart uses the scheme I describe here. Just in case you want to do anything with that. ^_^) Double sharp (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

"can't think of what to get rid of" -- please let me help you out.

moved to #non-isotope topics. -DePiep (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Infobox change (1)

I have boldly changed: isotopes header now reads "Main isotopes of element" (was: "Most stable isotopes of element"). Because: discussion here; a talk here, and the lead exemplary situation:

"Most stable" forces us to list unimportant isotopes that are within an important range. For example lead-202 is insignificant, but its half life is within an important, larger half life range. After this title change, it could be removed from the main infobox.

Please only remove these few, irrelevant isotopes from the infoboxes. This is not intended for a general shakeout of half that table. That better be discussed in general, being infobox criteria.

Not affected: no changes (required, made) in the isoboxes, and not in the Isotopes section. -DePiep (talk) 07:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Infobox element isotopes (new isobox)

As was the original plan, we can now split the table from the element's main infobox into the section #Isotopes (the new infobox) for each article. Any ideas for this? -DePiep (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I must say that I am not sure if this is actually a good idea. I find that when I write "Isotopes" sections in articles on stable elements (H to Bi, except Tc and Pm), I want to mention the stable isotopes and their natural abundance, but then one of the other things I want to go into is nuclear spin (important for NMR), which is not in the infobox at all. Then when we choose unstable isotopes to put in the infobox, ease of synthesis plays more than half-lives in what I want to include, except for cosmogenic nuclides: this is why I put 38Cl in chlorine and do not mention the longer-lived 39Cl at all. All the infobox gives us is half-lives, but even that I want to include in the flow of the text to put the time spans in perspective: you obviously have more leeway to move slowly and get more detail with an isotope that lasts a century than with an isotopes that lasts a mere day.
The exception might be superheavy elements, but then I would want to also include the synthesis methods and years of each isotope in a table (because it's really boring to put in text, but people might want to know this), something like what we have at rutherfordium. Double sharp (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Please clarify, separate topics at issue. Let's keep them separated.
I get, you want a change in the base table, an extra column for some situations (nuclear spin)? Please propose (whatever infobox it would be in).
If you describe some change can not be achieved in a separate infobox, but well in the main infobox?, please clarify. I don't understand.
If you claim that this change (remove table from main infobox, add isobox to section ==isotopes==) can not be made logically, pls explain.
I repeat. The plan is: the base table will disappear from the main infobox, and in the ==isotopes== section the special infobox will appear. We could improve that isobox at will. -DePiep (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that is a terribly good idea, actually. There are many topics in the infobox which also get covered further down below in the main article (e.g. melting point, boiling point, density, oxidation states); why not the isotopes too? If I were a reader who wanted to quickly find something, I would want all of it in one place. The article is meant to cover things in more detail than the top infobox. I wouldn't want to split physical characteristics to that section, chemical characteristics to that section, etc., out from the infobox, so why isotopes?
I would cover nuclear spin in the main article for the isotopes where it is important. It would be nice to have it in the infobox, but I don't insist on that. Double sharp (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
The WP:INFOBOX is intended to summarize topics already covered in the article body. This should be the first and foremost design setup. For isotopes, that would be isotopes discussed in the section. In the infobox could stay (I'd support) a single data list saying: "main isotopes: ..." Expect one to four, those seriously described in the section.
Better not consider the infobox as a datasheet. It defeats its purpose. Remove as yet non-article data into a section is a proper solution for oversized infoboxes. And this is when we kept the data restricted. (This datasheet thing has even gone more Everest in {{chembox}} and {{Drugbox}}: each data row reasonably "useful, relevant, ..." in itself, it's not an infobox any more. For example CO).
Now adding the isobox is a nice solution, because it reduces the infobox but does not remove data from the article. It even allows to expand the isotopes data (with a column, or with important but short-lived isotopes). Such an expansion is nearly unacceptable in the main infobox. This isobox would be right next to the sections lede! -DePiep (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the general idea is good and DePiep presents it well. My only concern is, as I said before, vertical space. The navbox in the end takes too much space that I'd rather try to spend on pictures. This would be a little easier to overcome if we used V•T•E in the bottom left corner instead. I'm currently thinking of lead; every section usually needs a picture, and this table could theoretically substitute a picture (great!), but there, I've got a very good illustration I want to keep and the vertical space is limited, so saved half a line could help.

Also, as I once read from a professional designer, design is functionality, and this would apply here.--R8R (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks but a support for the wrong reason? :-). An infobox is not a "trade off" with images (but I understand the lead situation).
The element infobox fails lede level, full stop. (Sure, the "Miscellaneous" is a first candidate to go—into a ==Data sheet[working title]== section. Isotopes in infobox must correspond with the isotopes section, but they do not.
The SHE example Rutherfordium#Isotopes Double sharp mentions, is not an example for good IMO (because the #isotopes section is not stable & nice at all). -DePiep (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Double sharp, this is a very multi-issue topic of course. As an angle of approach, could you clarify which aspects of Rutherfordium#Isotopes you prefer/detest? And how would the Rf infobox (isotopes) look like, ideally? -DePiep (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, the trouble I think is that the Rf isotopes box is great, but only for a superheavy element article. Different fields are important for different kinds of elements. For a stable element like nitrogen, I would want a column on nuclear spin, because that is important for NMR. For the unstable elements past Bi, I would want a detail on where each natural isotope comes from in the radioactive decay chain, like I did in text at radium. For the most unstable superheavy elements from Lr onwards at the cutting edge of modern science, I would want to know where each isotope comes from, when it was synthesised first, and who did it. So once we go beyond the things covered in the main infobox, I am not sure if we can add anymore, because the needs of each element are a little bit different; but if we are splitting it out, then I would think that it ought to go into some more detail. But what detail, when it changes for each element? Double sharp (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
We can make the new Isobox flexible to cover all element situations you mention. But then: would it be a useful infobox still, to be used also in their Isotopes article page? Looks like the table you like to see in #Isotopes sections can be much bigger and more detailed. Of course a big one must be possible, because first of all the section must be perfect (FA), not limited by outer requirements.
I can make tests for adding column nuclear spin to nitrogen etc, but only in {{Infobox nitrogen isotopes}}, but not the main {{infobox nitrogen}} (not expansion in there). -DePiep (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm worried about about the current title "Most stable isotopes of X." In lead, we are currently featuring six isotopes, but these are not the six most stable ones, and the title is misleading. Lead-210 is far more important than lead-202, even though the latter is more stable, and we only feature the former.--R8R (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure. I suggest "Main isotopes of X" in both infoboxes. That would allow for more isotopes. But first I want agreement on reducing the number, in the main infobox. I am chewing on how to make useful proposal out of all this. Esp removal of data from infobox requires strong support. -DePiep (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 Done, set title= Main isotopes of X in the new isoboxes. Done boldly, to help getting lead ahead. Still, it's an infobox so the list not need to be complete. -DePiep (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

New columns in Isobox

Above, Double sharp proposes new columns in the Isobox (not the main indfobox; 08:07, 03:54). Listed:

Nuclear spin (NSpin), stable elements (e.g. nitrogen N). Relates to nuclear magnetic resonance NMR.
Radioactive decay chain history (DCchain), 'where natural isotope comes from in the radioactive decay chain'. (e.g. radium Ra).
Synth creation (SCreate). Most unstable superheavy elements from Lr (e.g. rutherfordium Rf). Method, years, who.

Notes:

  1. Here, we are only talking about the new isobox, not the main infobox. Content fork then (tables will gonna be different).
  2. Different elements get different columns. One table can have empty cells (because: stable & instable isotopes are listed together). Technically we can do this, don't feel restricted for this reason.
  3. I understand cosmogenic nuclides (see chlorine example) can be covered with these.
  4. Any other columns to consider? (get inspired by the big tables in Rutherfordium#Isotopes and Isotopes of Rf).

Aim:

  1. The box remains an infobox, the summary overview in top of in any "Isotopes of ..." article.
  2. Preferably, the box can be reused in the #Isotopes section of the element. This would provide a tabular overview. Though there are situations where this table would not be complete enough (SHEs, e.g. Rutherfordium, might need a very big one). In these cases no usage will be enforced (It must be possible to make a perfect Isotopes section).
  3. With extra columns and more isotopes acceptable, the box will be a bit larger than today's "most stable" table.

The big picture: 1. Main element infobox list can/will be reduced. 2. Isobox as top infobox in page "Isotopes of...". 3. Isobox is preferably useful in #Isotopes section as tabular overview. -DePiep (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Non-isotope topics

Moved here. -DePiep (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Note how DePiep, when noticing our current PT colors were bad, suggested he drew a new table and not just "fix" the old one (removing the screaming red etc.). That's how you do good business: do it from the very beginning when the foundation is weak. And a fresh look is always good. I tried that myself, and I found myself surprised there is actually information I'd want to add. But let's start from scratch.

Basic talk: atomic number, group/period, category, standard atomic mass, electronic config, pronunciation ("roentgenium"... what was that, again?). We already have that; great.

Perhaps of the most basic information about substances is its state and basic physics: is it solid or liquid or gaseous? Does it take much to freeze it to solid/melt it? so mp and bp are good. You also want density, this is super basic as well (no solid densities for gases: I've never needed any of these and I think we don't need to appease those very few who have). There we have it.

Chemistry? We should do oxidation states (also super basic), atomic radius (so we know if the atoms are big or small; no need for covalent radii etc. as they add only details to the general picture), electronegativity. Basic chemical outline is done.

Is this thing common? We can add two abundances: in space and Earth's crust. There we have the general picture of if it's widespread.

Has this thing been around for long? We cover that well now.

I'd leave it there and get a good readable infobox that doesn't just look fancy but is good for readers. I have very rarely ever referred to our infoboxes to get something other than density. I don't think I'm underusing these.--R8R (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I have split this post into a section, because it is complicated enough already within isotopes alone. So other changes in the main element infoboxes (eg miscellaneous header) be kept apart. -DePiep (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
R8R, per element the isotopes alone interfer in four articles or so. Luckilly, other parts of the element infoobox do not relate to isotopes, so we can treat them independently. My agenda is free in August for infobox section "Miscellaneous"? -DePiep (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I understand the words one by one, but I cannot grasp the idea of the message :( could you please rephrase this?--R8R (talk) 04:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I think I have an idea: for all the really uncommon properties, if I want to know the values (e.g. resistivity), I tend to want to see all the elements together, so the data page becomes more useful than the infobox. So why don't we link to List of data references for chemical elements as "references, more data"? For instance, noble gas has such a link to noble gas (data page).
Or you could put a streamlined infobox in the element articles, and at the bottom there would be a link to the old one in template-space for the few people who are desperately looking for the thermal conductivity of radium. Double sharp (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I've assumed the former in my considerations.--R8R (talk) 04:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I'm too busy in RL, I cannot add creativity to this topic. Too bad I fired up this isotope thing so much. (So those multiple infoboxes wrt isotopes could stay cumbersome. I'm sorry, #Ds Doubelesharpium). -DePiep (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements/Archive_25&oldid=853190972"