Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 61

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63

New isotopes articles

split content

Because there have been enough synthesis attempts by now (even if they're all failures so far), I spun off isotopes of ununennium and isotopes of unbinilium into their own articles. (No plans to do it for higher hypotheticals, which have few synthesis attempts and aren't being discussed as near-future possibilities nowadays.) Double sharp (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say there's enough substance to justify this split. Doing so allows a detailed description of every attempted reaction without cluttering the main element articles, as is done for known SHEs, and supports a more summary-style structure in the main articles consistent with the style for articles of known elements.
Additionally, these subpages would be an appropriate place to include a table of predicted cross sections. Many have been published in RS, though cherry-picking certain published values for the main element article might run afoul of WP:UNDUE and including every single prediction there would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE information. (Perhaps this is why those tables are kept in the "Isotopes of X" pages?) Listing all those for experimentally feasible (i.e., with currently or soon-to-be accessible targets and projectiles) reactions in the isotopes subpage would probably be the best course of action. Complex/Rational 16:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
@ComplexRational: Yes, I agree that cross-section predictions belong on these spin-offs. I suppose we could start with the ones here and then keep looking for more. :) Double sharp (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to summarise the existing E119 and E120 articles. Double sharp (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Double sharp (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

graphics

@DePiep: is there anything I should do to with these pages to make them conform to how it works for the isotopes pages for known elements? In particular, I can't really put them in {{Navbox element isotopes}} because 119 and 120 have not actually been discovered (so they shouldn't really be on periodic tables). For consistency I also created categories Category:Ununennium, Category:Unbinilium, Category:Isotopes of ununennium, and Category:Isotopes of unbinilium, all subordinate to Category:Hypothetical chemical elements. Double sharp (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Irrespective of (=before applying) Complex/Rational comments: I have added cells E119, E120 to {{Navbox element isotopes}} (do we need a "theoretical" marking in there?); for E119 and E120 the isotopes-page now shows & links from their infobox (see {{Infobox ununennium}}, {{Infobox unbinilium}} also uses |isotopes comment=). DePiep (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
@DePiep: Yes, I think there should be something to mark that these elements have not actually been discovered. Maybe by simply not colouring the cells (which I recall is what WebElements did for 117 before it was discovered)? Double sharp (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Infobox element: E119+ marking

Added to {{Infobox element}} for all elements Z>=119: "Theoretical element".

Default text: "Theoretical element", parameter |theoretical element note= to overwrite. Only shows when Z>=119; |above= in extra grey bar. See E119, E120, E121, E122, E124, E126. -DePiep (talk) 11:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@DePiep:. Looks good to me (the bar and the wording). Of course, we'll take the bar off once they actually get discovered. Double sharp (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
:-) '>=119' is coded in the infobox. (btw, could you check "Main isotopes of unbinilium"-text in IB Unbinilium? DePiep (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
@DePiep: Maybe better "theoretical calculations" rather than "theoretical options"? Otherwise, looks good to me. Double sharp (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Done, for E119 too, but made it isotopes comment=Experiments and theoretical calculations to prevent confusion. (Not "theoretical calculations and [theoretical] experiments"). DePiep (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

My worry was also for {{Navbox element isotopes}}, because it now contains cells for 119 and 120 without any clue that they're not actually discovered. Maybe a switch so they only appear on those pages, or uncolouring, or something in the cell saying they're theoretical? Double sharp (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes these are on my list. More complicated. DePiep (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

News from RIKEN

New paper! Double sharp (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: Double sharp (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
@Double sharp: I stumbled upon that paper yesterday! Definitely some interesting details worth mentioning on why E119 has eluded discovery so far... Complex/Rational 15:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
@ComplexRational: Wow, you're faster than me! Hopefully we'll see 119 soon. Double sharp (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

IUPAC on "what is a metal"

Unfortunately the IUPAC Gold Book does not have an entry for "metal". However, several other entries tell us something:

  • organometallic compound: In addition to the traditional metals and semimetals, elements such as boron, silicon, arsenic and selenium are considered to form organometallic compounds. So I suppose we know four elements that are not considered metals by them.
  • semiconductor-metal transition: Any transition from a semiconductor to a metallic state under the influence of a temperature or pressure change or both. Examples: 1. Ti2O3: band-edge crossing in a semiconductor to semimetal transition. So semimetals count as metals but semiconductors don't.
  • metal-insulator transition (synonym to metal-nonmetal transition): A transition characterized by a sudden change in electrical transport properties (conductivity) due to a reversible change from localized to itinerant behaviour of the electrons. Example: The transition at 339 K in VO2 where it changes from a high-temperature metallic behaviour to a low-temperature semiconductor behaviour. Synonymous with metal–nonmetal transition. So insulators also don't count as metals, and it confirms that a metal is something with itinerant electrons (i.e. no band gap). That equals "metal or semimetal" in the physicists' sense. On the other hand, semiconductors count as nonmetals.

This is naturally consistent with how people actually use the term "metal" as depending on pressure and temperature, e.g. people talk about "metallic hydrogen" for the high-pressure phase.

I suppose you could classify the elements by standard states, since there's a general understanding that we talk about STP (standard temperature and pressure) unless otherwise stated. This would match {{Periodic table (simple substance bonding)}} in the sense that elements with metallic bonding are called metals, and all others are called nonmetals. Except that that would include arsenic and that first bullet point shows that it is not included. Well, I suppose there is the possible excuse that black arsenic is metastable and is not metallic. But that gets into reading into the source something that isn't there i.e. WP:OR, not allowed!

In a 2002 IUPAC report about the term "heavy metal", a definition is quoted for "metal": elements which conduct electricity, have a metallic luster, are malleable and ductile, form cations, and have basic oxides. Alas this cannot be taken that seriously because the author includes as metals a bunch of elements that don't "have basic oxides": Be, Al, Sc, Zn, Zr, Sn, Hf, Ir, Au, Pb.

So I think the correct conclusion here is to observe the fact that the "Gold Book" has no entry for metal. For most elements, metallicity status is not that controversial. For borderline cases, just follow the context of the source for what is being meant (is it about the physics, the chemistry, or the astronomy definition in which everything but H and He is a metal?). So, I think there's no need based on this to codify anything beyond typical WP common sense about following sources. Double sharp (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Triels and tetrels

@DePiep: (based on edits at {{Periodic table (group names)}}: actually these were recommended by IUPAC in 1970 (with "pentels" for group 15 as well). At some point it seems they were withdrawn (as they are not in the most recent Red Book), but they can still be found in IUPAC use in 2016 (see the progress tab for "triel"). Double sharp (talk) 08:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

What do you propose? Anything but grey status I'd say. They are kept in Group (periodic table) § List of group names. (btw, I removed them because you did not list them in MOS:PERIODICTABLE). DePiep (talk) 08:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Same vibe: remove coinage metals from that PTable, and expand/describe in table list? Or move to Group (periodic table) § Non-columnwise group names, which makes equally sense to me. DePiep (talk) 08:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I didn't mention triels and tetrels because I forgot about them. :) Coinage metals are still common these days in the precise meaning of Cu-Ag-Au (group 11). Also in Pure and Applied Chemistry. Rg tends to disappear only because it's a laboratory curiosity: it's sometimes called one as well when it is the main object of investigation. However, because of that ambiguity about Rg and the ambiguity with "metal used for coinage in general", and the fact that the analogous IUPAC project for group 11 doesn't use the name, I'd suggest avoiding that one.
Having done these checks, I think MOS:PERIODICTABLE should consider triels and tetrels OK, but probably not coinage metal. Double sharp (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
OK, updated. Double sharp (talk) 09:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
OK. Incorporated in Group (periodic table) now, multiple places (see eg the listing table). I might reduce MOS text, as over there is no need to defend extensively. DePiep (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps we should move Boron group → Triel, Carbon group → Tetrel? (For consistency with Pnictogen, Chalcogen, Halogen, and Noble gas.) Double sharp (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
This is a bad reason to move (and possibly non-guideline); these names are not WP:COMMONNAME. No harm in current names "Carbon group", nothing lost and being descriptive is more helpful. I rarely met them, I'm surprised we even had to whitelist them. Remember we both had to look them up yesterday ;-) So: no support, COMMONNAME to be proven, requires RM anyway I guess. DePiep (talk) 08:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I agree. But good to have this raised here, so we have somewhere to point to.
My impression is that "triel" and "tetrel" are not common names by themselves (as opposed to "boron group"/"group 13", "carbon group"/"group 14"), but there are some situations in which they're more common ("tetrel bond", as the IUPAC project wants to define). Double sharp (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
OK, and good we mention them appropriately, at Group (periodic table), and in IB, are we missing places? But IMO not "common" in the wiki sense. Your example looks niche. I guess you can always start a WP:RM, and maybe tougher arguments +/- will appear. DePiep (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
If I started an RM, I'd prefer to move them to group 13 element and group 14 element. That would make them consistent with the groups from 3–12. But I'll think about it. Double sharp (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Do as you want, you've seen more papers than I. In a different move, I still want the "element" from these pagenames. DePiep (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Closure

  • Looks resolved by now, see MOS:PERIODICTABLE for settlement-out-of-court. In short, old/uncommon names are to be prevented (except in history sections, as always). No page moves follow. MOS stable, changes can be proposed as usual, this thread considered closed. -DePiep (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Infoboxes and Isotopes: merge both Infobox tables

Forked into separate quest. -09:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Useful links:
{{Infobox element}}: demo {{Infobox uranium}} (Uranium)
{{Infobox element isotopes}}: demo {{Infobox uranium isotopes}} (Isotopes of uranium)
Testcases: {{Infobox element isotopes/testcases}} ({{../Current tables}}, {{../New table}})

A second question, while we are at it: should & could the isotope infobox better be hardcoded into the List page? Like {{Infobox sodium isotopes}}-template directly in page Isotopes of sodium, available for data editing? DePiep (talk) 08:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Either that, or also transclude the isobox into the main element infobox (was this attempted previously, and if so, were there technical issues?), so that there's one less page to update when new information becomes available. Complex/Rational 14:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Copper#Edit_request_(red_color)

A dispute has arisen about proper sourcing for the correct explanation of copper's characteristic orange color. The current explanation in the article is completely unsourced; one source provided by the IP initiator is dead, and the other gives a different explanation based on plasma oscillation which was misinterpreted by the IP. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Plasma frequency is the correct explanation; the other one from the d→s transition is just a common simplification. Double sharp (talk) 12:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I've noticed that this has been fixed at Roentgenium, but Silver has not been updated. Caesium and Gold already invoke the plasma frequency explanation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I've deleted the offending bit from the Ag article. Maybe an explanation should be added, but on the other hand most metals are silvery already, so I guess only coloured metals need the explanation. Hmm, I guess osmium should be explained, but the one article I know of on that needs some figure-reading (here in Fig. 1b you can see that reflectivity drops in the red, so it should look bluish, but the conclusion seems to be left unstated). Double sharp (talk) 08:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
That's good enough to qualitatively describe the reflectivity of the metal — in particular, the strong anisotropy in the near-infrared — without making any specific references to the color of the metal.

The reflectivity of osmium metal is complex and strongly direction-dependent, with light in the red and near-infrared wavelengths being more strongly absorbed when polarized parallel to the c crystal axis; this polarization is also slightly more reflected in the mid-ultraviolet range. Reflectivity reaches a sharp minimum at around 1.5 eV (near-infrared) for this orientation and at 2.0 eV (orange) for polarization perpendicular to the c axis, and peaks in the visible spectum at around 3.0 eV (blue-violet) for all polarizations.[1]

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
@LaundryPizza03: Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 07:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Nemoshkalenko, V. V.; Antonov, V. N.; Kirillova, M. M.; Krasovskii, A. E.; Nomerovannaya, L. V. (January 1986). "The structure of the energy bands and optical absorption in osmium" (PDF). Sov. Phys. JETP. 63 (I). Retrieved 28 December 2022.

Isotopes: post-NUBASE2020 data

@ComplexRational and Benniboi01: I see you've recently edited (updated) the pages

Category:Lists of isotopes by element (122) RELC, and derived infobox data

Category:Infobox element isotopes templates (119) RELC,

Category:Infobox element templates by element (124) RELC,

nice & great!

My question is: is the new data from NUBASE2020/AME2020, or different (e.g., from more recent papers)? In case of NUBASE2020, we can assume that as default source, but other sources better be present (on the page). Also, how is "not confirmed" based (e.g.)? I'm asking this, while it's still fresh. Becasue if the source is clear, in the future we/I can make row-templates, format & automate the data; also check with Wikidata. For this, non-NUMBASE source mentioning would be welcome. DePiep (talk) 08:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I feel that NUBASE2020 should be the default go-to source, but any data from papers published more recently should be treated separately. Several updates I made recently (or intend to make soon) were from 2022 publications, and indeed contain new information. Conversely, NUBASE2020 is comprehensive for nuclides for which there is no more recent data, though there are a couple of inaccuracies – as an example, 277Mt has a half-life in NUBASE2020 three orders of magnitude longer than the half-life reported in the discovery/confirmation papers.
Benniboi01, feel free to elaborate on "not confirmed", though to my understanding this describes half-lives and decay modes for nuclides whose synthesis is reported but for which additional data has not been published. Undiscovered nuclides, which are missing a discovery year and reference in NUBASE2020, should be omitted entirely, as predictions vary and no single source should be given undue weight. Complex/Rational 14:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Towards MOS/editing guideline:
  • TBD: about Unconfirmed ("unobserved, estimated; ... state"): some 218+45=273 are present in NUBASE2020. I'd say: can be present, but requires in-row some statement "unobserved, estimated" + RS. What wold be best state wording: "Unobserved", "Estimated", "calculated", "theoretical"?
  • Data is by {{NUBASE2020}}/{{AME2020 II}} (table header |refs=NUBASE2020, AME2020 II then), or old |ref=NUBASE2016 before update;
  • In case of other sources, eg those after 2020 or contradicting 2020, those must be present in the isotope row(s); could be by repeated <ref name="..">.
DePiep (talk) 09:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I can work on adding references to the newly discovered isotopes. The only reason I thought to include the undiscovered ones was because of a mindset I had when editing the Table of nuclides' large "table of nuclides" template. For the template I described, the data template associated with it - Template:Isotones - was incredibly unintuitive to edit, given the way that it was structured, so I felt that it would help at least a bit to leave open slots for isotopes that have not yet been observed. These could then be filled in - if they are eventually found to exist - by editors who may not be fully familiar with the way that these two templates work. I suppose this idea doesn't apply as well to the dedicated isotope pages, since it's more intuitive to edit the tables and so wouldn't help much in making edits easier. I think there might still be value in adding unconfirmed isotopes to the tables, but I'm fine with whatever works best for style/guidelines/etc. Benniboi01 (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Just for clarification, when I said "unconfirmed" I meant undiscovered. Benniboi01 (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the naming procedure

@DePiep and ComplexRational: Since we're already giving such overviews, here's one about the naming procedure.

The general procedure once IUPAC and IUPAP accept a discovery is (I provide the links for the 113-115-117-118 situation, which is the most recent one):

  1. Verification of the discovery by IUPAC and IUPAP is announced. (Happened 30 December 2015 for Nh, Mc, Ts, and Og.) The discoverers are invited to propose names to IUPAC.
  2. A few months later, the names proposed by the discoverers are disclosed. (Happened 8 June 2016 for Nh, Mc, Ts, and Og.) At this time they are already recommended by IUPAC for acceptance, but they then go through a five-month public review before the final formal approval is done by the IUPAC council.
  3. Finally, about five months later, the formal approval occurs. (Happened 30 November 2016 for Nh, Mc, Ts, and Og.)

Note that this is quite different from the situation as encountered in the bad old days of the Transfermium Wars, when there wasn't such IUPAC-IUPAP verification of priority and the groups started using the names immediately. (So we ended up with the "warring" names rutherfordium vs kurchatovium for element 104, for example.) With the current practices of IUPAC and IUPAP, this cannot happen anymore! So to make it clear: by the time we have the proposed names in step 2, priority is settled and no other names are being considered. Perhaps in some cases the discoverers will state names they want to propose before step 2 happens (e.g. "moscovium" was mentioned before it became official, but sometimes it was suggested for 116, other times for 115 as it finally became), but that is not official: it is step 2 that is the first thing you can correctly call a IUPAC recognition when it comes to naming.

Since the Transfermium Wars ended, the names proposed by the discoverers have never changed between steps 2 and 3.

In exactly one instance, the symbol changed: copernicium (112) was proposed by the discoverers to have the symbol Cp on 14 July 2009, and IUPAC announced the start of the name approval procedure a week later. But then it was pointed out during the comment period that the symbol "Cp" could not be reused as it had been previously used for cassiopeium (Auer von Welsbach's name for Lu). No big deal, the discoverers changed it to "Cn", and the usual procedure then went through with IUPAC (with the recommendation). Nonetheless it is highly unlikely that IUPAC would step in to change the name, even if there is a symbol problem: it was already written in 2017 based on the problem with tennessine's symbol (Ts was chosen but clashes with tosyl, but Tn clashing with thoron would be worse) The alternative, to ask the discoverers to suggest a completely new name and symbol, was considered unrealistic and undesired, and even impolite.

Mostly, it seems that sources wait before the new names are used (but this may also have to do with the time articles spend in peer review). There are a few that did use "oganesson" a bit early, for example, but it does not seem that they were a majority. I think it's mostly just one conference in mid-2016: [1], [2], [3], [4]. The names are serious, but since it was just one conference, I think it's not enough.

In summary, I think the present situation is okay, that we wait for the expiry of the public review before moving the article. Nonetheless, it seems to me that step 2 is the correct time to start putting the proposed name in a significant position in the infobox and the lede, even though the article is not moved yet. Indeed, putting it in the lede quickly was how it worked for Og back in 2016. (It also saves the potential problem of having to update the symbol, even though realistically the name should not change.)

Nonetheless, good to have it explicitly stated, I think.

As for unofficial names pre-step 2: based on discussion at Talk:Ununennium, I think a line that most would be happy with is to allow them to be mentioned in "Naming" only if they come from the actual discoverers, and to stress that they are not formally proposed yet. This is more or less what we did for 113 before its naming (though amusingly, none of those three ended up actually being the name, which is a good lesson). So, we would not include "nishinium" for 119 because RIKEN hasn't even discovered it yet; but if they do, and then say that they're thinking about that name, then I think it becomes fair game for a short "naming" section. And if they get the discovery approved by IUPAC+IUPAP after that, and IUPAC announces that name, then I think it becomes fair game for the lede and infobox. But not unless and not before those things happen.

Comments? (Given that MOS:PERIODICTABLE has a section for naming elements, I think it would be a good addition to summarise expected practice.) Double sharp (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

No comments, so I added one paragraph to MOS:PERIODICTABLE (same section as WP:ALUM, covering naming of elements). Double sharp (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Undoing spammer

Those monitoring Element pages might be alarmed by my actions removing a few thousand bytes from several pages. The work is ongoing today. The edits being removed involve primary refs to mechanistic work perhaps related to the applications of various metal oxides to catalysis. The editor is user:A153396802 (@A153396802:). Coauthors on the work being excised are Csepei, d’Alnoncourt, and some others. Usually the core application, where an authentic app exists, has a decent secondary ref often to Schlögl et al. (who also coauthors with these spammers). My view is that even a ref spammer can be helpful when we lack refs, so sometimes I leave their handiwork in place. If you are worried or totally disagree with my actions, drop me a line or leave a note on the talk pages of the affected articles.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

E.g., [5] at molybdenum. DePiep (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

ISOBOX reuse in Infobox (proposal)

Useful links:

demo: {{Infobox uranium/sandbox}}, {{Infobox californium/sandbox}} (Isobox: {{Infobox uranium isotopes}})
test: {{Infobox element isotopes/testcases}}
Task process support category: Category:Element infobox templates that need attention (0)
Note: "Isobox" = {{Infobox uranium isotopes}} (119); IB element = {{Infobox uranium}} (124)
process, tasks, cooperation: later, here.

Introduction. @ComplexRational and Double sharp: by CR suggestion above, I am preparing to re-use the Isobox in Infobox element. That is: reuse isotope list from Isobox {{Infobox uranium isotopes}} in {{Infobox uranium}}; old main isotopes list in {{Infobox uranium}} then can be removed. From then on, only the uranium Isobox should be updated, not the uranium Infobox.

Tech talk: At the moment, the technical preparations are promising. {{Infobox uranium isotopes}} (actually, its metatemplate {{Infobox element isotopes}}) now has parameter |child=yes/no. When set to yes, the Isobox is formatted to be incorporated into the main Infobox. Technically, this is a simple switchover.

Checking abandoned data: it may be useful to check the existing Infobox data (IB isotopes list) before removing (deleting) it. For this, the Infobox homepage ({{Infobox uranium}}) will list both isotope lists. This allows for checking (comparing) the two lists, one element (Infobox) at a time. It has option to add parameter |check=ok, to put the Infobox aside ('done', + using a maintenance category).

Example: see {{Infobox element isotopes/testcases}} for some background & testing (as-is-tables; Isobox demo as standalone / as child; two full Infobox demos U, Cf). Then, two element demos are {{Infobox uranium/sandbox}}, {{Infobox californium/sandbox}}. Once implemented, you will be invited to (1) check the two lists (at Infobox templatepage), (2) edit/update the Isobox if needed, and (3) signal |check=ok or comment. More instructions to follow.

For now: pls take a look (like {{Infobox uranium/sandbox}}), report questions here. Also side-issues please (how to show a ref in an Isobox?).

Later, will be annouced here, one can check each Infobox page into |check=ok. Editing wil be mainly at the Isobox, fleshing out differences. There is no need to edit the meta templates. Once done, only the element Isobox require isotope maintenence, not the IB element. -DePiep (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Pre-announcement: switchover prepared.
Temporarily taskforce ISOBOX reuse (talk:Taskforce)
See demo {{Infobox uranium/sandbox}}, having extensive on-page documentation (as will have all Infobox <element> homepages). Editors can join the process by checking differences between the two tables (before the old Infobox version is abandoned). Talkspace is at this place.
I assume this "partial page merge" is non-contorversial, also because the merge process is traceable/editable (by the compare-option for the two versions). Announcement will follow here. -DePiep (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

ISOBOX reuse in Infobox

As of 7 Jan 2023, live in {{Infobox element}}.[6]
So {{Infobox uranium}} section "Main isotopes of uranium" now reads its isotopes table live from {{Infobox uranium isotopes}}.
The main isotopes list to be maintained solely at {{Infobox <element> isotopes}}.
Parameters read: |isotopes= (i.e., the table), |footnote=, |isobox ref=. Ignored: standard atomic weight.
This Isobox has its own V-E-links in the Infobox headerbar, appearing as "Main isotopes of uranium  V · E".
Theoretical elements with an article & Infobox (E119, E120; and E121, E122, E124, E126) have different effects because not all their (linkable) isotopes pages exist. E119 and E120 can use |isotopes comment=.
Deprecated in {{Infobox <element>}}: |isotopes=, |isotopes ref=, |isotopes comment= (mostly, but kept for E119, E120)
Later: check abandoned data before deleting (taskforce "Isobox reuse").
-DePiep (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Support tool template available

  • The ISOBOX reuse support tool is now available: In Templatespace, each {{Infobox <element>}} has the header to compare and improve the Isobox. IOW: check and eventually save abandoned Infobox data. Comments & discussion here below please.
ISOBOX reuse - Helptext
ISOBOX reuse taskforce — Helptext
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements § task Finished. Successful. Closed.
-DePiep (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
What is this?
(this text box: )
Per December 2022, a WP:ELEMENTS taskforce is working to re-use isotopes data. Isotopes present in Isobox <element> are reused in Infobox <element> (read & shown, automatically and real-time).
This task is to check whether the reused data indeed has all abandoned data.
The lefthand table is the Isobox(U). This data is live, and is shown in both "Isotopes of uranium", and in Infobox (U) → "Uranium". Green tickY
The righthand (middle of page) table is the old "Main isotopes of element" data from Infobox (U), which does not show any more and will be deleted. Red XN
Todo
  • A. Please compare & check the two tables and sources. Update the lefthand Isobox as needed.
When the situation is unclear or to be researched, leave a comment in |checknote1=.
When OK, add the following to this Infobox page (edit), inside the {{infobox ..}} template code:
{{Infobox uranium
|check     = ok
|checknote1= Not sure about xyz, someone pls take a look
  • B. Old Infobox parameters |isotopes comment=, |isobox ref= to remove.
Deprecated parameters (done)
Tracked in ref & cmt category (0), as blacklisted parameters.
1. Manually copy/paste from Infobox to Isobox:
|isotopes ref=→|isobox ref=
|isotopes comment=→|isotopes comment=
2.These parameters may then be deleted from the Infobox (and so disappear from the category).
For Z>=E119, there is new parameter |theoretical isotopes comment=.
The table rows ({{isotope .. / .. decay2|mn= ..}} &tc.) now have new |ref=, one per isotope.
 Done (Cf, F, Pb). For Z>=E119, there is new parameter |theoretical isotopes comment=.
  • C. Align the named references.
TL;DR: Named references must be checked for exact spelling (c/p). Red messages in article References section.
References can be named, defined and reused over four pages: Article, Isotopes of <element>, {{Infobox <element>}}, {{Infobox <element> isotopes}}. In the wikicode, they appear as <ref name="Hofmann2016">..</ref>, and reused as <ref name="Hofmann2016" />.
Those ref name (reused) and ref content (when redefined) must be exactly the same (true copy/paste).
Misspellings appear as red error messages in the references section of the two live articles.
Resolving: these messages are to be removed by checking and copy/pasting the ref name= wikicodes.
Sometimes it is easier to remove a reference (already abandoned) from the Infobox completely, after checking it is in the Isobox allright.

Examples demo: IB(U)/s · IB(119)/s · IB(121)/s

Notes
  • |checknote1=My comments is a mini-talk, free to use and expand, to communicate about this element.
|checknote2= same.
  • |check=ok will re-sort this Infobox <element> in the task category from * (not ok) to O (ok).
Text can be different: |check=todo: foobar, will read as "not ok yet".
  • Please do not remove the isotopes data from the Infobox, and do not edit the meta-templates.
OTOH, |isotopes ref=, |isotopes comment= and abandoned references may be deleted from Infobox <element> (see B, C).
  • Other data can be edited as usual.
Standard atomic weight data is not affected (to be ignored).
  • When all Infoboxes are OK and stable, this Isobox reuse task will be ended, data removed.
@Amakuha, Burzuchius, ComplexRational, Double sharp, Nucleus hydro elemon, Plantman, TheÆtherPlayer, and Xaosflux: (ping recent isotope editors)
-DePiep (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Excellent! I'll check through some data in the next few days and update as needed. Complex/Rational 04:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
OK. Some speedy notes: (1) |ref= added per isotope (the decay 0-1–4 row templates). (2) We have time: months is OK too. (3) I plan to merge the 5 isotope row templates into a single simple reads-all-params template (demo Template:Infobox element isotopes/testcases § simple isotope row template), so waiting can make things easier :-). HTH -DePiep (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I have added the todo task "C. Align the named references" (see Helptext). To remove red errors messages in both articles' References section.
Named references (<ref name="Hofmann2016"> &ct.) appear over four pages, and must be spelled the same (true copy/paste). More often in SHE. -DePiep (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I will add the four page links in tool top, more at hand. -DePiep (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
How about something like Template:Infobox unbibium? There is no isotope infobox. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Just don't click it. Time limits here. btw, it is forbidden to create it frivoloulsy :-) DePiep (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Numerics --In a few places, I have removed the (uncertainty) in halflife. Looks too precise in this small table. See Pb. And do we keep all decimals, could be 7?. Next: H has range for abundance. NUBASE2020 has single number (IS="99.9855 78" = 8decimals 6 digits=ok). Use 5 decimals & make sure they add up to 100%? Or? -DePiep (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Done: all single-isotope articles now linked-to from Isobox (Category:Isotope content page (65)). -DePiep (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Main Isotopes table looks like a better informal name, and Infobox main isotopes <element>. Will softly phase out & abandon the shortcut "Isobox" I used to use. (There are at least five 'boxes' for isotopes, and that's just for mainspace). No editing needed. -DePiep (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

task Finished. Successful. Closed.

We can close this Task to Reuse as successful. All Infobox isotopes (119) and their Infobox element (124) have been checked for merge-and-keep-the-best, often with updates (eg just by data quality, or from NUBASE2020). Last check was cleared Feb 24. I thank (rought list) @ComplexRational, Double sharp, Nucleus hydro elemon, ComplexRational, and Burzuchius: for all contributions.

I will clean up the Task tool shortly, but we can keep the Main Isotopes table nicely in top of the Infobox page (like in {{Infobox plutonium}}). Editing can continue as usual, nothing is frozen (though MOS is developing).

Not in this task

Not all isotope-improvements are covered in this task. Open for future discussion & editing:

Peeks: One {{single template}} for all isotope forms (stable, 1-4 decays). Easy keyboard input "dm1=2b+" for "dm1=β+β+", and _link, synth, trace, stable, obs. stable (peek). dm-percentage added, extremes are simplified into showing "<0.01%". Later more.
  • Short name "Isobox" less usefull, and abandoned softly (we have four Isotope-table-templates around ;-). Subtle language, to keep in mind: distinguish between "Main" and "all" isotopes.
-DePiep (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

A Radioisotope Plotting Function: Use Case Desired, Suggestions Welcome

Hi all. I'm normally seen over on WikiProject Geology but I've been working on something isotope related, and I was curious whether you folks might find some use with it. I designed a function in MATLAB that, when given an isotope, it can generate a decay chain "plot" showing all of the decay modes of that isotope and its products, sort of like this image on Wikimedia, albeit a bit less fancy looking. I sourced most of the decay data from NUBASE 2020; decay modes are included for isotopes discovered after the 2020 evaluation if the modes are confirmed in the literature somewhere. I can also plot another data type on a third axis, like half-life, and produce a 3D plot that looks pretty neat. (I would have uploaded them to Wikimedia, but I'm not sure if uploading random images to the site would be very appreciated without consent). Could this be a useful tool for you all to have access to? If you all have any other suggestions for how I could improve it, feel free to let me know. Benniboi01 (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry folks; I did not think about the fact that this counts as an advertisement of something. If need be this section can be deleted; I should find other avenues to talk about this and get feedback that are more relevant. Benniboi01 (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
1. Fixed link this image on Wikimedia (2011 initial upload, 2015 last edit).
2. So, your uploaded examples were removed as inappropriate here. We'll have to wait. AFAIremember, the ~3D graphs, while correct by data probably, for me did not add insight for a wiki. More liek, check for/by insiders.
-DePiep (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Boilerplate old FA-review text
Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

  • 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
  • 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

  • Biology
  • Physics and astronomy
  • Warfare
  • Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

  • Literature and theatre
  • Engineering and technology
  • Religion, mysticism and mythology
  • Media
  • Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area Delisted Kept Total
Reviewed 		Ratio
Kept to
Delisted
(overall 0.62) 		Remaining to review
for
2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19
Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67
Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2
Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7
Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0
Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8
Education 22 1 23 0.05 3
Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5
Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3
Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22
Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1
Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6
History 27 14 41 0.52 38
Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3
Law 11 1 12 0.09 3
Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24
Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3
Media 14 10 24 0.71 40
Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31
Music 27 8 35 0.30 55
Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2
Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24
Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9
Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8
Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44
Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39
Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11
Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23
Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31
Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

  • A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
  • B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

  • Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
  • Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
  • Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Joan of Arc at WT:ELEMENTS? This post is ineffective, and does not invite to dissect for relevance. Does not even wikilink to the say xenon-somediscussion-page. I will fold the boilerplate. DePiep (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  1. Enzyme kinetics
  2. Francium
  3. Joseph Priestley
  4. Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide
  5. Oxidative phosphorylation
  6. Uranium
  7. Xenon

GAR Notice

Neon has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Argon has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Krypton has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Neon/1
Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Argon/1
Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Krypton/1
-DePiep (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Uranium

I have nominated Uranium for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 18:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Bismuth

Bismuth has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 141Pr 19:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Antimony

Antimony has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 141Pr 20:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

ISOTOPES: to a stable set of decay modes

For isotopes we use a set of {{decay modes}}, looking like β+ and linked like β+. I am working to define, stabilise and automate the set we use. The set needs improvement & refinements wrt the definitions. ("Where should εε link to?"). Then, it can be used for ease in the infoboxes (like {{Infobox plutonium isotopes}}).

Please take a look at this talk with {{Decay modes}}. DePiep (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Updating the Commons categorisations

DePiep, I just noticed that commons:Category:Periodic tables using the enwiki classifications still describes the old pre-2021 scheme, even though we have since switched to blocks (as just codified at MOS:PERIODICTABLE; the reasons for this change are of course there too). Should we do some updates? Double sharp (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

sure DePiep (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
A lot of old-style images are used elsewhere. Hard to keep up the documetnations (clarifications). DePiep (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Same at enwiki's Help:Periodic table classifications in the English Wikipedia. DePiep (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
@DePiep: It seems to me that Help:Periodic table classifications in the English Wikipedia covers about the same topics as the new MOS:PERIODICTABLE and could be redirected there. The exception I guess is material about the extended periodic table, which only applies to a few articles anyway. Perhaps I should've codified what to do with new element discoveries, but that isn't happening very often anymore, so anything I write based on practice up to 2016 may be a bit out of date. Double sharp (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Instead of redirecting, the HELP page could be useful for describing the MOS more informally and widely. Also by explaining the [same] backgrounds for lay-editors (could be me). I have good experiences with such an intermediate, eg {{Convert}} has /documentation, Help:Convert, Help:Convert units. And {{convert}} may be considered of same complicatedness here. OTOH, this year is booked full. DePiep (talk) 10:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
@DePiep: I made an attempt to rewrite and update Help:Periodic table classifications in the English Wikipedia. It also occurred to me when doing that that I should've codified period 1 in MOS:PERIODICTABLE as well (because I forgot about that), so I did that. Double sharp (talk) 10:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
still todo, but lower priority. -DePiep (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

This fall Group 3 discussions

For archival & search purposes, I note here:

Talk:Periodic table § Updated Periodic Table template (Archive#: tbd)
Usertalk Sandbh: here (permalink)
  • Result:
No major change in our presentation of Group 3 composition
New MOS section MOS:PERIODICTABLE in MOS:Naming conventions (chemistry)

-DePiep (talk) 09:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Width of PT templates

DePiep: I use desktop view on my mobile (it's easier to edit for me), and I've noticed that the PT templates often appear very squashed (e.g. linebreaks within symbols) in order to fit. It affects for example {{Periodic table (navbox)}}, {{Periodic table (by discovery periods)}}, {{Periodic table (simple substance bonding)}}, and probably a lot more. I think it'd be better if the cells took a readable amount of space, so that the tables would be readable with scrolling. Could you please look into it? Thanks. :) Double sharp (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Will take a look. But first I'll hae to finish other tasks here, to get my desk clean. DePiep (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I added {{nowrap}} to the table cells (really, linebreak within the symbol?!). For all three. Does it help?
For the scroll-not-break issue, I'll have to take a deeper look. DePiep (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Where of all places would they discover REEs?

@BBC: Huge rare earth metals discovery in Sweden. This made me smile. DePiep (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

^_-☆ Double sharp (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Also found this Rare Earth. Happily noting that it was not engaged in metal, nor proposing names for heavy metal elements. DePiep (talk) 08:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Tellurium

Tellurium has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. 141Pr 16:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Should we go back to coloring elements by metallicity?

We changed to coloring elements by block because there is much disagreement in sources over which elements are metals, metalloids, and nonmetals, but I feel that's throwing all the information away due to one problem; it would be more helpful to readers to see which elements are metals, metalloids and nonmetals on the periodic table. It's probably not worth losing all that information just because there might be some NPOV issues. Thank you. 123957a (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

And not only that, the old system also showed which metals are alkali metals, alkaline earth metals, lanthanides, actinides, transition metals or post-transition metals, and which nonmetals were reactive nonmetals or noble gases! 123957a (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
First of all, the old (say 2018) coloring was not the 3-way metal-metalloid-nonmetal coloring, but a circa 10-class classification. So, there is no "going back" to what not was. BTW, the 3-way classification you mention of course is available in dedicated articles like metal, nonmetal, metalloid.
The removal of colors is addressed in MOS:PERIODICTABLE, and mentions more than just a "POV". The problem is, that there is no classify alle elements exactly once scheme nearby. That is: the problem is inside the classification quest itself (it is part of whatever classes one wants to use for this purpose). There is no single classification ground that can be applied (as in, half are sorted by color, the other 67% by weight). Back in 2018 already half of the the elements were involved in "border issues", i.e., actually "class definition" issues.
Meanwhile, non-classify-alle-elements-exactly-once sets are usefully available, like post-transition metals, coinage metals, rare earth metals. DePiep (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Because:
  1. There is no agreement among sources on "which elements are metals, metalloids and nonmetals on the periodic table". Actually, there's not even a generally accepted definition of what a "metal" is.
  2. It's not at all clear how to colour elements that belong to more than one class. Double sharp (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
But it would still be better to put each element in one category than to get rid of the categorization entirely. It's more easily visible to the readers. 123957a (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
And that's precisely why not to do it: to not give the readers a wrong impression of how these categories are actually used. We didn't throw away information, we threw away a misleading simplification. And the problem about disagreement between sources actually applies to pretty much everything that you might want to call a "metalloid", almost by definition. Double sharp (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

But most periodic tables use the 10 categories I mentioned. 123957a (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a lot of controversy on the classification of group 3 and group 12 elements, in addition to the nonmetals. Some periodic tables class different elements differently. 141Pr 18:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
My argument is that that shouldn't be a reason to stop using the categories, just as how we don't name the articles Element 13, Element 16, and Element 55 instead of Aluminium, Sulfur, and Caesium just because they have multiple spellings. And besides, we decided to outright say Group 3 consists of scandium, yttrium, lutetium, and lawrencium. 123957a (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Three people have answered, you have connected to not a single answer. You just keep repeating your point from scratch without using a single word of the answers. Please come back after you have studied & digested the answers and have a related argument (as in: building a conversation). DePiep (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I did use words from the answer. Praseodymium-141 said "There is a lot of controversy on the classification of group 3 [...] elements", to which I replied "[...] we decided to outright say Group 3 consists of scandium, yttrium, lutetium, and lawrencium". 123957a (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
most periodic tables use the 10 categories I mentioned – false. Just look at the variation on whether halogens are a category or not. Or whether polonium is a metalloid or not. For the spelling of Al, S, and Cs, we have IUPAC to refer to as an arbitrator. Similarly for group 3 as Sc-Y-Lu-Lr (as in reports from 1988 and 2021 and the 1990 Red Book), or group 12 as transition metals (in the Principles of Chemical Nomenclature of 2011). There is no such IUPAC definition of what a "metal" is, nor any recognition of whole set of categories. The only scheme IUPAC mentions in the Red Book to divide up the elements, with every element belonging to one and only one subset, is by blocks.
Seriously, things are not so simple. A category scheme doesn't work very well because there is a shortage of clear breaks in periodicity (unless we talk about moving from each noble gas to the following alkali metal, or some cases of first-row anomaly). Metallicity rather just gets weaker as we go along Cu-Zn-Ga-Ge-As-Se-Br, and it is a matter of what properties you look at that will determine where you think you should stop calling them "metals". (And yes, even at bromine it's not zero.) So, of course people put the break in different locations. I realise that trying to put everything in neat little boxes is irresistible for beginners, but it simply doesn't reflect the vast tapestry of chemistry all that well. At least blocks are acknowledged by IUPAC and are inherent in the quantum mechanical model that the PT is based on. Double sharp (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
We don't always have to follow one specific ruleset, right?
Also, why did we only change the classification of elements in 2020 and not earlier? 123957a (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
There have been discussions here about how to classify specific elements since 2012, when I noticed that polonium was being called a metalloid even though its nonmetallic credentials are actually quite weak (I would go so far as to say bismuth is a weaker metal than polonium in some ways). But then the astatine problem surfaced. Some category schemes were tried to solve the problem, but ultimately after a lot of discussion some of us came to the conclusion that it's simply insoluble. The fact of the matter is that there's no standard name for "nonmetals without halogens or noble gases" or "halogens but stopping at iodine" (because the heavier halogens are really not well-described as nonmetals, from what we know), but because the category scheme mixes groups (e.g. alkaline earth metals, noble gases) and metallicity (e.g. post-transition metals vs metalloids), there is no way to get around it and not say something false or uncommon. And that's not even getting into the problem of whether or not to colour the superheavy elements. For example, by IUPAC statements Ts is a halogen and Og a noble gas by definition. Does one colour them in even though Og likely is neither noble nor a gas? And what does one do about Nh through Lv, since IUPAC has not defined what a "post-transition metal" is?
IUPAC is the relevant standards organisation for chemistry, so their statements carry a significant amount of weight. Double sharp (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Then we could try to find a way to assign an element to more than one category. 123957a (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
In which case colouring becomes difficult, and it becomes difficult to justify why halogens are a category but chalcogens aren't, for example. And it still doesn't solve the problem that different authors don't agree about the categories' boundaries: it's not just a matter of overlapping. Not to mention that there is not even agreement on what to call the category of metals between the transition metals and metalloids. (If you call it "post-transition metal", you raise questions about aluminium.) Double sharp (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Maybe there could be a disclaimer that the categories are not rigid boxes. 123957a (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
If one is going to have such a disclaimer, then why use them for colour, which is the most salient thing people will notice about our periodic tables? I think that if you're going to use something for a colour scheme, rather than just describe it in text, it should be so clear-cut that it doesn't need a footnote. Double sharp (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @ComplexRational, because I want more people's input on this. 123957a (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I strongly advise CR to be catreful before engaging here. No doubt you could add a new interesting angle, and also no doubt it will disappear in space. DePiep (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
@123957a: This is a perennial topic here at WT:ELEMENTS. A block-based color scheme is implemented because it derives from fundamental properties at the atomic level for which no (substantial) disagreement exists: whether an element is classified as a metal or metalloid, metalloid or nonmetal, halogen or "other nonmetal", nobody disagrees on which elements belong to which block, and some could even arguably belong to multiple categories (e.g., astatine has properties of both metalloids and halogens – do we blend or superimpose colors?). Additionally, there isn't consistency in the literature with other color schemes: for instance, the group 17 elements can either be separately colored as halogens or (at least F, Cl, Br, and I) be combined with other nonmetals, and often elements whose properties have not been investigated (in this example, element 117) are still colored. Accordingly, coloring by block best satisfies WP:NPOV, and doesn't require explanatory footnotes at every occurrence.
Other color schemes could be construed as being biased, as a significant enough disagreement regarding classification exists to justify further explanation, and it may not be possible with space limitations or to explain nuances in every article where a periodic table appears. Given how many alternatives exist, a periodic table would be essentially unreadable with so many footnotes, and the micro periodic table used in {{infobox element}} certainly could not address this possible bias. Those details are better left to article prose.
I agree with the points raised by Double sharp, DePiep, and Praseodymium-141. There are also plenty of details in the archives for this page leading up to the 2020 decision. Complex/Rational 22:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Another question: why did we only change the classification of elements in 2020 and not earlier? 123957a (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

This question has already been answered above. Complex/Rational 22:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, while I thank you for the notification, I advise you not to ping individual editors in hopes of finding one who will reaffirm your argument, as it can reasonably be construed as canvassing. Interested project members have this page watchlisted, and were any proposal here to gain traction (which I doubt this will, seeing as myself and three other editors have expressed disagreement along similar lines), the next step to gain outside input would be a request for comment. Complex/Rational 23:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Don't worry, I wasn't trying to canvas. 123957a (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I think I explained the situation well enough in mainspace at Metal#Periodic table distribution and Periodic table#Metallicity. Here the colouring is okay, because it's stated that this is specifically about one criterion: bonding in the most stable allotrope. Double sharp (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

By single criterion: excellent. That's what the orthographer philosopher likes. Even fuzzy borders (border elements) can be accomodated.
I've always wondered what the reason was lanthanides and actinides were separated. Only explanation: historical, discovery, uncommonness, probably would have been considered REE's anyway: carelessness. Remember that old PT's had those two class names, and only those two, always present? Glad we removed them. DePiep (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Brauner already wrote "Ce etc." in the cell even before the first 18-column table of Pfeiffer. I suspect it came from people just not understanding how the rare earths fit into the structure, because the valency pattern doesn't work there. A similar problem happened with the old "group VIII" with Fe, Co, and Ni all together. I also think there is indeed a tendency to sideline the f-block elements.
I think that your best bet for fixing the problem with a time-machine would be to somehow get quantum mechanics discovered as pure mathematics before periodicity, just like Riemannian geometry was discovered before general relativity. If I read Scott Aaronson correctly, this may not have been impossible. In that case people would understand that it's about electron filling, that there's not a difference between the f-elements and the others, and we wouldn't have the group 3 problem (which in a way is the last gasp of this historical lack of understanding of what the rare earths actually are). I guess in this timeline Mendeleev invents the Janet table! :) Double sharp (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

MOS for naming isotopes

It occurred to me that this is an omission in the current MOS, so since we're working out what an "main" isotope is, I thought we should explain how to name isotopes on WP. So, I have added it to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry)#Isotopes.

@ComplexRational: Your comments particularly welcome, as I'm uncertain about whether we should allow "radon" to be used for the isotope as well as the element when it is being contrasted with thoron and/or actinon. I eventually wrote that it was permissible, because even today papers do it, but I wonder if we should disallow it as potentially confusing. Ionium is borderline gone these days, but we still have an article on ionium-thorium dating: I can still find thoron, actinon, and radiocarbon in the literature from 2019 onwards, though. Like I said, maybe I've been a bit too permissive, so I'm interested in your view. Double sharp (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Good, contributing now while it's fluid.
Technically, I claim the internal notation to be acceptable: Te-123m2. That is, as input & identifier for templates, infoboxes etc. Internatinal(!), simple, non-confusing, and automatable. DePiep (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't have a problem with using it as an input and identifier. I just think that it should not be displayed to the reader, because it is not really used in that way in the literature. Double sharp (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • About old isotope names.
Regarding old isotope names, I believe there's too much potential for confusion and would not encourage using them outside of self-references in historical context. I believe most contemporary sources just use ordinary isotope notation; in addition to radon, there's also radium (once exclusively 226Ra), thorium (once exclusively 232Th), and radium C, C', C'', along with other possible sources of confusion. Complex/Rational 18:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Good enough for me. Disallowed all but the hydrogen isotopes, then. (Left a note about thoron, because it's still used in the contemporary literature, but disallowed it as creating the radon element-isotope confusion.) Double sharp (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
That's, "only mention in historical reference" then (H exceptions). Includes mentioning in BigTable Isotopes of radon § List of isotopes for completeness, I assume. Require to add "historical" in appropriate places, to prevent reintroduction &tc? DePiep (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • About excited isomers NUBASE2020:

EXPLANATION OF TABLE I Nuclide name: mass number A = N + Z and element symbol. The superscript suffixes ‘m’, ‘n’, ‘p’, ‘q’, ‘r’ and ‘x’ indicate assignments to excited isomeric states with a half-life greater than 100 ns. Suffixes ‘p’ and ‘q’ can also indicate non-isomeric levels, which are used in AME2020. Suffix ‘r’ can also indicate a state from a proton resonance occurring in (p,γ) reactions (e.g. 28Sir). Suffix ‘x’ can also indicate a mixture of levels with a relative ratio, R, given in the ‘Half-life’ column. They occur in spallation reactions or fission and are labeled as ‘spmix’ or ‘fsmix’ in the ‘Jπ’ column, respectively. Suffixes ‘i’ and ‘j’ indicate Isobaric Analog States.
— NUBASE2020[1] p.17

Noting: Superscripts are in italics, greek letters too. Isomer letter like ⟨ r ⟩ is suffixed (not prefixed with mass number). Superscript letter ⟨ o ⟩ is skipped (not used).
See also "Isomer assignment" in that Explanation (p.18): ⟨*⟩ (no info to determine "which one is determine ground state and which one is excited isomer", uncertainty ΔE, eg 102Y, 102mY), ⟨&⟩ (ordering isomers is changed wrt ENSDF eg 100Y, 100mY).
-DePiep (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
NUBASE2020 (p.17) uses "‘m’, ‘n’, ‘p’, ‘q’, ‘r’ and ‘x’", in italics, and postfixed: 16Op. Also says: "Suffixes ‘p’ and ‘q’ can also indicate non-isomeric levels, .. AME ...", etc etc. While our notation 99m2Tc (I perefer) has the number issue. SI says: do not italicise sup/sup latin letters, numbers. DePiep (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
@ComplexRational: Could we have your opinion? :) Double sharp (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
For isomers, I'm unsure if there's a clear answer. I searched a couple of examples where such a distinction would be important (178Hf, 192mIr isomers), and it appears that numbers are used more frequently than letters after m. In addition to what is mentioned above about p and q, NUBASE also labels resonances, "normal" isomers, and fission isomers differently, whereas these are fundamentally the same phenomenon – nuclei in an excited state that survive longer than the average de-excitation time, so I'm not as keen on following something that's not entirely self-consistent or reflected as widely in other RS. Complex/Rational 18:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
That's 178m1Hf, 178m2Hf, 178m3Hf (Hf § List of isotopes). In NUBASE2020: 178Hfm, 178Hfn, 178Hfp. DePiep (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
The isomer rules then be (phrasing tb refined):
Rule 1: "Isomer isotopes are identified as 178m1Hf, 178m2Hf, 178m3Hf, or equivalent "hafnium-178m2". m-numbering must correspond with letters found elsewhere: 178Hfm, 178Hfn, 178Hfp (letter ⟨o⟩ is skipped). Superscripts are upright (roman, non-italic). Letter-notation is only used when this notation is the topic.
Rule 2: "If only "m1Xx" exists, and no other isomers ("m2Xx") the number ⟨1⟩ may be omitted: 26mP.
Rule 3: "Except for rule 2, an m-number must be used always for unambivalent identification."
Other isomer identification & description: to be decided. I note that whatever scheme we perescribe here it may never conflict or confuse above m-rules (m-rule clarity prevails). (todo: digest CR's note above wrt this).
Note: m-notation is already practice in enwiki, albeit not this strict. -DePiep (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • About shortening names.
See the lede (1st sentence) of Isotopes of neodymium. A horror to the eye, and not inviting to read/decypher. For this, I'd like to use in-sentence the next construction, for legibility:
"Naturally occurring neodymium (60Nd) is composed of 5 stable isotopes, 142Nd, 143Nd, 145Nd, 146Nd and 148Nd, with 142Nd being the most abundant (27.2% natural abundance), and 2 long-lived radioisotopes, 144Nd and 150Nd."
into
"Naturally occurring neodymium (60Nd) is composed of 5 stable isotopes, neodynium-142, -143, -145, -146, -148, and 2 long-lived radioisotopes, neodynium-144 and -150." [elsewhere: ... "with 142Nd being the most abundant (27.2% natural abundance)"].
I dislike hyphens being used before bare numbers because they look like badly done negative signs. It probably falls afoul of some rule, but I'd rather see "neodymium-142, 143, 145, 146, 148, and 2 long-lived radioisotopes, 144 and 150". Double sharp (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
In general, I prefer to spell out the name at the first occurrence (neodymium-142) and use the symbol (142Nd) thereafter, except at the beginning of sentences in accordance with MOS:NUM. If there are too many isotopes to comfortably spell out all of them, I would recommend something like Neodymium has five stable isotopes, with mass numbers 142, 143, 145, 146, and 148, and two primordial radioisotopes, with mass numbers 144 and 150 if symbols are not inviting to read. Complex/Rational 18:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Solved then (& drop the hyphen as I used it). IMO a MOS does not need too many language constructs prescribing, just allowed/forbidden notations. DePiep (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ 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.

What is a "Main isotope"?

The question is asked at Template talk:Infobox element § Main isotopes. Please join there (and follow that talkpage). -DePiep (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Into MOS criteria

The talk has delivered some fruitful results. From here, we'll develop these five into good MOS criteria. Proposal, kickoff:

MOS:MAINISOTOPE

Isotopes that are considered a Main Isotope of an element, for example to be included in listing "Main isotopes of <element>" (Main isotopes of lead), that fulfil at least one of these:

  1. Primordial nuclide (stable or nearly stable)
  2. Cosmogenic (these are generally fairly long-lived, and also include disputed primordial isotopes such as 244Pu)
  3. Has medical uses
  4. Common nuclear fuel sources and medium/long-lived fission products
  5. Confirmed to be an extinct ... of geologic interest [?]
pinging @ComplexRational, DePiep, Double sharp, Nucleus hydro elemon, and TheÆtherPlayer: participants.
-DePiep (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Developing MOS text

This text reflects latest proposals. Following discussion below. It is volatile and editable by intention.

MOS:MAINISOTOPE

[will be renumbered in this order before going MOS]

Isotopes that are considered a Main Isotope of an element, for example to be included in listing "Main isotopes of <element>" (Main isotopes of lead), that fulfil at least one of these:

1. Primordial nuclide (stable or nearly stable)
2. Cosmogenic (these are generally fairly long-lived, and also include disputed primordial isotopes such as 244Pu)
3. Has medical uses
3.5 Has industrial uses
4. Common nuclear fuel sources and [their] medium/long-lived fission products
5. Confirmed to be an extinct ... of geologic interest [?]
6. [DS] Most stable isotope(s) of non-primordial elements
7. [DS] Most commonly produced isotope(s) of synthetic elements
99. [DP] Isotope of exceptional interest (WP:IAR by discussion)

Discussion

  • Propose to add: "DP 6 Isotopes of rare cause interest (WP:IAR, discussed)", catch-all. -DePiep (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Propose to add: "DP 7 First observed isotope(s) of a new element". Though we don't do theoretical isotopes here then. -DePiep (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
    • I like the idea behind 7 but would like to refine it. In many cases, the first observed isotope stopped being the usual isotope to produce for investigations some time ago. For example, Cn chemistry experiments today are done using 283Cn mostly, not 277Cn. I would say that for synthetic elements, it should be the most often produced isotopes plus the longest-lived (which becomes relevant here because those determine the mass number one writes on the PT). Longest-lived can include more than one when we have overlapping error bounds, as is the case for hassium. And of course, don't include theoretical isotopes. :) Double sharp (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
      Fine with me. Plural can be kept here, I guess. And of course, for a while the 1st created one will be that "most created" one ;-) In the early years listing all=one or two seems fine.
      btw, theoretical ones of major interest can qualify by #7, IAR & convince. Add a note-option to the table? Or easify footnoting?
      Pls do phrase it. DePiep (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
      I propose "DS 7 Most stable isotope(s) of non-primordial elements" plus "DS 8 Most commonly produced isotope(s) of synthetic elements".
      I still would not support including theoretical isotopes, because we don't know how long they are actually going to live, and their usefulness varies tremendously based on that. 276Ds was once suggested as a good isotope to investigate Ds chemistry, but last year it was finally made, and it turned out to be short-lived. Double sharp (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
      Added both to the developing list. "Most" need not to be quantified? Copernicium#Isotopes now lists 8 in-article. DePiep (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
      re Theoreticals: No need to mention them indeed, could be added through "99 IAR" (discussion) anyway.
      Listing an isotope temporarily (years?) is no problem IMO. For example, "longest h-l" may change and so be removed. DePiep (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
      For copernicium, those 8 are the only 8 known (the last two are even unconfirmed). This is a detailed section about the isotopes, so I think it's a different case from the main infobox. In any case, for the heaviest elements when there are few known isotopes, we may well end up showing them all (e.g. only five known isotopes of Mc). Double sharp (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Question about #1 "primordial", a DAB: do we use Primordial nuclide, Primordial element, other? And, does it say Observationally stable or other? -DePiep (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Use primordial nuclide; no opinion about observational stability. (ComplexRational?) Double sharp (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
      Point #1 would encompass all stable nuclides and primordial radionuclides. "Observationally stable" need not be mentioned in the isobox; the article text can explain that.
      Also, +1 to #6 and #7. For Np–Fm, this would include all reasonably long-lived isotopes produced in macroscopic quantities by neutron capture, plus a few other longest-lived isotopes which are not. In a case like Cn, I don't think mentioning all (eight) reported isotopes is necessary – I'd be satisfied with the three currently shown. I also am strongly against including undiscovered isotopes, because of considerable variation in predictions (no reason to cherry-pick or favor a single source; even for island of stability, the focus is on consistent predictions among different models plus a few specific examples), and the many times predictions were too optimistic by several orders of magnitude (e.g., 277Mt once had a predicted half-life of five minutes, compared to the experimentally observed five milliseconds). Complex/Rational 14:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  • FYI: I crosschecked used in medicine with Main isotopes lists. Source list: as found in {{Diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals}}, {{Therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals}}, no further backchecks done there; they total 20+11=31 (29 unique) isotopes.
Of these, catched Re-186, Dy-165, Tl-201, Kr-81m, O-15 missing in their Main list. Added, with (|main=medicine (V09, V10); some data missing. -DePiep (talk) 10:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  • There are also some lists of commonly-used or important radioisotopes such as [7] that might serve as useful reference points. Of course, discretion is still necessary, but if there's information pertaining to safety or cost (for instance), there's a higher chance that one of the above criteria are satisfied. Complex/Rational 02:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    I also started compiling a list of main isotopes per this discussion at User:ComplexRational/sandbox, which I should be able to finish tomorrow. It's intended to be an outline (so minimal effort formatting); feedback is of course welcome before we change which isotopes are listed in the isoboxes. Complex/Rational 03:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    Nice. I do propose to add |main=reason extensively, mopre so when obscure (not needed for stable isotopes obviously). Back to our forefathers' hunter-gathering then, for isotope applications. Also, we have time before mass deleting. DePiep (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    Also, the |main= may later / elsewhere be used for readers (long time desire: add those to Big Table, Infobox isotope, ..). So a good place to document & communicate. DePiep (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    You mean like, 'If costs or safety of an isotope is reseached/published, likely somewhere else an application will be published'? DePiep (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, that's what I was thinking. This goes for useful isotopes and more commonly encountered hazardous isotopes (e.g., 90Sr, 137Cs, 222Rn). I almost feel these guidelines are a lower bar for an isotopes SNG (were one to exist), in the sense that "main isotopes" of most elements draw significant interest outside pure nuclear physics research, and usually there's enough to sustain a standalone article when an isotope meets several of these criteria. Complex/Rational 15:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    Here's another very detailed list, from IUPAC: [8] Complex/Rational 16:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @DePiep and Double sharp: While compiling a list of main isotopes, I've encountered a few isotopes that have "industrial" applications outside of medicine/radiotracing, such as 110mAg and 241Am. Merge into DS7 (commonly produced synthetic isotopes [not among the other categories]) or new criterion? Complex/Rational 02:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
    Nice catch! From DS at 07:26, I understood that those "longest living produced" are nicely in the research area—and better keep that one single-base. My pref: simply & clearly add new "[3.5] has industrial uses" + renumber. Less ideal: add as "[3] has medical or industrial uses". DePiep (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
    Agree with DePiep. Double sharp (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I note: As it stands, half-life by itself is not a criteria, nor is half-life by its relative position (in order of all instable element isotopes). With an 'interesting' half-life, there is always a consequential reason (required) to include (like, cosmogenetic relevance). Fine with me, looks like good set. -DePiep (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
    Oops, I forgot "#6 Most stable isotope(s) of non-primordial". Double sharp, is there some number limit for "most"? Kickoff: max 3 under this criterium; i.e. not 3 extra. DePiep (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
    I'd say 2 or 3 at most. The longest half-life is usually interesting just because it's normal to mark the most stable isotope in lieu of the atomic weight for non-primordials. But often multiple isotopes are close enough that the longest half-life could conceivably change (e.g. we don't really know the half-life of 248Bk well, but it's long), so it's worth expanding to 2 or just maybe 3. Double sharp (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (continued)

"CR-list" of Main Isotopes: User:ComplexRational/Isotopes. -DePiep (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
How to proceed? We best stabilise the rule set (fix numbers). For data integrity reasons, I'd very much prefer "medicine" and "industrial" to be split from the start.
It is OK to have multiple criteria (like "Tc-99m fits #2, #3, #5"); merge those when needed is easy.
-DePiep (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Pls consider coding or lettering the criteria list: ""A, B C"or "C1, C2, C3". Will be easier to grasp.
Once the CR list is stable, I'll automate the list (like Tc-99m=C2, C4) & errorlist rejected isotopes in {{Infobox <element> isotopes}} for cleanup (remoaval). HTH. Multi-criteria fitting van be added any time. Footnotes maitained. Do we need more support hooks? -DePiep (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Per this thread, I would agree that beryllium-8 warrants an exception, so I added it.
Separating medical and industrial applications seems reasonable; we could also merge industrial into #5 and rephrase it to "industrial/geological/astrophysical interest", which includes all extinct radioisotopes – as they are inherently interesting to geologists – and catches a few IAR cases for astrophysics.
How do you propose coding/lettering/automating? I also assume that this involves moving the list to its own page? Complex/Rational 22:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I suggest "M1, M2, M3, ..." (best so far): no confusion, easy for the eye. When published, their reason will can be shown (no bare code).
List to be maintained in a data set similar to {{Infobox element/symbol-to ...}}. Allowing {{efn}} footnote per isotope. Full overview in its /doc. Editable.
I also see useful need for a second list, "doubt" (like the ones now <!-- commented out -->) for development & discussion; also keep that info (rejections).
I'd say just keep developing your sandbox list, once I have time you'll know. Start multi-column if you like, not required. Pls split med/industr/3rd(?) at least initially, (or by some minor wikicode?); IMO easier now.
STATS: The CR List as of now: 651 isotopes (unique I assume); including 24 m-isotopes (all m0), 59 {{efn}} notes. DePiep (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Use of splitting: Here's why I think splitting "medical" and "industrial" is useful: because it is more informative for the Reader when used in articles (Infoboxes (3), Big Isotopetable, in-article overview SHEs). Therefor, also split nuclear energy vs. nuclear arms?
Idea: Internal code list (CR List) does not have to copy our projected MOS list numbering. So, more detailed split only needed & usdeful in the automated list. (Even: keep #3 as Med and Industrial", later add numbers #7 #8 for split w/o breaking existing #3).
As said, automated list will ~look like Tc-99m=M2, M4, {{efn|Foo bar}}, so easy to edit, accepts multiples. Great List to work with, CR! DePiep (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@ComplexRational: re your question "How automated?" (My latest thoughts, evolved thinking:)
The sandbox CR List page won't change for automation. (We will use a copy/paste to new page + add templatecode). So you can keep developing as you think best.
In the CR List, no need split (no column split) nor repeat massnumber in multiple columns. A stable & complete yes/no list is most important now. Splits can be done later.
For future use and Talkpage reference, doubts in there will be listed too as doubts (different list of rejected iso's + their possible talks: building background documentation). So those comments in that list will be used.
BTW, when you research an "m"-isotope, could you check if it is the "m1"-isotope? (write "m1" in list = good). DePiep (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Sure, I can check over the isomers, and later work on reorganizing with slightly modified criteria. I already included an endnote for cases where it's not -m1. Complex/Rational 19:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
TL;DR: for me, no need to change columns/classification now. When automated refinements easily possible (Feb?). I can & will handle all comments & notes in your CR List. Unambiguous m-number-identification requested (bare "m" only acceptable when no "m2" exists for that element). HTH DePiep (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
It's normal in the literature to omit the number when it is 1. But it's always included AFAIK when it is not 1. Double sharp (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
That would leave ambiguity. For identification reasons, we must apply as mentioned. DePiep (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
OK I have to correct myself: m2 for 178m2Hf is also sometimes omitted. But omitting the 1 for 180m1Ta is so common in the literature that I think it should be allowed: it doesn't make sense if the common usage is forbidden. Double sharp (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Only if 180m2Ta does not exist. No ambiguity nor doubt. Literature should take care of itself. -DePiep (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
@Double sharp: your approach is getting problematic. There is no gain in arguing "I have seen ...", or "In microsituation A with B while C doing X is OK". You are invited to go along with: 'first and foremost no ambiguity or doubr can be allowed'. -DePiep (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with -m instead of -m1 when it's the commonly used name in the literature and thus the most recognizable. If each isomer had its own article, WP:COMMONNAME would, as I understand it, favor tantalum-180m as opposed to tantalum-180m1 (for example) and clarify this ambiguity later in the article. In fact, in this specific case, I can't find anything in the literature outside of nuclear data compilations that use the -m1 notation. For a case such as iridium-192, where the "main" isomer is -m2, a distinction is definitely warranted (e.g., as described in [9]), but these are the exceptions among the isomers in the list I compiled.
Moreover, all the isomers in the list are the only isomers of each nuclide that would qualify as main; there's plenty of context with a statement such as "long-lived isomer" to know which is being discussed. Complex/Rational 15:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Again, you are starting about exceptions to a rule without establishing that rule first. So: what is the simple rule you recognise? DePiep (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Such a rule would be this, as substantiated by terminology/notation in RS: If an isomer is by far the longest-lived of several isomers of the same nuclide, and is the lowest-energy isomer, the notation -m (as opposed to -m1) is sufficient for its unambiguous identification, as reflected in the scientific literature. Complex/Rational 17:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
(1) NUBASE2020 does not state or claim that its first, plain ⟨m⟩ suffixed isotope is the longest living. Not identifying then. (2) Still written as some secondary rule, ie an exception/refinement of some primary rule omitted here. -DePiep (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
It's already clear that ⟨m⟩ in NUBASE refers to the lowest-energy isomer. I wrote and is the lowest-energy isomer in light of this. Most often in the literature, ⟨m⟩ in the literature refers to the main isomer, which happens to usually be both the longest-lived and lowest-energy excited state. I'm unsure which primary rule you're alluding to.
As a very crude and anecdotal measure (this should not alone govern anything), there are about 20 times as many hits on Google (Wikipedia and mirrors excluded) for ⟨m⟩ vs. ⟨m1⟩ for some examples cited by myself and Double sharp. Complex/Rational 18:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
(3) longer term: when a certain notation is used in source, isolated from that source the identification must be unambiguous. For example, context in the source can specify a notation, but that is lost when quoted incomplete (and verbose completion of the ID, eg by includiung that context, is insufficient either). -DePiep (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
It's already clear that .. is your injection—at best. So now you're not even relying on exterior context (bad enough), you are even synthesising. You are still mudding in the secondary (tertiary, ..) level of rules. You have not stated (admitted to) the primary rule you are referring to. Is not working towards identification, writing MOS.
One more time: what is the full set of rules you propose as MOS? DePiep (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
When composing the Rules, I can note that some checks are to be done.
(4) I doubt whether half-life is primarily defining m-isotopes at all. Or distinguishing. AFAIK, excitation energy is.
(5) In identification, mixing up ID-schemes is intolerable and bad data handling (and amateuristic). So it's either ⟨m1, m2, m3, m4⟩ or NUBASE2020 ⟨m, n, p, q⟩.
(6) When invoking common name, as you did above, one must keep in mind that this is aimed at article titles. Then again, when a common name is established, disambiguation may be required. Common name choice may not be used to DAB. So we might end up with "123m(the isotope with excitation energy 7×106 eV)Xx" naming.
But first and foremost: the full rule set. @Double sharp and ComplexRational:. -DePiep (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
My proposal is (1) always use "m1, m2, m3, ..." naming, except that (2) when the "m1" is by far the longest-lived isomer (e.g. 180m1Ta) it can be shortened to "m" (so, 180mTa is OK). No ambiguity is created with the NUBASE naming, because their "m" is always the "m1". In other words, what CR wrote as a refinement to the "m1, m2, ..." scheme. Double sharp (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. One refinement required, to wipe out circumstantial sourcing/naming (i.e., identifiers be autonomous):
(2new) ⟨m1⟩ can be written as ⟨m⟩ (a) when and only when it defines the same element isotope as ⟨m⟩ in NUBASE2020, and (b) when no confusion can occur (for example, when multiple m-isotopes are discussed in article, e.g. first-mentioning-clarification be applied).
IOW: ⟨m⟩ can and may only be used when it is the NUBASE2020 ⟨m⟩ isotope. Non-⟨m1⟩ isotopes (ie, non NUBASE-⟨m⟩ isotopes) never may be named bare ⟨m⟩.
Referring to any WP:COMMONNAME base by itself is useless (defeating the MOS point), as that my introduce disambiguation issues or requirements. DePiep (talk) 07:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
I add: When accepted this strict, we can step ahead:
"(2c) ⟨m1⟩ is always equivalent to ⟨m⟩, so ⟨m1⟩ is not used at enwiki (except in quoting sources & clarifying)". A series then will appear as 123mXx, 123m2Xx, 132m3Xx, never 123m1Xx.
But: only when MOSsified strict, including full mutual NB2020-m-correspondence. -DePiep (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Problem + solution: new isotopes. When after NUBASE2020 a new isotope is discovered or theorised, it has no NUBASE ⟨m, n, p, q⟩ identifier, and by definition thus no corresponding enwiki ⟨m/m1, m2, m3, m4⟩. In this situation, the ordering shall not be reordered by inserting the new isotope by its properties. Instead, it shall be given the first free (unused) identifier, ie added to the end of the elements m-list. This way, enwiki & NUBASE identifying is unbroken. Will require updateing with new NUBASE2024(?). -DePiep (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Just noting here, MOS refinement: we name m-isotopes as described, but also passively mention alternative names. For example, in content article technetium-99m, the infobox could/should mention fair synonyms like "aka 99m1Tc"; and elsewhere the NB2020 synonym form "aka 101Xxn". All dismambiguous. (Also ask Ds if we should do so with regular isotopes "Xx-101" synonyms. More time in Feb). -DePiep (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Leaving this here to process later.
Seen notation "258–260Fm" for plural. "13C" is used in RL (NUBASE2020); Saw 299128 for theoreticals (RL, passively). Is 299E128 used? When OK: mention passively (eg as -legal- "synonym: .." in Infoboxes), todo more specific for notrations we use in body text. DePiep (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Leaving this here to process later: Category:Radionuclides used in radiometric dating (16) DePiep (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Leaving this here for completeness Category:Medical isotopes (34). Compiled manually from ATC V09 V10 navboxes some weeks ago. (Already crosschecked with CR's Main list; but at last there is the category for systematic checks). -DePiep (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Found & added to this category, per articles: Actinium-225#Applications, bismuth-213. -DePiep (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Should the state-of-matter indicators on the periodic table be restored?

I noticed DePiep removed the state-of-matter colour indicators on the periodic table due to poor contrast with the background colours (see here). But what if the colours were changed? Then maybe they can be restored. 123957a (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on this one. On the one hand, adding states of matter conflates elements as classes of atoms defined by atomic number with the simple substances they form. Strictly speaking the periodic table classifies the former (otherwise it is hard to explain how group 15 is not broken apart), in which case "state of matter" is meaningless: it only makes sense for the latter. On the other hand, in the English-speaking world, this is a pretty normal conflation. Double sharp (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
This is an important distinction (and one very hard to get correct): the difference between an atom of gold, and the substance gold (or, just H vs. H2). Over at Wikidata, where such identifications matter fundamentaly (because: structured data), there this same discussion is going on long term. DePiep (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
To test one interest: Wikidata discussions go like this. (Side research is in this table, with a c/p copy at enwiki {{here}}). DePiep (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
On a dedicated article mabe, not in our general presentation (for example, what does it say? How are the two 'random' liquids explained wrt the PT?). Also, for WP:ACCESS better use symbol not 2nd colors, or maybe even forbidden. DePiep (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
But exactly what do you want, 123957a? More colors whatever whyever? Why do you ask this? DePiep (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Another point is that the precise choice of standard temperature and pressure to define state-of-matter colouring is a bit arbitrary. Sigma-Aldrich sells periodic table posters that evidently pick a rather hot one, because they colour Ga, Cs, and Fr as three more liquids. This should be taken into account in addition to what I said above: that this is not really what the classification provided by the PT is about. Double sharp (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
All this said, there is a viable issue with the PT. Even more illustrative than just SoM. Like, periodicity in melting point: enjoy and wonder.
Of course, this would fit in a dedicated article. Then, only one quantity (=m.p.) showing could & would satisfy WP:ACCESSABILITY with good reason. Simple: it shows the information, and in a correct way. DePiep (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps we should graph it at Melting points of the elements (data page), then. Double sharp (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Should the articles for groups and periods of elements (e.g., Group 3 element, Period 7 element) be moved to their plurals (e.g., Group 3 elements, Period 7 elements)?

These articles are about the collective sets of elements rather than a specific element within the set (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals)), so it might be more appropriate to name them with plurals than with singulars. It can also be used as a form of natural disambiguation to avoid naming them Group 3 (periodic table), Period 7 (periodic table), etc. See s-block, p-block, d-block and f-block for examples of article sections named after collective nouns. 123957a (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

No, the name should be without "element(s)". The group is the object. We do not name FC Barcelona "The Barcelona players". DePiep (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
So, "group 3" then. See also here (2013). DePiep (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

New paper on the arXiv predicting period 8 electron configurations

Here.

@ComplexRational and Droog Andrey: This would probably interest both of you. :D Double sharp (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. I'll take a look :) Droog Andrey (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Too soon. It's not peer-reviewed yet. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, and I did not propose it to be put in mainspace just yet. I just noted that it was interesting (and I did that so I wouldn't forget about it by the time it got through peer review). Double sharp (talk) 09:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

A formal proposal to exclude rare decay modes from isoboxes

Carrying on a discussion from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#Decay_mode_definitions, I would like to propose the following criterion for including decay modes in the isoboxes (the ones where only main isotopes are listed):

  • Decay modes with branching ratio less than 0.01% should not be shown. A standard note should be added to the bottom of the isoboxes that specifically says so.

The reasoning behind this proposal is that a decay mode that happens less often than in one in ten thousand decays is clearly not "main" in any reasonable sense, and so excluding such modes is consistent with the idea of including only the main isotopes.

Of course, this is not meant to apply to the main "isotopes of X" pages, where just as all isotopes are shown, so should all decay modes (no matter how rare). This is about the isoboxes.

@DePiep, ComplexRational, and TornadoLGS: Double sharp (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Which isotopes are "Main" is being specified at § What is a "Main isotope"?; currenly some 663 isotopes qualify (out of some 5541 isotopes identified). This filter is to be implemented on these Main Isotopes tables (add/remove a single isotope row).
-DePiep (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose
"Main" does not apply to decay mode, and by good reason. There is no intention to state that decay modes are "not main". The decaying isotope itself has the selection for being Main (all right), that does not extend to its decay modes. Criteria for being "Main" do not and cannot be applied to decay modes.
Also, percentage is not decisive by itself (it's a dumb criteria). It does not take in count that there may be other reasons for relevance. Completeness for starters. What if the decay is relevant? Say, as part of the isotope being Main?
Heavy cluster decays (CD, "24Ne" in NUBASE) only occur in low percentages; they would all be removed. How or why is such a decay mode not-ever-relevant? We'll end up having no CD modes mentioned at all (there are few dozen in total, of which circa a dozen in Main Isotopes).
Footnote requirement says: no gain. Requiring a footnote to be added (as proposed) is an indicator that something relevant is going on. But what does this solve? Noting "exception hidden here" instead of the point itself, so why the complication? How is the Reader helped by this? I can't see an advantage in "information design", quite the opposite. A list with simply "more of the same" would do, instead of adding sideway footnotes.
Low curation quality level. Independently, there is the info quality. Already current curation of the 5000 isotopes to cover is worrysome outdated or updated at great manual labour costs. That is, over all properties including half-lives, not just 10.000 decay mode data (three or more data points per mode).
Tough illustration: Current taksforce § ISOBOX_reuse_in_Infobox (Pu example). That task is: reuse the Main Isotopes information (=isotopes table) in Main Isobox and in Infobox Element. That's a simple(!) comparing check between two existing Main Isotopes tables, to get them the same or updated. 118 elements, 660 isotopes. Even this simple-&-once task is taking many weeks & many edits to complete, all manual. This is without the <element> § List of isotopes updating (all 5000 isotopes): no guarantee for data quality, on which this proposal depends btw. In there, not even the 660 Main Isotopes are updated wrt this decay info. And will not be done in foreseeable future. (Another curation hell here).
So, this extra curation requirement won't happen. Only viable route could be if and when this data is applied (curated) automatically & continuously. Note: I repeat "independent reason", that is: both arguments do not cancel each other out when one would be solved.
I assume this proposal is not born from visual thoughts ("table doesn't look nice"), though some indications I mentioned here might suggest so. Anyway, that would not be a good approach to How To Convey Information. -DePiep (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
But look at {{Infobox curium}}: the cluster decay is presented alongside the alpha with no clue as to just how much rarer it is. Such exclusions are, as CR already mentioned, also completely normal in illustrations because decay modes below a certain percentage simply are not visible.
Then, as an alternative, could we at least add decay mode percentages to the isoboxes? Double sharp (talk) 08:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
@ComplexRational: In {{Infobox plutonium}} 244Pu is given a double-beta branch. Has anyone ever actually experimentally verified this? Double sharp (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I did a bit of research and couldn't find any conclusive reports for ββ of 244Pu – only lower limits on the partial half-life. Looks like more corrections are in order. :D
Regarding decay percentages, I've noticed some inconsistency across isoboxes, and it would definitely be helpful and informative to add them throughout. I will note that if we do choose to include rare decay modes, it is inevitable that percentages won't add up exactly to 100, which might beg for explanation. Some are significant in practice, such as SF of 238U and 240Pu, but to elaborate on above, File:Superheavy decay modes predicted.png (for instance) won't depict one-in-a-million decays. Nonetheless, I believe our first priority should be consistency, and what that includes can be refined with further discussion. Complex/Rational 22:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Quick reply: yes, decay-% in the Main Isotopes table is very nice. Later more thoughts.
re 244Pu: later on will ask advice on if&how to list theoretical & border isotopes, consistently. Both in Main Isotopes table and in the big List of Isotopes. NUBASE2020 mentions codes "IT=?", "IT ?", "TNN", ..., has ~260 such isotopes. DePiep (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
In a subthread, I will explore the idea to add dm-% to the table. -DePiep (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Main Isotopes: add decay-mode-% to table

Pertains to Main Isotopes-table, not Isotopes of uranium § List of Isotopes (which aims to be complete by itself).
I support. I am very happy to have them shown this way: gives simple, comparing and complete overview or the decay modes! Good information & infobox handling.
  • demo & conventions. [demo table to add here] OK, it could look like this:
Note on space: this is stretching the table to its (spatial) limits. six columns of data in an infobox, all margins (padding) squeezed to a minimum. Number of digits (characters) all-important now. No space for say energy any more.
Conventions (proposal, developing):
dm-% only as flat number of % "20.5%", "100%", not "percentages must add up to 100%"
Numbers 'rounded' boldly, no uncertainty(), no ".. ×10−6", no "{{val}}"
Three or four? sigfigs max ?
Acceptable "<0.01%" only (this border, from OP) ?
Per isotopes, order dm's by this % ("100%"in top)
Percentage not required (do not break presentation)

References

Deciding on the number format would help me most now, to implement. -DePiep (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the rounding, though would like ComplexRational's opinion as well. Double sharp (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Implementation: now active (see demo). 3 sigfig. Chosen two tresholds: <0.001 → add sign "≪", <0.01 add sign "<". Note that actual value can be entred ;-)
When not recognised (eg, {{val}}, shown unedited (+tracking category).
Will do demo abundance-% too, 4 sigfig. -DePiep (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
More tests/demo dm's in {{Infobox plutonium isotopes/sandbox}} (incl. extremes testing). -DePiep (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
See these sandboxes for demos: {{Infobox uranium isotopes/sandbox}}, {{Infobox plutonium isotopes/sandbox}} -DePiep (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Comments
  • Sidenote: In this table, natural abundance |na= uses percentage too. These Conventions do not apply to n.a., but thoughts are welcome. (for example, I have removed uncertainties in na, but longer numbers acceptable (e.g. He, ). -DePiep (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Limit n.a. to 4 digits (4 sigfig), eg 233U?
Also useful to also check the result in mobile view. DePiep (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Now added to {{Infobox isotopes (meta)}} (talk). See for example Isotopes_of_darmstadtium. DePiep (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Decay energy for isotope lists

So, I've been an occasional visitor to the "Isotopes of [element]" pages for a while. for radioisotopes, the tables list half-life, decay mode(s), and daughter isotopes, but not decay energy (I've done that calculation manually from these lists a few times). Is there a reason the decay energies aren't listed? TornadoLGS (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I have also thought some time ago that it would be a good addition. However, I never actually did it because it would have been a lot of work. As you say it can also be calculated manually from the existing data. If someone else wants to add it, though, I certainly don't object. :) Double sharp (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
@Double sharp: Would it fall under WP:CALC since it's just a matter of the mass difference and E=MC2 or would a source be needed? TornadoLGS (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
@TornadoLGS: Well, yes if it's done correctly. See Talk:Isotopes of promethium#How does the decay of Promethium-147 "work"? for a potential pitfall. :) Double sharp (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Would that require an extra column?
Actually, I have this (long term) plan to make those Big Tables ...
  1. by template row (1 isotope=1 row) (a smarter form of {{Infobox element isotopes/isotopes decay1}},like here and using like this)
  2. read dat from a nubase datafile
  3. add/update all isotopes in Wikidata
  4. automate isotope rows (behind the screens, use the templated row)
But alas, that's a lot of work. (I really need that extra hour of DST in October).
You could concsider to add that data for the (ca. 600) Main Isotopes first.
btw what is the calculation? (ok, saw 147Pm)-DePiep (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@ComplexRational and TornadoLGS: Come to think of it, though: when decay happens the resulting daughter is often in an excited state and needs to de-excite through gamma emission. These excited states typically aren't metastable, so they won't show up in the list of nuclides. Should we take that into account for the decay energy, or are we considering the subsequent gamma as part of the decay? Double sharp (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Decay mode definitions

  • Related question: for e.g., uranium, {{NUBASE2020}} p.20 lists decay modes like "24Ne". I updated that U Main Isotopes table, but I have no decay products. Would someone like to do that calculation (I think it is) into products, and also inform me where to link to for decay mode 24Ne? Very rewarding! -DePiep (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
@DePiep: The only appropriate article to link to that I can think of would be Cluster decay. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
In my opinion there is no need to show such rare decay modes (less than a billionth of a percent!) in the "main isotopes" table. They're not exactly main decay modes, so putting them in seems to violate the spirit of having only "main" data.
That said, indeed cluster decay is the right article to link to. Double sharp (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
First aim is to be complete & correct: they are listed as decay modes full stop. I've seen the "<<%"-argument not used elsewhere (we list trace abundance, we add say all other decays irrepective of %); needs more base if applied. And anyway, for the Big Table and in dedicated single-isotope articles (main!), we must be able to handle them, with consistency. I'm working to get all modes in control. In general, saying "is not important" does not help for this. DePiep (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
@ComplexRational: Your thoughts?
My proposal: for the "main isotopes" table, ignore all decay modes listed as less than 0.01% branches. (Perhaps overly generous.) Double sharp (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I think any cutoff between 0.01% and 0.1% is reasonable. When I compiled File:Superheavy_decay_modes_predicted_(KTUY).svg, I used 0.1% as a cutoff because smaller branches would hardly be visible. However, an explanatory note such as "branching ratios less than 0.01% are not shown" ought to be included for clarity, as for instance, SF of 238U has a low branching ratio but is often discussed in the literature.
Cluster decay, which (as said) is the correct mode, does not have a significant branch in any known nuclide, though I'm content with how it's represented in the big table. Complex/Rational 13:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Irrelevant for my question. As described, I am working to grasp & handle (automate) the isotopes & decay modes. I am working for weeks on this already, and if it is not possible for me to get it, the question is: then how do we think a Reader is supposed to get it from this wiki? So asked again: what is the definition, effect, presentation, ... for these? DePiep (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
More, similar questions (decay mode definitions, NUBASE2020) at Template talk:Decay modes § Stable set of decay modes.
btw, the %-question answers (or is it about "24Ne" desinterest?) belong in What_is_a_"Main_isotope"?. DePiep (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
The reader who is seeking a complete overview of all the minor decay modes can be directed to isotopes of uranium, just like the reader who is seeking a complete overview of all the minor isotopes can be directed there. So, again, I reiterate: any branches that are listed as less than 0.01% should be left out of the "main isotopes" table. They are too specialised for that. We similarly don't consider natural trace occurrence to be sufficient for being a "main isotope" either. Double sharp (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
That's not the question. DePiep (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
FYI, "24Ne" is not in that U table BTW. None of these are. Serious, how do you think we can handle 5000 isotopes if each and every part, clearly asked about, is ignored? DePiep (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
FYI2, "a complete overview of all the minor decay modes"?: § List of decay modes is incomplete. For example, "24Ne" is not defined there. Is, not coincidentally, the reason I am asking about it. DePiep (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Could you write out your specific questions? It seems like neither myself nor DS are grasping them. Complex/Rational 15:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
When an isotope like 24Ne is listed as a "decay mode", then it means cluster decay emitting that nuclide. Simple as that. Double sharp (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for talking down DS. If you want me to stop working on this, please say so directly. Also, one could consider apologising for pointed-out mistakes made. How on Earth do you expect me to ask a question here, as in: to not have it notread? DePiep (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I mean, it's literally explained on page 030001-19 of NUBASE2020: heavy cluster emission. Finding the product is simply subtraction, as emission simply means it got taken out of the nucleus. If 223Ra emits 14C, then it has lost six protons and eight neutrons (which is what makes up 14C), so it becomes isotope 223 − 14 = 209 of element 88 − 6 = 82, i.e. 209Pb. Does this answer your question, or not? Double sharp (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
P.S. It's also clearly stated in Radioactive decay#Decay modes in table form, and the products were already explicitly listed e.g. in isotopes of uranium. Double sharp (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Not "explained" at p. ..-19, only mentioned ("24Ne=heavy cluster decay"). Is where I come from. Page Radioactive decay does not have the text "heavy cluster decay" at all.
And of course, NUBASE does not describe how differences in enwiki must be connected.
My question was, apart from being literal, simple for support on what and how we do at our pages. Having to reasearch that myself alone will introce OR, synthesis, and drain more than all available time. Completely useless. Me having to think "cluster decay probably is the same as heavy cluster decay"? ouch. And this is just one of the dozen of questions, as linked to.
So, whether my Q is answered: as descibed. DePiep (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes CR. My questions are: see the very bullet you are replying under and its follow up posts. Warning: skip distractions. DePiep (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
@Double sharp and ComplexRational: Note that this/sucha rule should be fleshed out at the already present "Main isotopes" thread (instead of off-topic here); that it is not stable nor well-fleshed out; and to be careful to not edit randomly or premature (removal of sourced info), IOW let's find some strategy in the 5000-isotopes topic. I see not reason to shortcut, burial, or compromise on the consensus concept. DePiep (talk) 09:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Once again, first establish a rule to apply, & in the right place. We cannopt edit elements at random. Does anyone read other persons posts here? -DePiep (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
First of all, I came to this WikiProject talkpage to ask support & cooperation for a specific topic. Is exactly what this page is for.
What I got as reply on my initial bare question was talkdowns, three ref pointings that did not have the quote/claim at all, and repeated replies to the tone of "everybody knows", "why don't you didn't find this yourself" [+a source that did not have it].
Also, no engagement in the wider question of the topic: getting definitions, fleshing out differences/unclarities within enwiki and between enwiki/Wikidata/NUBASE.
Then, totally off-topic some new content rule is mentioned, off-topic while a dedicated, known discussion is available, and no well-established rule has resulted. For the record: as it stands, the "rule" is not well established and not accepted. (See also my todays 09:12, 7 February 2023 post above)
...while still sloppy random reverts are made based on a non-rule, incidental & without followup or consistency wrt other pages.
Given the already running longer term taksforce (ie, 'Reuse Infobox main isotopes'), incidental offtrack edits are disruptive. Cooperation cannot be enforced, so here we are.
Roundup. All this does not help the articles forward, nor help the encyclopedy Reader. Already the 5000-isotopes (600 main ones) have a bad update, accuracy and verification level. I expect support for (automating; time consuming) improvement herein—at least, no contra-consensus incidents. Reasonable talk posts I expect include keep-to-single-topic, flesh-out-rules-in-appropriate-places, do-not-incidentally-edit in a 5000-item-issue, and of course in general: search actively for consensus. -DePiep (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Concluding re the (offtopic) posts for omitting decay modes by small % (eg SF & heavy cluster decays "24Ne" for uranium): no change; no consensus hasd been build, so no omission rule is added. iow all decay modes to be listed. Changes can be proposed in appropriate ways & places. -DePiep (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

One thing I found, List of nuclides lists decay energies for nuclides with half-lives longer than 100 million years. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Infobox isotopes: template switchover

Talk central: Template talk:Infobox isotopes (meta) § IB ISOTOPES (meta) switchover

In the coming days, existing templates by {{Infobox element isotopes}} (meta, old) are switched over to use

new {{Infobox isotopes (meta)}}.

Also, new {{Isotopes/main/isotope}} will be used (single isotope row), replacing all variants like "{{Infobox element isotopes/isotopes decay1}}", "{{.. decay4}}", "{{.. stable}}". No disruption of articles expected. Minor format effects (plus: new column-wise percentage, see below)

New:

  • |perc1–4= added, percentage per decay mode (column); formatted and "<" and "≪" when applicable.
  • |na=trace, synth, |hl=stable, obs stable simple code recognised.
Also, |na=synth_link will wikilink → synth.
  • |dm1–4= recognise simplified keyboard input:
|dm1=b+b+ will show → β+β+. (No need to type |dm1=&beta;<sup>+</sup>&beta;<sup>+</sup>).
To wikilink, add _link: |dm1=b+b+ _link → β+β+.

Example: {{Infobox actinium isotopes}} (actinium, isotopes of actinium).

Please discuss at Template talk:Infobox isotopes (meta) § IB ISOTOPES (meta) switchover DePiep (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Note: current standard target always up for improvement. -DePiep (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Looks stable. Check you favourite element :-) -DePiep (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

CIAAW g, m, r footnotes

See ..§ g, m, r footnote

To consider: we could add the g, m and r footnotes CIAAW uses. Adds basic info for the terrestrial sample spread. Best to add to {{Infobox isotopes (meta)}}, s.a.w. data row. -DePiep (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I like this idea. I assume the plan is to include the footnotes to explain what the letters mean? Double sharp (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, as a footnote[note] -- not a reference. Eg Se.
The three CIAAW texts can use a TL;DR mini-intro. Everyone is invited to propose/compose a mini-title (6–8 words?), at g, m, r footnote. (No delivery time promised.) DePiep (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
How about:
  • g = not applicable for exceptional natural samples
  • m = not applicable for exceptional man-made samples (undisclosed enrichment)
  • r = natural variation too large to give single value
Double sharp (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Nice, we have a startup; being wiki evolution can happen. One thought: r (six elements) does not correspond with those 14 with [.., ..] value (ie, neither a single value but from diff reason). DePiep (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

FLNR news

I added a note about 276Ds to isotopes of darmstadtium. Not many details were released, so I couldn't add more. It probably decayed by SF (otherwise they'd announce 272Hs as a new isotope too), but as that was not stated, I have not added that. Double sharp (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The spontaneous fission of 276Ds seems like the logical conclusion, though indeed it wasn't stated explicitly, so time to just wait until more detailed results are published. This discovery also pretty much rules out 276Ds as a candidate for chemical investigations (though I would have been thoroughly surprised if it had a long enough half-life), so I updated that part. Nice to not hear crickets in this field for one day :) Complex/Rational 15:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
@ComplexRational: Based on this news from FLNR it probably alpha decayed twice to 268Sg before SF: Представлены результаты экспериментов по исследованию реакций полного слияния 48Са+243Am, 48Ca+242Pu, 48Ca+238U и 232Ca+Th, в которых синтезированы новые изотопы 264Lr, 268Sg, 272Hs, 276Ds, более детально изучены свойства 33 изотопов сверхтяжелых элементов, измерены функции возбуждения реакций. So I've added these Sg and Hs isotopes as having been discovered, but with no other info (as nothing else was released).
(How I wish they would try 242–244Cm+48Ca, 241Am+48Ca, and 231Pa+48Ca. Then we might be able to fill in some of 285–289Lv, 284–285Mc, 281–283Fl, 280–281Nh, 278–280Cn, and 275–277Rg. Actually, some of the 5n channels from these suggestions of mine will connect to the cold-fusion isotopes 277Cn and 274Rg. But I am just an amateur speaking about this stuff.) Double sharp (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Would it be okay to at least add the discovery reactions and decay modes (albeit without possible branching ratios, of course)? From this report, I think we can safely infer the ⁠⁠ decay sequence (as WP:CALC), seeing as the lightest element that could be directly synthesized in the named reactions is Ds and I think it rather unlikely that the first successful αxn reaction beyond Rf/Db would occur without a mention. We already know that 276Ds was directly synthesized from the October report.
As for more complete data and additional reactions, we can add them to our letters to Santa this year. :) Complex/Rational 16:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
@ComplexRational:  Done
(I also notice that these nuclides would've been in the decay chain of 284Fl, if that had ever been seen to alpha decay. Maybe it's worth trying 233–236U+48Ca.) Double sharp (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
(P.S. As for extending the proton-rich side of superheavies, in principle one could try the cold-fusion reaction 208Pb+68Zn.) Double sharp (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
@Double sharp: More data is out [10]! It's been tentatively added to the articles (and RIP to the early predictions that 268Sg would be relatively long-lived). Something in the literature would be better still, but for that we'll have to wait a bit longer. Complex/Rational 13:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
@ComplexRational: Nice, thanks!
Interesting that they mention that 276Ds would be in the decay chain from 120 (so, I guess 296120 is being thought of, presumably in 249Cf+50Ti – though wouldn't there be a significant chance of the chain stopping early at 284Fl?). Anyway, I see they plan to investigate 232Th+48Ca some more and hopefully find 275Ds and 274Ds. It's certainly one way to fill in the gap between hot-fusion and cold-fusion isotopes. Double sharp (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
These are just my own guesses, but I could see two scenarios that support that.
For one, it could be a similar scenario to the sought-after anchor for the 278Nh chain, whose confirmation waited on alpha decay of 262Db rather than fission. However, as you mention alpha decay of 284Fl has not been observed in a sample of five (?) events, was expected to have an alpha decay branch of ≤20% [11] – already less than the known branching ratio of 262Db (~30%) – and taking n = 5 we can tentatively rule out an alpha decay branch of ≥45% at significance level 0.05. Additionally, the intermediate 280Cn (any takers for 235U + 48Ca?) is predicted to undergo SF, perhaps with an even shorter half-life. These together make this possibility of cross-checking seem rather unlikely, unless the sample size is large enough for unlikely branches to occur within detection parameters or there are other details yet to be published.
Another possibility, but poorly reflected in the wording of the text, is that 275Ds could be an additional reference point for 295120, since SF is generally hindered by the odd neutron and complete data for 271Hs is also unavailable. Let's see what else gets published. Complex/Rational 18:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: And now we have Ds-275. Double sharp (talk) 05:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Exciting! And they do also mention that The main purpose of the experiment was to prepare for the future synthesis of chemical element 120. Complex/Rational 12:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

New disagreement on the notability of E123

Draft:Unbitrium was rejected yesterday, and said draft with the same content was accepted today (unbitrium is back in mainspace). I have sent it to AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unbitrium (2nd nomination), to avoid edit warring and only relying on project consensus, although I still doubt E123 is notable. The previous AfD was in 2011 and I believe fresh outside input would be helpful. Complex/Rational 16:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Simple substance bonding: allotropes of phosphorus and selenium?

Template:Periodic table (simple substance bonding) appears to present a strict division between elements forming network covalent and molecular covalent bonds. However, common allotropes of phosphorus and selenium can form both molecular covalent (white phosphorus/red selenium) and network covalent structures (other allotropes of both, with the intermediate case of black selenium forming polymeric rings). How should this be represented? Chaotic Enby (talk) 07:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

At Periodic table#Metallicity it is mentioned that the most stable allotrope at STP is considered. This should probably be added to the template. Double sharp (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
I'll add it to the template! It's definitely something that should be clarified, especially since white phosphorus P4 is often taken as the "default" allotrope despite not being the most stable. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

FAC Nomination: Nonmetal (chemistry)

Is here. --- Sandbh (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements/Archive_61&oldid=1167155936"