Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Element info boxes and atomic mass/atomic weight

I noticed in the chem info boxes the listing of the "atomic mass" rather than the "atomic weight". This at first appears to be a progressive move away from the now somewhat deprecated "atomic weight"; however atomic weight has been replaced by "relative atomic mass" not "atomic mass". Atomic mass means something different I am not even aware of widespread misuse of the term atomic mass in this manner, although I could imagine it given the shorter term being the less frequently intended. As long as there isn't a long and widespread precedent of misuse and confusion I strongly suggest that we stick to using the terms according to their IUPAC definitions.

Please see the following if you are unaware of the meanings of these terms:

To summarize: "Atomic weight" was replaced by "relative atomic mass" and "atomic mass" was reserved for individual atoms or nuclides (i.e. not isotopically weighted).

Just trying to make wikipedia more accurate. --Nick Y. 23:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


It should definitely be "Relative Atomic Mass". The units are given as g/mol. Any scientist should cringe at the sight of a weight in grammes. Mister pink2 (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it should be "Atomic weight" (which is dimentionless) or "Molar mass" (which has the units g/mol). Any physicist would cringe at the sight of a force being expressed in volts, but see electromotive force. Physchim62 (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead sentence consistency in element articles

I recently read a few pages on some elements and made some edits to lead sentences when they read: "<Name> (<entomology>), is a chemical element in the periodic table with the symbol <symbol> and atomic number <number>". I removed the phrase "in the periodic table", feeling it was unnecessary, as the main context of the article would be the element itself, its occurrence, use, etc in the physical world. The context for the symbol and number might be the table, but that seemed like a poor perspective to take in the lead sentence.

However, as I navigated around to other element pages, I noticed that that phrase was pretty much in every lead (that I read). This made me worry that there had been some consensus reached regarding such lead sentences, and I was (in good faith) violating that consensus.

However (again), I now see that on the main Project page, there is the recommendation to not use the phrase, unless dealing with a purely synthetic element (i.e., the physical world context is currently nearly irrelevant). To me, this seems very reasonable.

So, by my reading it seems my edits have been constructive. But to make sure, I would like to know if someone could point me to discussions as to how lead sentences should read, and a fuller elucidation of the consensus from these discussions. I still stand by my edits, but wish to work with the blessings of the Project if I continue to make similar edits to other element pages.

Thanks, Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That is an artifact from 2002 before I added the NavBox to the template. I felt it was necessary to have a link back the periodic table at the top of the article instead of at the end. But that is no longer needed due to the link in the NavBox. However, I still think it is appropriate to have a mention and link to periodic table when the article talks about the element's position in the table ("Examplium is a chemical element that heads Group X in the periodic table." is fine, IMO while "Examplium is a chemical element in the periodic table." should be changed to something more informative) --mav 01:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I take from that that my edits as I described are acceptable as they occured when the lead sentence read like your latter illustration. I'll sit on my hands for a few days and let others chime in, but I feel better about what I have already done. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

IRC

Hi, for all those chemists who are active on IRC, Rifleman_82 and I have set up a channel on IRC for chemistry on wikipedia. You can find us here: the wikichem channel. To be able to talk with other online chemists there, you need an IRC program, like mIRC, the Chatzilla plugin for firefox, Opera (built in), and there will probably be more programs out there. At the moment User:Rifleman_82 and I are the 'keepers/moderators' of the channel, but anyone can enter and talk! Hope to see you there! --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sweet! I'll add this to the project page. --mav (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Carbon

The Carbon article has been nominated for the Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive. — RJH (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody happen to know if the original version of Francis William Aston's 1922 book, Isotopes, mentions carbon-13? His earlier work seemed to indicate that his measurement (by Mass Spectroscopy) of carbon-12 was "pure", perhaps indicating that he wasn't aware of carbon-13 at that time. But later works indicated he found well over 200 isotopes, so I think it likely he discovered carbon-13 in the meantime. I just haven't been able to pin down a date. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(Herbert Budzikiewicz and Ronald D. Grigsby (2005). "Mass spectrometry and isotopes: A century of research and discussion". Mass Spectrometry Reviews. 25: 146–157. doi:10.1002/mas.20061.) states that (Jenkins and Omstein (1933). Proc. Acad. Sci. Amsferdam,. 86: 1212. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)) is the publication for the first non mass spec hint for C13! (Aston FW (1934). "Constitution of carbon, nickel and cadmium". Nature. 134: 178.) is the proof by Aston with mass spec.--Stone (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh crud: I don't have access to any of those. Thanks for trying. — RJH (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I have access to the first one! This might be enough to add the references.-- Stone (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Series" to "Element category"

Consensus at Talk:Periodic table (standard)#Chemical series was that Wikipedia has been using the term "Chemical series" incorrectly when referring to categories of elements. Right now "Series" and "Group" in the (really great) Elementbox templates both link to Group (periodic table) to reflect this confusing state of things even though "Group" should always mean a vertical column. Element categories (currently called "Series") should link to the new Collective names of groups of like elements article through the term Category or Element category in the box. Ideally, the "variable name" in the template and all the infoboxes would be changed. Hopefully there is a bot that can do these things fairly quickly 108 times for us, but I'm not familiar enough with this template or with bots to ask a bot or a bot-maker for help. Could someone who knows what they're doing implement the change? Flying Jazz 00:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Nod. I agree and am keeping this in mind, but the change will take some time. --mav (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Abundance of the chemical elements

The Abundance of the chemical elements în the Universe is a statment which I found nowhere in literature, only the solar system or our own galaxy is measured, because the large distances in the universe also mean long time periodes for the light we meassure and therefore we only see the old abundance. The oxygen article also suffers from a abundace list in the universe which nobody can cite. Anders & Grevesse, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta , vol. 53, Jan. 1989, p. 197-214. is the best what we have and therefor we also should cite it wih its numbers on the abundace in the solars system-Stone (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have problems using the templates for boinling and melting points

I am trying to add multiple melting and boiling points for carbon, for various allotropes, and I cannot make it display in IE7. Anyone knows how to solve this problem? Nergaal (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Specific Activity

Is it worth adding the specific activity of radioactive isotopes to the element infoboxes? I've found one reference at [1], not sure on how accurate it is. 81.96.162.238 (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

There is a proposal to merge several element lists into one, now that there is a sortable feature. Please comment here. Walkerma (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Super duper heavy element articles

We have a lot of articles on elements that haven't been discovered yet. I would classify these articles into three types.

1. Ununseptium, Ununennium, Unbinilium, Unbibium, Unbihexium. Elements that haven't been recognized yet, but at least there are either claims of specific attempts to make these elements (according to the Wikipedia articles, which are often lacking reliable sources).

2. Untriseptium, Untrioctium, Untriennium - Elements that are supposedly notable because the inner electrons would go nearly as fast or faster than light when one neglects relativity. However, there are no reliable sources to back up these claims of notability.

3. Unbiunium, Unbitrium, Unbiquadium, Unbipentium, Unbiseptium, Unbioctium, Unbiennium, Untrinilium, Untriunium, Untribium, Untrihexium. Elements with absolutely no claim of notability and no information except speculation taken from apsidium.com or webelements.com or from who knows where, and the occasional "in popular culture" mention.

IMO all the elements of type 3 should be deleted or perhaps simply redirected to systematic element name. The same goes for articles of type 2 unless some reliable sources can be found. Articles of type 1 can probably be kept. I was planning to bring this to AfD, but since redirecting is a good alternative and doesn't require admin intervention, I decided to bring it here instead. --Itub (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I think we should make your recommendation a project guideline. --mav (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I've checked them and you are right, the articles are pretty much useless. But instead of the systematic element name redirect, I think it would be more appropiate to use the "Period 8 element". Also, even though it is popular culture, rather than just deleting them, I think it is better to put that info into the period 8 element page. Nergaal (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
That is an even better idea. Make it so! :) --mav (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

None of the contributors have commented, so I wanted to make sure some project members were aware of this. I think it's a great list and I don't want to see it delisted, but it does need some touching up. The review page can be found here. -- Scorpion0422 15:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Since passed review. --mav (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that one of the midterm goals is to have all of the Noble Gases brought to FA level. Why not expand this goal slightly to making Noble Gases a Featured Topic? Assuming we were able to featurize all of the Noble Gases, a featured topic would only require a GA/FA lead article (Noble Gases) and a template for all of the articles. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a great idea and will add that to the goals. --mav (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. --mav (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
In fact, WP:FT? criterion 3.a) says only three of the articles have to be FA-class for topics of nine articles or less, so all that needs to be done is to make noble gas a GA. 142.151.169.129 (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, there's also the matter of the lead article, Noble Gas. That also needs to be GA / FA. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 12:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Groups

I updated the Periodic Table by Quality to include the quality of each Group article. The colored bar at the bottom of each group indicates the quality of the article for that group.

In doing this, I found two problems with the group articles. Most don't have ratings. Some didn't have Wikiproject Elements templates. Some didn't even have talk pages! I added templates where needed, but I didn't rate any of them.

The other problem I saw was the inconsistency in the article names. Of the 18 groups:

  • 5 had unique names: alkali metal, noble gases, etc.
  • 3 had family names: boron group, nitrogen group, etc.
  • 10 had numerical names: group 12 element, group 4 element, etc.

Jeepers. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep - A great many supporting articles to this project need to have project templates on their talk pages and most of those need ratings. Thank you for starting that process. :) As for the groups... well, some of them have names and some don't so the ones that don't get systematic names. An yes, there is some overlap in groups and families. We just need to make sure we are talking about the same set of elements. I'm not sure how to handle this better... --mav (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I might be wrong, but this is the usual practice in most textbooks I've seen. The main groups (the old ones ending in A) had special names except for boron, carbon & nitrogen. The problem with these 3 was probably that the emements vary greatly in their chemical reactivity to recieve a term that covers their reactivity consistently (while the other 5 are clearly either metal or nonmetal/mettaloids). Since all these 8 were main groups, they probably deserved a bit more attention in naming them. On the other hand, the transitional metal groups have truly only 3 elements that are actually usable and therefore people probably didn't realy bother naming them (also, from a very superficial point of view, transitional elements have similar rather reactivities). Nergaal (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a name for the nitrogen group: pnictogens. Other than that, you are right, only a few groups have proper names, while all the others are referred to either by number or by the name of the lightest element. We already have plenty of redirects to account for the various possible names, but perhaps there are still some missing redirects. --Itub (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove undiscovered elements from the periodic table

(Continuing discussion from the Talkpage of Periodic table_(standard), "Element 117")

I suggest to only include elements already discovered (at the present state of knowledge) in the Periodic table image. This would mean to either


a) remove element 117 (Uus) from the table since there is currently no claim (nor even acknowledgement) of it being discovered,

or even

b) remove all elements above roentgenium (112-118) since neither of these claimed discoveries is yet acknowledged by the IUPAC.

(Of course, the articles on the individual undiscovered element(s) should remain, and may be linked to from the periodic table article instead.)

Reason: IMO, the periodic table should only show discovered elements. I acknowledge that Uus is already marked as "undiscovered" in the legend, but it would be much clearer for the casual reader to remove it altogether. Moreover, there are many other undiscovered elements in period 8 and further. So why should only those in period 7 be included? Some of the higher elements (119, 120) may be discovered before 117. There have also already been attempts at creating the higher elements Ununennium, Unbinilium, Unbihexium, for example (according to their resp. element pages).

Whether to adopt the official IUPAC table or keep all elements reported to be discovered (112-116, 118) may be open to debate. On the one hand, the IUPAC seems to be very slow at acknowledging new discoveries. On the other hand, it is the "official" instance. E.g. Uuo had already once been claimed to be discovered, later the claim was withdrawn.

--129.70.14.128 (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Quixy

This has been discussed many times allready. This is an encyclopaedia, not an official database or IUPAC. By the same thought process we should delete the article on Kosovo because it is not a recgnized country yet. But wouldn't that be really retarded? Nergaal (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, please go read Talk:Ununseptium to see the overwhelming support against your arguments. Nergaal (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstood me, as Itub pointed out. By my thought process, Kosovo only shouldn't have been included in a List of independent countries at the time of your comment - as indeed it wasn't (it is not even in it now). IMO, an encyclopedia should only contain verified facts, and (as far as I know) the discoveries of elements 113-116 and 118 have not yet been verified by an institution other than the respective "discoverers" themselves (I admit 112 has been verified independently recently). And I don't see any reason for including Uus in the table, neither from you nor from Talk:Ununseptium.--129.70.14.128 (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
129.70.14.128 is not saying that the article should be deleted, but just that it shouldn't be included in the figure of the periodic table. I disagree with 129.70.14.128 anyway; I think that labeling it as undiscovered is enough. --Itub (talk) 07:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to Itub for clarifying this to Nergaal; however, could you give a reason for your opinion? As I said, I consider it misleading and inconsequent to include it, as we do not include the undiscovered elements from period 8 .--129.70.14.128 (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Consider this from a statistics standpoint:
  • Ho: Undiscovered elements should be on the periodic table.
  • Ha: Undiscovered elements should not be on the periodic table.
Unless there is a preponderance of evidence supporting Ha, we maintain the status quo, Ho. As I see it, there is significant evidence for both hypotheses. As such, we fail to reject Ho. In other words, don't try to fix that which isn't broken. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that I don't see the evidence for H0. However, may I suggest the following "compromise": not to remove Uus but at least change its background color to white or light yellow (as in Periodic table (wide)) to make it clearer that it has not been discovered yet. After all, it is pure speculation if Uus will turn out to be a halogen.--129.70.14.128 (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
No objections? Then I'll do it.--129.70.14.128 (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Structure of metallic elements

I have been looking for an article that covers metal crystal structures- but I can't find one. It could well be something that is already being worked on by someone. If necessary I am happy to collaborate or even write a first version- the sort of thing that I have in mind is a periodic table showing the (normal) structures of metallic elements with a low level explanation of why bcc etc (so impinges on metallic bonding, trends in strength with VEC and something on the odd ball elements like mercury, gallium tin etc. Any comments/ ideas ? --Axiosaurus (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Some days ago I searched for articles relating to metallic bonds and I have had a hard time finding much myself. Nergaal (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Tables with "number of neutrons" for each element

Presently, elements are shown as a box, with number of protons (fine) and numbers of neutrons. The last is problematic, as what do we do for elements which have more than one stable isotope, as (by my count) 80-16 = 64 of them do? And what about those with no stable isotopes? So far as I can see, the most abundant isotope has been used for elements that have more than one stable isotope, and the isotope with longest half-life, for those that have no stable ones. However, it's a bit misleading to stick one number up, unless explained. Tin has 10 stable isotopes. The table should say what's being done. Better still, the (single) neutron number should probably just be left out of the table. The isotopes box gives the info better and more clearly. SBHarris 05:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

My bad. I think the best option is to not include the neutrons at all. I might get to that during the next long weekend. --mav (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
On second thought, we should wait to figure out how to make the nav images actual image maps. --mav (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

A / GA

Several of our A-level articles are delisted GA-level articles. This implies that GA is higher than A. We should either:

  • Change the order of quality on the Periodic Table by Quality
  • Make A-level standards more rigorous

At any rate, we whould definitely re-evaluate the articles listed as A-Level. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, since there is no actual review process for A-class, then they should not be listed as above GA. Also, there is a huge gap between B and GA and I think the high quality B that sitll lack some parts (citations or say full compounds section) could be listed as something else. And since A is fairly useless otherwise, A could take care of these articles. So I am in for 1. Nergaal (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
More generally, I understand the motivation for having A class above GA, but in practice GA standards have increased enough that it really is the other way around for all projects except maybe the largest and most active. So yes, I support promoting GA to be just under FA for our purposes here. We can then agree that an A-class is an article that is getting close to at least GA standards by our reckoning but has not formally passed any community-wide process. In either case, being a GA or FA trumps anything we have here. --mav (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The way the system is supposed to work ideally is as follows, for delisted GAs or FAs:
  1. The delisted article is reassessed at B-Class
  2. If the article is essentially complete in content, but it was delisted for technicalities, then it should be nominated for A-Class.
  3. If the project agrees that the article is pretty much complete, and it just needs some cleanup to go for FA, then it should be assessed as A.
  4. Then, if someone wants to take on the cleanup and then to take on the scrutiny of FAC or GAN, then they can do that.
A isn't so much above or below GA - we've seen both - it's just different. An A should be comprehensive in content, with less emphasis on the style aspects, whereas a GA won't necessarily be comprehensive in content (though most are) but it should meet all the style criteria.
Of course, for this "ideal" process to work there has to be a formal promotion process for B -> A. Walkerma (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and switched A and GA with the last quality update. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

To Do list box

Would anybody object to me deleting the project to do list because it is duplicative with the, IMO much more useful, short term part of our goals page. --mav (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No objections = done. --mav (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove animated flags from elements?

If no one objects, I want to remove the animated flags from the chemical elements which have them. First, only a minority of the elements have these flags which takes away from standardization, one of the basic platforms of Wikipedia entries. Second, the fact that they are animated takes away from the "professional" aspect of this encyclopedia. There are no other flags over other discoveries--much less wavy, cartoonish, and unprofessional looking ones. (I wasn't going to write this in every entry that used a flag so I wrote it here instead. If anyone has a better place for me to write this please tell me.) --Mbenzdabest (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Plus, it seems these flags have been added recently by only one user and they are suspiciously mostly German and Russian flags. Not to mention, in one entry there is one Soviet flag (which is not animated), next to a Russian one (that is animated). And although I understand both flags were placed because of the historical time line of the element, it still appears nonsensical. --Mbenzdabest (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't have the slightest clue what you're referring to. Could you link to an example element page with these mysterious offending flags? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete all distractional and fractional flags on sight, from Wikipedia! Except for articles on flags. Even the U.N. article contains no little flags, last I looked. Thank god. And it has more reason to have them than THIS. Science is supposed to be trans-national. No point making it more competetive than necessary. SBHarris 03:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
In regards to a link for examples, just take a look at elements 104-116. There are others as well. Rutherfordium is one example of one flag animated and the other not. --Mbenzdabest (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please remove. type of thing is so annoying. --mav (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. --Mbenzdabest (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hydrogen

Hydrogen has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.—RJH (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

New templates

I had previously created a compact periodic table template, but I have now substantially revised it to be in accordance with the one on all of the German Elements pages. {{Compact periodic table}}

I have also created a full periodic table template that can easily be added to anything {{Full periodic table}}

Group 1 2   3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Hydrogen &
alkali metals 		Alkaline earth metals Triels Tetrels Pnicto­gens Chal­co­gens Halo­gens Noble
gases
Period

1

Hydro­gen1H​1.0080 He­lium2He​4.0026
2 Lith­ium3Li​6.94 Beryl­lium4Be​9.0122 Boron5B​10.81 Carbon6C​12.011 Nitro­gen7N​14.007 Oxy­gen8O​15.999 Fluor­ine9F​18.998 Neon10Ne​20.180
3 So­dium11Na​22.990 Magne­sium12Mg​24.305 Alumin­ium13Al​26.982 Sili­con14Si​28.085 Phos­phorus15P​30.974 Sulfur16S​32.06 Chlor­ine17Cl​35.45 Argon18Ar​39.95
4 Potas­sium19K​39.098 Cal­cium20Ca​40.078 Scan­dium21Sc​44.956 Tita­nium22Ti​47.867 Vana­dium23V​50.942 Chrom­ium24Cr​51.996 Manga­nese25Mn​54.938 Iron26Fe​55.845 Cobalt27Co​58.933 Nickel28Ni​58.693 Copper29Cu​63.546 Zinc30Zn​65.38 Gallium31Ga​69.723 Germa­nium32Ge​72.630 Arsenic33As​74.922 Sele­nium34Se​78.971 Bromine35Br​79.904 Kryp­ton36Kr​83.798
5 Rubid­ium37Rb​85.468 Stront­ium38Sr​87.62 Yttrium39Y​88.906 Zirco­nium40Zr​91.224 Nio­bium41Nb​92.906 Molyb­denum42Mo​95.95 Tech­netium43Tc​[97] Ruthe­nium44Ru​101.07 Rho­dium45Rh​102.91 Pallad­ium46Pd​106.42 Silver47Ag​107.87 Cad­mium48Cd​112.41 Indium49In​114.82 Tin50Sn​118.71 Anti­mony51Sb​121.76 Tellur­ium52Te​127.60 Iodine53I​126.90 Xenon54Xe​131.29
6 Cae­sium55Cs​132.91 Ba­rium56Ba​137.33 1 asterisk Lute­tium71Lu​174.97 Haf­nium72Hf​178.49 Tanta­lum73Ta​180.95 Tung­sten74W​183.84 Rhe­nium75Re​186.21 Os­mium76Os​190.23 Iridium77Ir​192.22 Plat­inum78Pt​195.08 Gold79Au​196.97 Mer­cury80Hg​200.59 Thallium81Tl​204.38 Lead82Pb​207.2 Bis­muth83Bi​208.98 Polo­nium84Po​[209] Asta­tine85At​[210] Radon86Rn​[222]
7 Fran­cium87Fr​[223] Ra­dium88Ra​[226] 1 asterisk Lawren­cium103Lr​[266] Ruther­fordium104Rf​[267] Dub­nium105Db​[268] Sea­borgium106Sg​[269] Bohr­ium107Bh​[270] Has­sium108Hs​[271] Meit­nerium109Mt​[278] Darm­stadtium110Ds​[281] Roent­genium111Rg​[282] Coper­nicium112Cn​[285] Nihon­ium113Nh​[286] Flerov­ium114Fl​[289] Moscov­ium115Mc​[290] Liver­morium116Lv​[293] Tenness­ine117Ts​[294] Oga­nesson118Og​[294]
1 asterisk Lan­thanum57La​138.91 Cerium58Ce​140.12 Praseo­dymium59Pr​140.91 Neo­dymium60Nd​144.24 Prome­thium61Pm​[145] Sama­rium62Sm​150.36 Europ­ium63Eu​151.96 Gadolin­ium64Gd​157.25 Ter­bium65Tb​158.93 Dyspro­sium66Dy​162.50 Hol­mium67Ho​164.93 Erbium68Er​167.26 Thulium69Tm​168.93 Ytter­bium70Yb​173.05  
1 asterisk Actin­ium89Ac​[227] Thor­ium90Th​232.04 Protac­tinium91Pa​231.04 Ura­nium92U​238.03 Neptu­nium93Np​[237] Pluto­nium94Pu​[244] Ameri­cium95Am​[243] Curium96Cm​[247] Berkel­ium97Bk​[247] Califor­nium98Cf​[251] Einstei­nium99Es​[252] Fer­mium100Fm​[257] Mende­levium101Md​[258] Nobel­ium102No​[259]

Let me know what you think. Remember (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks nice, but I think it is more widely accepted to insert the f block before the d block rather than between groups 3 and 4. I mean as done in Periodic table (wide). --Itub (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean moving Scandium and Yttrium to appear above Lutetium? I can change that if that is the more accepted format. Remember (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. Remember (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Colors should be changed accordingly to what has been decided allready on this project. Nergaal (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll revise them, but which ones do you want changed? Remember (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, is it possible to make the table even smaller in height? Otherwise is much better than the previous version. Nergaal (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Which one are you talking about?Remember (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Careful with element 117 since it is not known yet. Nergaal (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So what should I do?Remember (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Either remove element 117 altogether or give it a white background colour as in Periodic table. Other than this, is there a difference between your "Full periodic table" and the one already existing under periodic table (standard)? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
White background given. And there is no difference with the full periodic table and the one already existing. I just put it into a template that could be collapsed in case someone wanted to add the full periodic table to a page. Remember (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Short Term Goal completed

I have brought Zirconium to B-class. It was informally and independently evaluated by Bibliomaniac15. I suggest the goal be replaced by the following:

This could be a small step toward making alkali metal a Featured topic.--Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If Zirconium is a GA then we should list half of the periodic table as GA. Nergaal (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
That's not exactly a short-term goal... --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
What I meant is that Zr should definately not be rated as a GA. Last time I checked it didn't even have a compounds section. Nergaal (talk) 07:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I would say over 50% of the B-rated elements are more comprehensive. Rating it as a GA just because it is kind of well written when in reality is not comprehensive enough is something that WP:elements whould not strive for. Nergaal (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Technetium and francium are both lacking compounds sections, and they're featured. Should we delist them because they don't contain information that can already be accessed by a single link? When the only value of a section is to point out another article about the same topic, it's much smarter to just put the wikilink in the See Also section. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that FA articles on chemical elements should have compounds sections; but at least these two elements are radioactive so the list of known compoun ds is rather short. On the other hand, there are tons of known compounds of Zr. Nergaal (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Technetium's ability to form compounds is not inhibited by its radioactivity - some of its isotopes have half-lives of millions of years. The article has no compounds section because such a section would have added nothing to the article. Hydrogen and oxygen have great compounds sections. They provide interesting information about the element's intricate role in chemistry.
It's not that I'm against compounds sections altogether - that would just be silly. I just think an article only really needs one if there is something to be written besides a list. "Tons of compounds" doesn't warrant inclusion when the information is already available in another article. We're not hiding the information by only having a link. So far, I haven't found any information on zirconium compounds to suggest that there would be anything substantial to write about them. Should either of us come upon such information, by all means, we'll add a useable compounds section. Until then, I'll just add a "See also" link. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Approaching this as a chemist, I think a topic like zirconium should definitely have a compounds section. Francium is very different - no one has been able to make macroscopic quantities of it to into make useful compounds. Zirconium compounds are plentiful and significant. In my advanced organic chem course my students learn quite a bit about organozirconium chemistry, such as Kaminsky catalysts and Schwartz's reagent (we study hydrozirconation). I think also that some inorganic compounds are important like zirconium dioxide, particularly in the form of cubic zirconia, and some of its salts such as lead zirconate titanate. Zirconium tetrachloride is probably worth a mention, too. If I had a bit more time I'd write it myself.... Walkerma (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Organozirconium chemistry, eh? That sounds like compelling evidence to me. I'll pull some info/sources from those articles and whip together a compounds section. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Mid-term goal also partially completed

Thanks to the edits of user:Drjezza there are over 10 less start-class articles about elements in group 7. Nergaal (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

ps: there are 99 articles of B-class or better for the first 118 elements. Nergaal (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of colorless gasas

Concerns: Helium, Neon, Argon, Krypton, Xenon, Nitrogen The pictures of empty vials in the infoboxes are IMHO not only useless but may lead to a false impression that these gases form a kind of bubbles in the vials. And they look beige rather than colorless in the pictures. Not everything can be photographed. In my opinion these pictures should be removed ASAP. Regards, Michał Sobkowski (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Biunoctium

Please give your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biunoctium. Warut (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Speculative colourings of transactinides in the Periodic Table

According to the individual articles (and other information I could find):

-- for the elements > 103 the state of matter is not known (http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Lr/heat.html)

-- the "Element categories" (metal/non-metal etc) are only known for the elements up to 108 and 112 (the transactinides among them all being metals)

Thus I intend to remove the misleading colourings for the corresponding element boxes in the periodic table unless someone provides evidence for them. Any objections?--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes! If you look at period 7 you barely have one metalloid and a noble gas. Therefore unless something huge is not known yet, all the elements in period 8 should be metals except perhaps for elements 117 and 118. As for the phase, if you read the FA on element 118 you will see that it is debatable weather this noble gas will be a gas under normal conditions. In conclusion, IMHO, all elements until 117 are generally expected to be metals/solids. Also, erbelements in not a reliable source. It is run by very few people and they mighnt not be actually very well qualified for all the statements they leave on the website. Nergaal (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

My claims aren't only based on the given web source, but also on the individual elements pages. Anyway, do you have a better reference that "all elements until 117 are generally expected to be metals/solids"???--Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Instead of removing the colorings because they are speculative, why not just insert a little note stating that they are speculative? The way I see it, there is no harm in making reasonable predictions so long as they are not taken to be facts. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Our melting points for francium and astatine are speculative as well: no one has ever had enough of either element to measure them. Physchim62 (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that as it stands now, these speculations are given as if they were facts. Also, an encyclopedia is not the place to include unreferenced(!) predictions. Therefore unless someone provides references at least for these "predictions" I see no reason to keep the colourings.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Also note that, according to http://lch.web.psi.ch/pdf/TexasA&M/TexasA&M.pdf, element 114 seems to show noble gas-like behaviour, rather than being a metal. Thus it's not reasonable to assume that the period 7 elements all show the same behaviour as their period 6 homologues.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Since no-one gave more references for the data in question, I'll remove the speculations from the table then.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 08:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Only 80 elements have stable isotopes. It would be interesting and also useful as a reference (for being likely to be used applications) to have a page with the longest-lived known nucleii of the other ~37 reported elements. Nergaal (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That's right. Do it! ;-) Even more interesting might be a list of how much of these elements has ever been created (for the synthetic elements) resp. isolated (for the natural ones). E.g. several grams of californium have been produced, 3 mg of einsteinium, only "trace amounts" for the next few. I suppose for most of the heavier elements the amount ever produced can already be counted in atoms. By the way, which might be the heaviest element that is constantly present on Earth since the time of its first creation? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Vanadium

The 1867 for metalic vanadium by Roscoe looks wrong to be, because in the first publication in 1867 [2] he does not claim metalic vanadium. The second [3] article describes the process and does not cite a earlier publication.--Stone (talk) 10:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirection of Group number of lanthanides and actinides to Group 3 element

Please contribute your opinions to this edit dispute. The discussion is at Talk:Group number of lanthanides and actinides. Flying Jazz (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Isotopes of tantalum

Tantalum-180, in an excited state, last for a million billion years. Is this true?

Thanks, Marasama (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

180m2Ta is listed as having a half-life of 1.2E+15 a. That's 1,200,000,000,000,000 years, or 1.2 million billion. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"a" is from the Latin? word for year. Nergaal (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nergaal. Maybe there is a need for a similar page to List of common astronomy symbols, but for the elements. I am not too familiar, so I am uncertain if there are a lot of symbols used like it is in Astrophysic. Like in the orbits of electrons, the decay, half-life, weight, energy, etc. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


Discoveries of the chemical elements

I have been working on this list and I was wondering weather anyone has more suggestions for it. thanks. Nergaal (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to remove the background colourings according to the chemical series. I think it would be much more readable if the background was just white. Othewise it's very nice.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I was going to suggest the same. Also, maybe it would be better to combine everything in one table? That way the column widths would look consistent. Perhaps the table could be made sortable by atomic number, name, and year. However, there is a problem in that not all the years are really sortable because some begin with text, especially for the early elements. --Itub (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above comments about the background colours, although an alternative would be to confine them to the "atomic number" column so that they don't interfere with reading the rest of the text. On the whole, a very useful tool, even if I don't agree with all the entries: indeed, that is one of its useful points! The date for the discovery of antimony is at least a thousand years out, and probably more than three thousand years out! All the same, this should not be taken as a criticism of the work which has gone into this page, merely that each and every Wikipedia article (or list) can be improved! Physchim62 (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to make some edits too. Nergaal (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Noble gas has been listed at WP:GAN

Could someone please review the article for WP:GAN, if anyone has time? Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

We need a ""Lists of list of elements"" article

Or a template at least where to put all of the ""List of elements by..."" articles (e.g.: discoveries, etymology, most stable isotope, etc...). Nergaal (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

How about the See Also section of Periodic table? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
If you refer to what is there now, that is way too incomplete to what I was thinking of. Nergaal (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I found {{PeriodicTablesFooter}} Nergaal (talk) 08:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

GANs

Come on, somebody should quickly review noble gases and tungsten for GA since I hope continue them with a FAC. Plsss! Nergaal (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to help but for the fact that I've got a lot on my plate right now. I'm currently reviewing Candide, Everglades, and List of elements by stability of isotopes, though the last one seems to be grinding to a halt. Whenever you want to end the PR on your list, I'll pop either tungsten or noble gases into its slot. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure what does "end the PR" mean. If you think it is done, or at least mostly done, then somebody may close the review. Then I will go through all the suggestions still not done, and then submit it for a FL candidate. Nergaal (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Meh, I think I'll probably review the intro next and we'll address any prose issues. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Helium Featured Article Review

Helium has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Itub (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


Infobox inconsistency

Originally posted at WT Chemistry: --Rifleman 82 (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Infobox plutonium}} indicates that Pu-240 decays by alpha emission, but the link for that label goes to beta emission. Which is correct? --Carnildo (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

According to Nubase 2003, it's alpha decay, so I corrected it. Nice catch. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Noble gas featured article candidate

See the nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noble gas. I just found out that it was listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Participants/Announcements, but because I didn't have that page on my watchlist, I never noticed the announcements made there before. If I'm not alone in this--please consider watching the announcements subpage. --Itub (talk) 08:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please add the noticeboard to your watchlist.:) Nergaal (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Assesment of WP:Elements articles

Does anybody know why do the C-class, FL-class and List-class categories don't work, and instead, the articles there are rated as unassessed? Nergaal (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There are new classes available now: Template, FL, List, and C. Please add pages you know to these catecofies, especially Template and List. Nergaal (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Clickable periodic table image?

This user has a clickable version of the table. User:D0li0/Clickable Periodic Table. Any idea how to bot-generate this for al the elements using {{Elementbox header-imagemap}}? Nergaal (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The table doesn't work properly for me (using Firefox 2). For example, when I put my cursor on top of neon, it says nitrogen. --Itub (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of "notable characteristics" section header where introductions are too short?

Dysprosium is a good example of what I'm talking about here. Many of the articles about individual elements have leads (that's the part before the first section header) that are too short. Articles such as Dysprosium often also have brief "Notable characteristics" section containing content that really belongs in the introduction. I've been thinking about making a project of lengthening the too-short introductions by merging the "notable characteristics" (or whatever else seems reasonable for other articles about individual chemical elements) into the introduction by just deleting the relevant section header. It would be a quick job of editing work, but I thought I'd mention it here before I actually started doing it, to see if anyone objects. --arkuat (talk) 09:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I just tried to exemplify the edit I was just proposing on Gadolinium, and there's this _TOC_ markup that I never saw before, which I think is interfering with what I had in mind. Nevertheless, articles about chemical elements with one-sentence ledes and mid-length "Notable characteristics" sections ought to have the content of the latter moved into the lede. --arkuat (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Those articles are rated C-, respectively Start-class articles including for this reason. Feel free to contribute. Nergaal (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
First, any instances of "notable characteristics" section headers should be replaced with "characteristics"; there was a discussion about it a while ago. Second, the introduction is supposed to contain a little bit of information from each of the article's sections. In the case of dysprosium, the lead should have a little bit from Characteristics, something from Sources, something from Applications, and so on. See Zirconium or Francium for good examples of this. The solution to the problem is to expand the lead, not to move existing sections into it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips, both. --arkuat (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

future FA?

I noticed it is way more efficient to have several ppl working on an article for FAC, so I am wondering what article would you guys prefer/want/care to work on next? :) Nergaal (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest chlorine. It is a Good Article already, is a Top-importance element, and has a chemistry that is relatively simpler than that of other important elements such as C, N, S, and P, which should make the job a bit easier. :-) --Itub (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's do something that's not already GA. As the saying goes, "Aim for the moon. If you miss, you'll end among the stars." While starting from a lower level may be more work, if we fail to bring the article all the way to FA, at least we will have raised it level or two. How about Copper? It's been on the goals board for quite some time now. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
As long as there is collaboration we can work on more than one project. The point is to find more than one person interested on working on (an) article(s) regardless of the initial state. Nergaal (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I want to help! Copper is a good starting point!--Stone (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, let's go with copper. I just suggested Cl because it seemed easy, but it's not a strong preference. --Itub (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
We might go for both?--Stone (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I've allready started on the history sections of both articles. Nergaal (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I've tried working on Astatine to improve it to C-Quality, but I would consider submitting Radon and Chlorine for FAC. I will be glad to help with Copper and anywhere else you guys need me. Wii Wiki (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I just checked out Nature's Building Blocks from the library, so I'll add snippets to Copper and Chlorine. It's usually a very good reference for applications, which will be important for both of these elements. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Both articles have received about 2 or 3 edits per day :(. We need a better organization/plan... Nergaal (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, people seem to be concentrating on rescuing Helium, and with good reason. It's of top importance, and it is a member of two potential featured topics. I think at this point, it's more important to protect Helium than to try to get either Copper or Chlorine up to FA. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Once He is off the chopping block, I suggest we start a collaboration of the month; notice of it can be added both to the Announcements page and maybe even the user box. The goal of each CoM would be to upgrade an article to at least A status and submit it to either GAN or FAC. --mav (talk) 14:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Aye, a GA / FA each month would be great. At one GA per month, it would take 8 years to bring all of the remaining elements to GA, so think about how long it would take without collaborating. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

FLCs?

Is there anything preventing:

to be submitted for FLC besides finding references? Is PR necessary? Nergaal (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

brainstorming about the infoboxes

We should really add the discovery date/year to the elementbox template (the infobox one). Also, anybody has any other suggestions to add there? Nergaal (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

We could also add (if there are any) possible discoverers. Wii Wiki (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we should have data pages for the elements and link them from the infobox, same as is done for some chemicals (see for example Water (data page) and Methane (data page)). There we can put nearly all information we can find without bloating the main infobox. (Not that I consider adding the date of discovery and discoverer bloating--those are fine in the main infobox, I think.) --Itub (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
E numbers? As for bloating, aren't thermal conductivity and speed of sound also bloating? Who actually cares about these when visiting the article page?
I totally agree with the data page. I am just not sure where to put the link. For example the "Selected isotopes" section has the link "Main article: isotopes of x". Initially I thought to put a similar link under the physical properties... yet the data pages might include a bit more than these. Any better ideas? Nergaal (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of chemical elements discoveries

I have upgraded the article a lot, but I stumped ont a problem. I've posted a sort of poll on its talk-page. Please leave your opinions. Thanks! Nergaal (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

-->Talk:List of elements by atomic mass

I would like to point the members of this project's attentions to Talk:List of elements by atomic mass. --HenrikRomby (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Supplementary videos

Do you think there's any value in linking to the videos on this website in the articles on elements? -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but I'd link that particular website only at Periodic table but link individual videos directly from utube on each element article. --mav (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good, just realised that we have both proposed the same goal (see no. 59). I agree to linking to the utube videos. Richnotts (talk) 08:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Element article names

I stumped onto this site hosted by IUPAC: http://old.iupac.org/reports/1998/7001coplen/list.html. There are several elements (Al, Sb, Cs, K, Na, W) that are listed with two names. Should/shouldn't we have the same formatting as IUPAC does? Nergaal (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No, let's not take that very specific report about the history of atomic weight out of context. In most other places, IUPAC doesn't call sodium natrium, for example. I've never seen anyone calling it natrium in English writing in the last 100 years, although the name is used in German and other languages, which perhaps is why the authors added it to the table in their report. --Itub (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Tightening of A Class assessment process

I'd like us to increase the standards for A-class articles in order to bring what we call A-class in conformance with standard assessment criteria. Proposal:

  1. An announcement must be placed on the WikiProject's Announcements page asking if article X should be listed as A class.
  2. A link to a corresponding A-Class review discussion area must be provided in the announcement. The discussion can occur in one of two places:
    1. As a natsci categorized Peer Review (via {{Peer review page|topic=natsci}} on the talk page) or
    2. As a link to an ==A-Class review== section on the article's talk page.
  3. Both the announcement and the A-class review discussion must be active for at least 1 week.
  4. To be listed as A class a consensus must be reached involving at least 2 other users.

Reassessments should go through the same process.

Current A-class articles should stay A-class for the time being. But each should also eventually go through reassessment.

For now at least the process for assigning Start, C, & B assessments will be the same (done more or less unilaterally).

What do you think? --mav (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC) Modified per WP 1.0 basic requirement on 03:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

So A-class would go back to being between GA and FA? Sounds fine to me. If we go through with this, we should demote all of our current A-class articles to to B. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
What would this add? More beaurocracy? Usually users tend to stick to their article until they get it to FA and except for very, very few cases, nobody would be happy only with an A. I think having A's as quite good articles, only missing say some refs to become a GA is ok. Once an article becomes a GA, is a matter of comprehensivity and copy-editing to get it to FA, so where would A fit in? On the other hand, I am ok with the discussing the rating here or somewhere, to see what others think.Nergaal (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
For ex, I think some of these articles lithium, nitrogen, manganese, iron, silver, or gold are close to be rated for A. Any opinions? Nergaal (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think any of those are close and likely would be hard even to get GA status. A-class is supposed to be close to FA quality at least in terms of everything but the more insane MoS requirements. Each of the above examples either don't have enough inline citations, have lead sections too short, or have stub or listy sections, ect. A to me, means excellent but none of those articles (a few of which I'm a major author of) are excellent yet. The point of adding this minimal level of peer cross checking is to make sure that what our project says are excellent articles are really that. I don't think that requiring Peer Review is much to ask. --mav (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think A-class should have strict citation requirements if we are going to consider A's under GA's. Nergaal (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
But we are no longer going to do that in order to come back into compliance with WP 1.0 standards. --mav (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Instead of demotion, I'd much prefer to reassess each of those articles one at a time and in descending order of importance. That way, we can work on each article to solve any faults to the point that we can hopefully form a consensus to keep the A-class rating. --mav (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! The folks at WP 1.0 have already thought of this. See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/A-Class criteria The basic requirement is to have one person nominate on the article talk page and two other non-involved users agree, with no significant opposes. I therefore change my proposal to allow for reviews to occur on the article's talk page or on a Peer Review page. However, I'd like us to encourage use of the PR method. Notification and time requirement via the announcements page still part of my plan. --mav (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, my point was just that taking lithium (which is at the upper end of B's, at least compared to other in the clas) to GA would take more work than taking radon to FA. I might be wrong though. Nergaal (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 216 articles are assigned to this project, of which 89, or 41.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:

{{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription|banner=Chemical Element}}

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool - thanks! I added the code to our Articles subpage. --mav (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month

To get things started I'd like to place a US$25 bounty (awarded to the project) on getting a high or top importance element article from start class to at least GA by the end of August (another $25 if a FAC is started by then and is eventually passed). I suggest germanium since that is the last element in the 4th period that is start class. What does everybody else think? --mav (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait, so who gets the money? It gets split between whoever works on the collaboration? I agree with Germanium, I'd definitely like to see the 4th period rid of orange. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 11:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Bounties go to the Wikimedia Foundation. I'd make a donation in the name of WikiProject Elements. --mav (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Cool! Do you want to make the collaboration yttrium since we're already working on it anyway? We've already lost more than a week of August. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Yttrium is already on a good path and will get featured with just us working on it. I'd like to encourage the rest of the WikiProject to bring another article up to a good standard. I'll help as well. As for time - I'll simply say that the bounty is for a 30 day period, even though the COTM will expire at the end of August. Unless somebody objects, I'll set this all up tomorrow after work. --mav (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I promoted period 1 elements - I wasn't sure on the image choice though, feel free to change it :) rst20xx (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

separate pages for infoboxes

I think I've managed to move all the infoboxes to separate pages in here. I might have skipped some uux's though. Nergaal (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Good job. :) These tables will now be easier to maintain. --mav (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Meija, Juris; et al. (2016). "Atomic weights of the elements 2013 (IUPAC Technical Report)". Pure and Applied Chemistry. 88 (3): 265–291. doi:10.1515/pac-2015-0305.
  2. ^ Prohaska, Thomas; Irrgeher, Johanna; Benefield, Jacqueline; Böhlke, John K.; Chesson, Lesley A.; Coplen, Tyler B.; Ding, Tiping; Dunn, Philip J. H.; Gröning, Manfred; Holden, Norman E.; Meijer, Harro A. J. (2022-05-04). "Standard atomic weights of the elements 2021 (IUPAC Technical Report)". Pure and Applied Chemistry. doi:10.1515/pac-2019-0603. ISSN 1365-3075.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements/Archive_8&oldid=1084185020"