Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Noticeboard
(edit · watch · refresh · history · Old notices · RC for main articles · Article alerts)

Comment at WT:ELEM.

WikiProject Elements (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.
 
Table of contents Article alerts

Templates for discussion
Files for deletion
Featured article reviews
Requests for comments
Requested moves
Featured article FA  A-Class article A   GA  Bplus-Class article Bplus  B-Class article B  C-Class article C  Start-Class article Start  Stub-Class article Stub  Featured list FL   List  Wikipedia Book Book  Category page Category  Disambiguation page Disambig   Draft   File   Portal   Project  Redirect page Redirect   Template   NA   ???  Total
21 9 70 6 33 92 82 30 1 179 132 262 5 0 118 1 17 3,371 234 0 3 4,666


Metallicity merge[edit]

It was once proposed to merge Periodic table (metals and nonmetals) into Metal and Nonmetal; the discussion was not formally closed but it rotated off onto Archive 14. I have removed the dangling merge notices.

However, I am thinking about a different merge proposal -- merging the content of Periodic table (metals and nonmetals) into Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals. What say? YBG (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Please go ahead. Sandbh (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, here is a list of the facts from the source article YBG (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Lead section
  • Already done (in lead) Elements by periodic table be up into metal, nonmetal, and metalloids (in between) based on their properties.
  • Rejected Everything from the left to the metalloid "stairstep" is a metal, and everything to the right is a nonmetal.
H is not a metal. But this is already covered in the new lede image caption. Sandbh (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Already done The periodic table shows most elements are metals very often.
This can be seen from the lede image. Sandbh (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Metals section
  • Already done (in lead) Shiny
  • Already done (in lead) Good conductor of heat and electricity
  • Already done (in shared) High melting point
  • Already done Malleable (this means that they can be hammered or distorted)
  • Already done Ductile (this means that they can be drawn into wires)
Most metals are ductile and malleable, at least to some degree. Sandbh (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Already done Usually solid at room temperature. An exception to this is mercury, which is liquid in nature.
  • Already done (in shared) Generally have low electronegativities for example : aluminium, gold, copper, silver, sodium, potassium, mercury, etc.
  • Rejected The structure and bonding of metals is also unique. A metallic substance has atoms that are close packed to their neighboring atoms. There are two common arrangements for metals, one of which is the body-centered cubic. In this arrangement each atom is at the center of eight other atoms. The other arrangement is called the face-centered cubic, and this is the same as the body-centered cubic except the atom is the center of six other atoms. These arrangements cause a crystal structure.
A little misleading. Ga, Mn, Bi do not have close-packed structures. Solid noble gases have close packed structures. Largely covered in existing article although this might be able to be elaborated with reference to BCC and HCP being most common. Sandbh (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done As far as bonding goes, metals easily lose their outer shell electrons, or valence electrons. This property is what gives them their ability to easily conduct heat and electricity.
  • Yes check.svg Done There are sub-groups of metals called the alkali metals, alkaline earth metals, and transition metals
  • Non-metals section
  • Rejected Non-metals generally have the opposite character
Really not much content here, no need to state it outright.
  • Already done Usually poor conductors of heat and electricity
  • Already done May be solids, liquids, or gas[es] at room temperature
  • Already done Generally have high electronegativities
  • Already done Non-ductile and brittle solids
  • Yes check.svg Done Nonmetal atoms are generally small and contain relatively large numbers of electrons in their outer shell.
  • Yes check.svg Done The noble gas nonmetals have completely filled outer electron shells, and most nonmetals have almost filled outer shells. This is contrasted to the metals, which have a small number of electrons in their outer shell.
Above two may or could be done by (a) adding an atomic radius property (I think; need to check the numbers again; looked at B4 and there may be a problem with choosing which set of atomic radii figures to use); and b) adding a "number of outer s and p electrons" row: metals low; metalloids medium; nonmetals high, noting overlaps with H, He, Bi, Po, and possibly At if it turns out to be a metal, and weirdness with Pd. Sandbh (talk) 05:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Rejected Nonmetals are also divided into sub-groups ... halogens and the noble gases.
  • Rejected Nonmetals are very broad and encompass many types of behaviors.
  • Rejected Nonmetals make up most of the crust, atmosphere, and oceans of the Earth.
Above three items covered in the nonmetal article. Sandbh (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done Additionally, most of what comprises any living organism is made of nonmetals such as carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and phosphorus.
Added abundance in human body Sandbh (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope to gradually work through these and categorize each fact. Possible statuses include

Not sure Already done
Rejected
Pendingyellow tickY Partly doneYes check.svg Done

I've started, but it may take a while to work through this list. Others are welcome to help. YBG (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow! We're almost there! Thanks so much Sandbh for your help!
Yes, all done. Appreciate the interest and contributions. More work to be done on citations but VG progress to date. Sandbh (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, everything has been either merged or explicitly rejected. I will convert Periodic table (metals and nonmetals) into a redirect. YBG (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Illustratives
  • Not sure. I see that the three background key colors (yellow, brown, blue) are used in the compare tables. So far two of these colors have had little attention, because little used ( brown=metalloid is obiquous at enwiki). If there is any reason to re-choose these colors I'd like to hear. I myself find the big areas in the table making a too strong effect (too much attention seeking). They might have a lighter shade. -DePiep (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
See YBG talk, here. Sandbh (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Free 'RSC Gold' accounts[edit]

I am pleased to announce, as Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society of Chemistry, the donation of 100 "RSC Gold" accounts, for use by Wikipedia editors wishing to use RSC journal content to expand articles on chemistry-related topics. Please visit Wikipedia:RSC Gold for details, to check your eligibility, and to request an account. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

An idea for a new template[edit]

While working on editing Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals, it occurred to me that it would be really neat to have a template that would create a small PT with atomic number, symbol, and one selected property -- say electronegativity, atomic radius, enthalpy of fusion, density, you name it. An added bonus would be if the cells could be colored sort of like Excel > Conditional Formatting > Color Scales. For melting point, it would look something like this:

  • {{periodic table data|13.99|0.95<ref>(at 2.5MPa}</ref>|453.65|1560|2349|...}}
  • {{periodic table data|H=13.99|He=0.95<ref>(at 2.5MPa}</ref>|Li=453.65|Be=1560|B=2349|...}}

There is an open quesion of how to handle allotropes -- e.g., diamonds vs graphite. (Notice that my example stopped at B?) I came upon this idea while trying to figure out what was going on with enthalpy of fusion in Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals#Physical properties. I finally grabbed the data from Heats of fusion of the elements (data page) and used MS-Word to piece it into a table presentation. In a few minutes (ok, it was closer to a quarter of an hour ...) I had a picture that was truly worth 103 words. Converting it to wikitable format gives this:

Enthalpy of fusion
1
H
0.117
2
He
0.0138
3
Li
3.00
4
Be
7.895
5
B
50.2
6
C
117
7
N
0.720
8
O
0.444
9
F
0.510
10
Ne
0.335
11
Na
2.60
12
Mg
8.48
13
Al
10.71
14
Si
50.21
15
P
0.66
16
S
1.727
17
Cl
6.406
18
Ar
1.18
19
K
2.321
20
Ca
8.54
21
Sc
14.1
22
Ti
14.15
23
V
21.5
24
Cr
21.0
25
Mn
12.91
26
Fe
13.81
27
Co
16.06
28
Ni
17.48
29
Cu
13.26
30
Zn
7.32
31
Ga
5.59
32
Ge
36.94
33
As
24.44
34
Se
6.69
35
Br
10.57
36
Kr
1.64
37
Rb
2.19
38
Sr
7.43
39
Y
11.42
40
Zr
14
41
Nb
30
42
Mo
37.48
43
Tc
33.29
44
Ru
38.59
45
Rh
26.59
46
Pd
16.74
47
Ag
11.28
48
Cd
6.21
49
In
3.281
50
Sn
7.03
51
Sb
19.79
52
Te
17.49
53
I
15.52
54
Xe
2.27
55
Cs
2.09
56
Ba
7.12
* 72
Hf
27.2
73
Ta
36.57
74
W
52.31
75
Re
60.43
76
Os
57.85
77
Ir
41.12
78
Pt
22.17
79
Au
12.55
80
Hg
2.29
81
Tl
4.14
82
Pb
4.77
83
Bi
11.30
84
Po
13
85
At
~6
86
Rn
3.247
87
Fr
~2
88
Ra
8.5
** 104
Rf
 
105
Db
 
106
Sg
 
107
Bh
 
108
Hs
 
109
Mt
 
110
Ds
 
111
Rg
 
112
Cn
 
113
Uut
 
114
Fl
 
115
Uup
 
116
Lv
 
117
Uus
 
118
Uuo
 
* 57
La
6.20
58
Ce
5.46
59
Pr
6.89
60
Nd
7.14
61
Pm
7.13
62
Sm
8.62
63
Eu
9.21
64
Gd
10.05
65
Tb
10.15
66
Dy
11.06
67
Ho
17.0
68
Er
19.90
69
Tm
16.84
70
Yb
7.66
71
Lu
~22
** 89
Ac
14
90
Th
13.81
91
Pa
12.34
92
U
9.14
93
Np
3.20
94
Pu
2.82
95
Am
14.39
96
Cm
13.85
97
Bk
7.92
98
Cf
 
99
Es
 
100
Fm
 
101
Md
 
102
No
 
103
Lr
 

The anomalies of C and many metalloids jump right off the page even in black and white text. And if it the cells could be coded using a color scale, it would really look stupendous. YBG (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Comes to mind: color shading like in {{Sydney_weatherbox}}, using {{Weather box}}. We have {{Periodic table (electronegativity by Pauling scale)}} and {{Periodic table (crystal structure)}}. These have a single property-value option. Colors are picked and added manulally, so cumbersome.:Basically: we could use a color calculator (|color-low= |color-high= |value= |no_of_steps= ). More ideas than time at the moment. -DePiep (talk) 09:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Be careful with using the enthalpy values for diatomic or polyatomic nonmetals. The values given are per mole of molecules whereas for metals it's per mole of atoms. For example, the value given for N is for a mole of N2 molecules, not a mole of N atoms. When comparing values I think you need to, in the case of N as an example, use half the quoted value. Sandbh (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I put in a value for At (admittedly a lame one from WebElements). I found some sources giving 23.8 (e.g. [3]), but frustratingly nothing really reliable. Double sharp (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Found reasonably reliable values for Cm and Bk and added them. Nothing for the later elements (unless you count the predictions, which I don't think we should). Double sharp (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Should the data page be modified also? YBG (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think so: those are for standard sources that give almost all the elements. The Cm and Bk entries I found separately in a different book. Double sharp (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I presume we are all familiar with periodictable.com (except that they don't show the actual values in each PT cell)?
This is very cool! YBG (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be awesome if there was a list of elements by origin (fusing of H in stars, super nova, etc)[edit]

I was thinking the other day that it would be really cool if Wikipedia had an article listing the chemical elements by their origins. Something like:

H- Condensed energy from the big bang.

He- Fusion of H in stars

Li- Fusion of H and He

Au- Fusion of ? and ? during a supernova.

Lv- Artificially created in a laboratory by such and such process.

I'm sure some elements form by more than one process. This is just a sketchy example to show the concept. I don't know enough about chemistry to give you guys a better idea of what I mean. Hopefully the article wouldn't be so bare bones, but you are all better equipped to know what else would be relevant to include, I just wanted to get the general idea out there. Abyssal (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds cool, (although for elements above Fe it'd be more like just links to r-, s-, p-, or rp-processes, because everything happens so fast...) and this is something I'd wanted for a while – a list of nuclides by how they were created. Double sharp (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Astatine last minute pre-FAC check[edit]

There is a chance I will be able to set astatine to the FAC procedure on late Feb (actually, I'm not sure when, could be earlier or later). I think this article is a "go," at least it was one in late 2012 (I planned a FAC then, but it was delayed) and hasn't changed much since. Still looks good to me now in early 2015. But that might be just me.

I would love you to have a look. If there's something wrong/you're not sure about, please write it in the article's Talk page (or elsewhere) and we'll see. If you check but find nothing wrong, please let me know that as well. Your input, however small, would be much appreciated.--R8R (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No natural occurrence[edit]

It occurred to me, only today, that the infobox does not list natural occurrence of the element. While most of out larger PT's do have that as a keyed cell border. To add? Where? -DePiep (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Occupational exposure to elements[edit]

Hi! I've been working over at WikiProject Chemistry on adding occupational safety and health data to chemboxes, and in that process have come across exposure data for certain elements. Is there a place for this in elements articles? I know there is a very specific format for elements and I don't want to step on any toes, hence asking here first. Thanks! Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

As we both know by now ;-), the NIOSH hazard data PEL, REL and IDLH are added to {{Chembox}} eg ethyl acetate. {{Infobox element}} though is a different beast. It has little real-life chemistry data (so far that is; it's a culture too of course). It has the science & chemistry facts.
I don't know what to do with the scores of other chemical data that {{Chembox}} handles. Hazards, medical issues: not in this element box now (while phosphorus and lithium are great and interesting candidates). For now, I'd say No to this --US-specific-- detail. I do foresee the need of a "data sheet" template, taking it's unlimited and useful space at the bottom of the article page. For all chemical articles (elements, chemical substances, drugs, illegal drugs).
Meanwhile, have you considered asking {{drugbox}}? They should add it asap ;-). -DePiep (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree, phosphorous and lithium could have a whole host of chemical data. :) I will go wander over and ask the drugbox people now though, thanks! Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Just discovered: Category:Chemical element data pages (I've been working on the element articles for some three years). -DePiep (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I've seen many at {{Periodic table templates}} and {{Navbox periodic table}}, but I've never noticed the category. YBG (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The are not per individual chemical, as Ammonia (data page) is. Confused. -DePiep (talk) 08:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
There are currently 22 pages listed in Category:Chemical element data pages. 20 of the 22 are listed in 'Data pages' section of {{Navbox periodic table}} (the third group from the bottom). I think all 20 are also listed in {{Navbox elements data}} in a different format. YBG (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

More PTM Cleanup[edit]

I just noticed three files in Decay chain (illustrating the thorium, neptunium, and actinium chains) which use the term "poor metals" which should be changed to "post transition metals". "Poor metal" may be used in other graphics, but I suspect it would be difficult to find them. YBG (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It will be great if you also contact Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Illustration_workshop, they can help too.--R8R (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Before I engage them, is there anything else that should be changed -- e.g., all of the element categories are in Title Case, should they be Sentence case instead? YBG (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, @DePiep:, for fixing the Neptunium chain in conjunction with your work on Astatine. Any chance of you finding time to fix the others? I have added the Uranium series to the gallery above, not because it references "Poor metals" but because it is the 4th in the series, and it has a somewhat different format which might be improved by converting it to match the other three. YBG (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Saw this list, now At is up for FA so that one first. Good to add U here. Will revisit this later. -DePiep (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
BTW, why not try yourself? 1. download teh file. 2. in a simple text-editor: search for wrong text like "poor metal" and edit (texts like "#poormetal" are internal identifiers; may be changed too). Then upload. Must say, the scheme is not very clear to me, because of the upward arrows (to keep same-element in one row apparently). Maybe that should be horizontal, so in thorium flow we see Pb → Bi → Po horizontally. -DePiep (talk) 11:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I've modified the two .svg files as @DePiep: suggested. Not sure whether I have to do something to get the .png renderings to be adjusted, so I marked them as {{Partly done}}. YBG (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Congrats. In general, png-copies should be abandoned & deprecated. As in: don't worry about them. Sure we will not use them in enwiki articles. svg is preferred always. -DePiep (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
It seems some kindly bot has updated the .png files to all read PTM. YBG (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Changes in Infobox element[edit]

About {{Infobox element}}. I have made changes to have the "(at x °C)'" qualification show the same over multiple parameters (= rows). Changes were done in: Speed of sound; Thermal expansion; Electrical resistivity).

In general, the (SI) pattern is: 1140 µm·m−1·K−1 (at 25 °C)[61]_comment.

-DePiep (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Just niticed: the cell-padding in tables has been increased (more whitespace around text). In the infoboxes, the isotopes-table is pushed wider. Now the whole infobox is wide-body. It appears to me that there are fewer line-wraps needed in the infobox, which seems OK. Any comments? -DePiep (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Prime Directive for period 3 elements[edit]

I have recently been following the Dawn and Opportunity missions and have now returned. Of course, with all the formatting changes and style tweaks going on now, one thing's been left out: the period 3 elements (excluding argon, of course). I plan to work on one of these in the near future – calcium with its recent RFC may be the first target but sodium and sulfur look more appealing to me. Parcly Taxel 19:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice. What is your question?-DePiep (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC) (Distracting additions now removed -DePiep (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC))
What, I didn't actually pose any question, I was just seeing if the group was still alive (which it still is). All the period 3 elements except argon are C-class – in some sense "critical" – and I want to see which one of these is most in need of improvement. Looking at the book report for the entire gamut of chemical elements the clear loser is aluminium with four maintenance tags. Maybe that should be our next project? Parcly Taxel 07:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Parcly Taxel, you first posted a lot of illegible stuff here, then after I questioned that you cleaned up [4] and then you play dumb saying "what was unclear?", as if I am the one distracting. Next time, do better and don't smear others. Come on. -DePiep (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
If we do Al, Aluminium: The Thirteenth Element would be very useful (R8R has it in Russian). Double sharp (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The main two avenues of yellow running through the PTQ are period 3 and the halogens. I think period 3 would be nicer for most people; it's less monotonous. K will be a good model for Na, and F will be a good model for Cl. Mostly I've been working from the bottom of the table upwards, so periods 6 and 7 are getting tantalizingly close to all GA and above; the only problem is that that isn't going to get me very many famous elements, whereas period 3 contains celebrities. (Gold, radium, thoriumuranium and plutonium were brought to FA long ago).
P.S. If anyone still wants a goal from me; I think that while the goal for any randomly considered heavy element should just be GA, if it's not a celebrity like Au, the first 20 elements should be stuck with to the FA: they are just that important. (Thinking of doing Li or Be.) Fair shall the end be, though long and hard shall be the road! Say farewell to yellow! But say farewell also to ease! Say farewell to the starts! Say farewell to your transactinides – more still shall we make! Journey light. But bring with you your refs! For we will go further than [insert editor], endure longer than [insert editor]: we will never turn back from article improvement. After the stars to the ends of the 'pedia! Copyedits shall they have and reviews undying. But when we have conquered and gained the blueness we have long sought, then behold! We, alone, shall be the lords of the pure blue Table, and masters of the building blocks of the Universe! No other FAR shall oust us! (as Fëanor absolutely did not say). XD Double sharp (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Double sharp. When I showed that quote to my 18yo son who thinks what I do on WP is a total waste of time and in general disparages the sciences in favor of lit - especially certain favorites, he actually appreciated it! YBG (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Haha! One day I might actually bring Fëanor to GA; that would be cool and he is definitely notable – AFAIK he's the second-most-mentioned character in The Silmarillion, behind only Morgoth, and just above Túrin, Eru(!), and Sauron. I kind of cheated by only including the part I could make relevant: we are not (Let's not swear any oaths, though. That rarely ends well. That is rather a pity because I could make references to "transactinides yet unsynthesized upon the particle accelerators".) Double sharp (talk) 06:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree, Double sharp, but in my template-space-time continuum there are no FA stars to be earned. I cry. btw, here it is. -DePiep (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

atomic weights, box format[edit]

A question/opinion for the box format:
first format:
|atomic mass=4.002602
|atomic mass 2=2<ref name="IUPAC">[http://www.ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm 2013 Standard Atomic Weights]. [[Commission on Isotopic Abundances and Atomic Weights]]</ref>
second format:
|atomic mass=4.002602(2)<ref name="IUPAC">[http://www.ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm 2013 Standard Atomic Weights]. [[Commission on Isotopic Abundances and Atomic Weights]]</ref>
|atomic mass 2=
Result for both:
Standard atomic weight 4.002602(2)[1] like in the Tamplate helium box
What can be the prefered format?
If we prefered the second format, so we needn't the atomic mass 2 parameter.
I prefer the second format.
Best regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@Alchemist-hp: I would definitely be inclined towards the second format; we can reduce the number of variables in the template. Parcly Taxel 11:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Alchemist, I'd prefer using |atomic mass 2= for the precision-number (as it was), because this allows us to use and format that number for its specifics. Also, bot readers do not have to break down the all-in-one number. I note that there is |atomic mass ref= which is specially added for the reference. So for {{infobox helium}} it would be:
|atomic mass=4.002602
|atomic mass 2=2
|atomic mass ref=<ref name="IUPAC">[http://www.ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm 2013 Standard Atomic Weights]. [[Commission on Isotopic Abundances and Atomic Weights]]</ref>
|atomic mass comment=
Of course the visual result is not for change. -DePiep (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
... so your first format would produce the wrong result: 4.002602(2[1]); well you already rejected it. Another advantage for the split input is that the reference is not entered together with the number. In Lua, it is impossible to strip off the reference to get the plain number(s) for whatever extra usage. So preferably not mix it in the first place. I propose you apply this input format in future additions. Of course sourcing this is a great addition. -DePiep (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, if no other opinions, so I'd like to start my work with your prefered options. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Just to make this description complete: |atomic mass comment= can have any text you like, including reference(s). This is to solve any remaining situation as is needed. If in hydrogen you want to write "(1.00784–1.00811)[1]", then you can enter |atomic mass comment=(1.00784–1.00811)<ref>... the reference text here ...</ref>. The comment always has a space prefixed, and no further formatting. -DePiep (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
But ... the atomic mass of hydrogen has a range of "(1.00784–1.00811)". The IUPAC or CIAAW don't prefer a average value. Similar to a lot of other elements, like boron, carbon, lithium, ... And now? What can I do? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep going, I guess. I only meant to inform that you can position a reference in two places: 1.008[1] (1.00784–1.00811)[2] (in |atomic mass ref= and in |atomic mass comment=; the comment is an anything-goes input field). Depending on which data you want to source, you can pick one. (if I understand this topic right: the IUPAC reference better follow the range because that is what it sources). I won't edit that unless you ask me to. -DePiep (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I hope I did not scare you away. I'll recap my posts below, in an overview. -DePiep (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Link or explain the "1.008(2)" notation[edit]

  • Alchemist-hp and others, a side topic. Do we have a good link or explanation for this "(2)" addition we use? I'm working with it a long time, but I still don't know what it actually means. More so for our Readers, I guess. -DePiep (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Check Uncertainty § Measurements for an explanation. But we need to have it explained more prominently. At the very least, it should be included in the explanatory cell at Periodic table (large cells), in relative atomic mass, and in the explanation of |atomic mass 2= in {{infobox element}}. No doubt there are other places. YBG (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Added the link to the (±) legend of large-cell PT. -DePiep (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I've tweaked {{infobox element}} esp. |atomic mass 2= using newly created redirect uncertainty bracket notation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YBG (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey, nonsigner, I don't see an effect in {{infobox helium}}. We want it to look like: 4.002602(2)[1] right? It's in {{Infobox element/sandbox}}. -DePiep (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
That (nonsigner) would be me. Thank you for assuming the best, it is much appreciated. I usually remember to include ~~~~, but I guess I forgot. No surprise to me, as I'm a fully self-aware mortal. Sinebot, however, assumes that that since I have >800 edits, I must know what I'm doing. Well, I don't, at least in this case. But it just goes to show you that the bot also knows to AGF for experienced users. Anyway, I've manually added above what Sinebot didn't, in a Coltonesque form of flattery.
All I did was (a) add info to {{Infobox element/doc}} and {{Infobox element/doc/parameter list}} and (b) change your "(±)" to "(±)" in the explanatory cell at Periodic table (large cells) (just to the right of H). But I really 👍 Like your idea of including the link wherever the bracket notation is used. I would include the parens inside the wikilink, to make a larger mouse target. And we really should expand uncertainty bracket notation -- maybe redirect it from Uncertainty § Measurements to Uncertainty notation § Bracket notation, which should also have sections for the other two notations. That would make a much nicer hovercard. YBG (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Infobox demo in {{Infobox neon/sandbox}}. Instead, we could also add the link like this: Standard atomic weight (±) 20.1797(6). So, add it to the label side. -DePiep (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll fold this in proposals, below. -DePiep (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Options to !vote[edit]

The options
atomic mass uncertainty
Label-side
Standard atomic weight (±) 4.0026(9)[1]
Data-side
Standard atomic weight 4.0026(9)[1]
Previous
Standard atomic weight 4.0026(9)[1]

I think we can choose between two options for the uncertainty link, see the demos. Notes: I kept the link to uncertainty bracket notation, we can fill & redirect that as we like. The brackets are underlined too. The label-side link will not appear when the (#2) number is not present. All other input is unaffected (mass, ref, comment).

I can add variants if you like. Votes & notes?

Opinions
  • label-side. To follow SI rule, derived: a quantity specifier belongs with the quantity (lh-side here), not in the value itself. -DePiep (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • ambivalent. No strong opinion. I do think in would be nice to also include something that would cover the case when the entire mass is in parens -- a note to indicate that it is the mass of the most stable isotope of elements that do not occur naturally. Not sure how that would be accomplished in terms of parameters and the like. After you've cogitated on that a while, if you figure out a way to do it, that may lead me to have a more definite opinion. Thank you DePiep for your hard work on these picky little details, it is very much appreciated. And I am truly disappointed that there are no FAs to be earned in your template-space-time-continuum. YBG (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    The comment parameter is there for all non-standard input inclusive references and wikilinks. Any situation where this is would not be enough? -DePiep (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    Oh, one other thing. Why does it say 'standard atomic weight' but link to 'relative atomic mass'? No big deal about standard/relative, but I don't you think it would be better to use 'mass' than 'weight'? YBG (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    What is your suggestion? The difference is too layered for me to conclude a change. -DePiep (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    Re mass/weight. My only idea would be to replace it with 'Relative atomic mass', which is the name of the wikilinked article. However, now that I've read Relative atomic mass § Naming controversy, I'm not sure it is worth changing. YBG (talk) 07:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    Re [brackets] for most stable isotope of elements, see #More atomic mass suggestions below. YBG (talk) 07:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • +1 for label-side. It looks very good and is understandable, but only if the parameter |atomic mass 2= is defined. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. If this talk evolves further, we can refine. -DePiep (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The atomic mass parameters[edit]

In {{Infobox element}}, there are four parameters for atomic mass:

|atomic mass         = 4.0026
|atomic mass 2       = 9
|atomic mass ref     = <ref name="IUPAC">[http://www.ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm]</ref>
|atomic mass comment = The comment can be any text, and have its own reference.<ref>[www.example.com]</ref>

Will show like:

Demo atomic mass
Standard atomic weight 4.0026(9)[1] The comment can be any text, and have its own reference.[2]
  1. ^ a b c d [1]
  2. ^ [www.example.com]

The first three are treated systematically for what they are. For example, brackets are added always around param #2. The fourth param is for free text. This one is added with a preceding space, and no further formatting. Technically, one can use the first one |atomic mass= with any text, and it will show OK. However, following the pattern can help future handling. Also, external bots prefer the structured input. And as said, the comment (fourth parameter) is unstructured and free. This together should allow every situation. -DePiep (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. One detail not explicitly mentioned is that using all four parameters as they are intended will make it much easier to convert things to get all the information from wikidata. YBG (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I only invite alchemist to use this all (invite, not command ;-)). His contribution (adding sources) is way more important, whichever way. Bonus link: this picture :-) -DePiep (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Please check again both info boxes: hydrogen and helium. Can it be accepted? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks fine. One note: I'd leave the link (2) out, just have (2) there, because we will probably add that in the template (for all). See section above. -DePiep (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
OK. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

More atomic mass suggestions[edit]

atomic mass
Existing for U, U(), Pu[]
Standard atomic weight (±) 238.02891(3)[1]
Standard atomic weight 238.02891[1]
Standard atomic weight [237][1]
Alternatives for [bracket] notation
Standard atomic weight [] [237][1]
References
  1. ^ a b c d [2]

We should also include something to explain the other use of parentheses. I've offered one suggestion; others are welcome. At this point, I'm thinking only about appearance, not implementation. YBG (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

There is this [289] in flerovium (ok) and brackets (252) in einsteinium. What does (...) mean? Text, link? -DePiep (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I think they're both meant to mean the same thing, so we should probably regularize them all to the square brackets. Double sharp (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
That's "most stable isotope" then ([289] for Fv). No 'prediction' then for the super heavies? -DePiep (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Navboxes at bottom of articles[edit]

Looking at:

It seems to be fairly established that navboxes belong at the very end of an article, after all of the notes and references. This works quite well for most WP articles. However, WP:ELEM articles tend to have a huge volume of references -- sometimes equaling the size of the rest of the article and requiring 6-8 clicks to scroll through, even on a wide monitor. We do make extensive use of infoboxes at the top of our chemical element articles, but this doesn't completely fulfill the same function as navboxes.

When an article has a massive list of notes and references, I think it would be helpful to put the navboxes further up. I'm thinking of suggesting a change to the MOS to allow this. The general rule stays the same as it is now, but it would allow some flexibility, specifically, when there is a massive quantity of notes and references, navboxes are allowed to appear in the See Also section, but only in a collapsed state.

I've looked around and I have yet to find any articles outside of WP:ELEM with lists of notes and references that come anywhere near their average length in our articles elements... articles in Portal:Medicine seem to come closest. (e.g., from their showcase: Acute myeloid leukemia, Bacteria, Chagas disease, Dengue fever, Endometrial cancer. YBG (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC))

What do others think? Is there any support for this in WP:ELEM? Any comments or suggestions? If there is support here, I'd like to take the suggestions given here and then see what interest I can generate over at Village pump and then over at Village pump. YBG (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I'd like to read what the page-designers think. I've always found it hard to understand that a navbox does not belong to article content (e.g., a navbox is not printed, and does not show in mobile view). -DePiep (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
This apparently has been discussed to death:
I'm sure there are others, in fact I've seen a short discussion that I can't find now. Sigh. All in all, most of the discussion is not related to the issue of long lists of references. I also note that if the standard practice in WP is to place navboxes after the references and the like, then general WP readers who want to see navboxes will look there and now the long lists of references actually argues against putting them in See Also. Also worthy of note is that at some point the use of navigational infoboxes came into use and I think this eliminated some of the pressure on making any changes to the placement (horizontal) navboxes. Having briefly scanned the above lengthy discussions, I'm a bit less inclined to pursue this proposal. But we might consider expanding our use of infoboxes and developing a couple of vertically oriented navigational infoboxes -- one to go after {{infobox element}} in element articles and another to go in articles that don't have {{infobox element}}. This could take the form of the "Part of a series of articles" infoboxes that I see in other areas on WP. YBG (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I can understand you r reason to think of this change. I myself can not promise to spend much time on this (motivating my opinion), mostly due to lack of means (energy & time). Page design is a huge topic, and it takes a lot of reading & thinking to be able to add a new thought. So it will be difficult to improve that. Your second note, extending vertical (sidebar?) infoboxes/navboxes: Difficult topic too, but we could manage that within WP:ELEM. There is a third topic in the back of my mind: the element articles do not have data that is commonly added with in {{Chembox}} and {{Drugbox}} (medicine regulations, hazards, external database links). Takes another year to find a solution for adding these. -DePiep (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Radon.jpg up for deletion[edit]

See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 February 19#File:Radon.jpg, focused especially on whether it is actually representative of the element itself for purposes of infobox and whether a free image of this chemical could be created. DMacks (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Already removed from the gallery in Template:Periodic table (noble gases). Non-free rules are tough. -DePiep (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Pix in Trans-X articles[edit]

I've turned on hovercards and I quite like the feature, but it shows a few inconsistencies in our articles.

In {{Navbox periodic table}} > Named sets > Misc., there are links to Transuranium elements, Transactinide elements, and Transplutonium elements. In all three cases, the first pic in the article is File:Super heavy elements (polyatomic).svg, which highlights 103-118, the transactinide elements. Of course, two out of the three is caused by the fact that Trans-Pu is a redirect to Trans-U. But the end result is that the hovercard makes it look like all three terms refer to elements 103-118, whereas Trans-U should be 93-118 and Trans-Pu should be 95-118. The best way to fix this is to create new pics for (a) 93-118 and put it in the lede for Trans-U and for (b) 95-118 and put it in the lede for a new Trans-Pu article, maybe just a stub. YBG (talk) 07:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Since trans-Pu and transactinide (yes, I have seen that term used by IUPAC) are all subsets of trans-U, why not dispense with creating short stubs and instead have a single picture with different colours or backgrounds for trans-U alone, trans-Pu (but cis-actinide – I wanted to say "sub-actinide", but I got worried about keeping the cis-trans pair from Latin), and transactinide? Double sharp (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I see. That would be three colors then, beyond U. Would remove the An color (while we use the cis-An description ...?). A 32-column PT is most useful here. Looks obvious we can add the symbols for U and Pu in the cells. Maybe also add arrows, from X to the right? -DePiep (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe a fourth colour should be added, for the actinides: Ac, Th, Pa, and U aren't transuraniums but are often discussed together AFAICS. Don't use "cis-An", I made that term up. It's a correctly used Latin prefix, but nobody uses this combination. I like your ideas re symbols and arrows. Agree that 32-column is most useful, although we might want to show how it folds into 18-column (as that fold unintuitively places the transactinides above the lighter actinides). Double sharp (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Image name suggestion (svg)? -DePiep (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
How about something like "File:Transuraniums periodic table location.svg"? Double sharp (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
developing concept Mark transuranium elements and similar sets (a.k.a. super heavy elements)
I do not see any advantage in deconstructing this to a 18-column form, indeed that being "unintuitively" does not explain anything. It is simply a linear issue, with some stations (elements).
Todo: let's get a good form (graphics) to show what we want to say. Do not worry about micro-fixings (such as fontsize). I don't get the four-color solution, because it would overwrite the actinide color (purple) - we'd throw out existing crucial information. OTOH, throwing out all other bg category colors can be done, if that helps.
To show and name: transuranium, transplutonium, transactinide. -DePiep (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Best add all symbols, Ac and up. orders (like U, Pu) then marked to stand out. -DePiep (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

A monologue oxygen discussion[edit]

Please take a look to this discussion about the images too. Thanks, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Atomic spectra images[edit]

It appears that a complete set (all those known: Z ≤ 99, with a few exceptions) is available at commons:Category:Atomic spectra (the ones ending with "visible": note that they used the old spelling protoactinium for Z = 91). Can they be added into our element infoboxes? (As an example, promethium is done). Double sharp (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Why not if they're free? (I do remember some years ago you wanted them out, remember ;-) ). Let me know if somewhere a third image is needed. Any central formatting? -DePiep (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)