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)

  • Should we replace the IUPAC systematic names (e.g. ununtrium) with descriptive names like element 113?

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 candidates
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
23 8 70 5 32 92 83 31 1 179 132 262 5 0 118 1 17 3,372 232 0 3 4,666


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)

Part of a series infobox[edit]

I think the best solution for the issues above is to develop one of the "Part of a series on ..." navboxes that hang on the right side of articles. Before I spend too much time thinking about this, I'd like to elicit some input from others. In particular, could you answer these questions:

  • Do you think this is a good idea?
  • If not, briefly explain why not.
  • If so, please suggest a particular box that could be used as a model

Thanks! YBG (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Astatine at FAC[edit]

Here. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

At FA[edit]

Featured article Congratulations. I think I should compliment R8R and Sandbh here. I am looking at your patience & carefulness for inspiration. -DePiep (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

oxidation states: "+1" notation[edit]

In the astatine infobox, the oxidation states are noted this way: "−1, +1, +3, +5, +7": the "+" plus-sign is added. Shall we make that standard for all infoboxes? (I like it for stressing the essence, but is it best practice?) -DePiep (talk) 07:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I like it too for clarity. What's the downside? All I can see it that it consumes more space. Is it significant that −1, +1 are bold but the others are not? YBG (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Only downside I can think of is it being non-standard or confusing. Is why I ask this. There is a reason for the bolding, but being Good Encyclopedic means we should describe/note/clarify that. Maybe legend or footnote or labeltext. Suggestions? -DePiep (talk) 07:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
It's pretty standard to write cationic charges with the sign in many contexts (of direct relevance for the infobox field, that's how oxidation state does it). The bold ones are the most common values. I agree that if we retain that sort of detail, we should somehow have a note about it (maybe an on-hover popup would be less intrusive than an actual footnote or other symbol/word that takes up space). DMacks (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I think its standard too. Just checked, Zumdahl and Greenwood/Earnshaw does it too. (When G&E counts d electrons they doesnt add the + e.g. oxidation state: 4 (d1), but otherwise they do.) Christian75 (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that fits my generic understanding in numbers: no when it's a counting total, yes (allowed) when a value. -DePiep (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The bold size is for the "main" oxidation state. I prefer this too and for all the infoboxes. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Quick conclusion: 1. yes we can add the + in "oxidation states +1" &tc., (so, all elements then); 2. bolding stays (none asked otherwise), but still unclear if & how to clarify that. -DePiep (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
About bold/normal (main oxidation states)
"The main oxidation state: it is simple: we can use it from the literature, like Greenwood/Earnshaw, Holleman/Wiberg etc. ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
This is not about sourcing the bolding, it is about explaining the bolding. As it is now, the Reader is left with the question: "Why is this number bolded?". -DePiep (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
How about "−1, +1, +3, +5, +7"? {{H:title}} is documented as not being WP:ACCESSIBLE, but it's a start...better than no explanation for anyone (I don't see an alternative that is similar to this result). Alternative would be a <ref> in the label that says "bold ones are most common". List of oxidation states of the elements uses the same convention for formatting the most common one(s) for each element. DMacks (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
We can add the bold ones are the most common ones in a small font size next to the very name of that row of the infobox, smth. like "oxidation states <br> (the most common ones are in bold)".--R8R (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Re R8R, along that line yes. Then (because infobox font already is reduced), bold/normal like: Oxidation states (most common ones are in bold). Q: Is "most common" the crispiest we can be? It's a bit open ended imo. -DePiep (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC):
"Most stable" is more like it, closer to what we want to emphasize. I don't think I could do better than that.--R8R (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Why not use {{abbr}}, as it is docuented as being accessible? I know that't not what abbr is intended for, but it's worth considering. YBG (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
{{abbr}} uses <abbr>, a w3c defined HTML option (that is: high level of definition). Its /doc says: only use this for abbreviations and acronyms, not to add a title (mousehover) text. So we must confirm. DePiep (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I dont think they necessary have to be the most stable to be in bold, and if it changed to most stable a lot of oxidation states needs new references. Christian75 (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
If you mean to say that the data (content & meaning) should change, please expand on that. -DePiep (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
A side note: Why do we reverse the numbers, e.g. 3, 2, 1, -2 ... (I just checked hydrogen, cobalt and iron - all reversed), and theese elements doesnt have oxidation state 0 in the inforbox. Christian75 (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I think we can agree & decide here that the numbers should be ascending (I propose). I don't understand what you mean to say with the zero. -DePiep (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Made the three elements mentioned ascending. Not for me being that bold, but for it being obvious imo. -DePiep (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────One more approach. Can we split the small list, bolds first:

Am: mainly +3, also +7, +6, +5, +4, +2 ​(an amphoteric oxide)
C: mainly +4, −4, also +3,[1] +2, +1,[2] 0, −1, −2, −3 (a mildly acidic oxide)
or
C: mainly −4, +4, also −3, −2, −1, 0, +1,[1] +2, +3[2] (a mildly acidic oxide)
At: mainly −1, +1, also +3, +5, +7
At: most common: −1, +1, also +3, +5, +7 [use existing parlance]
At: −1, +1 (less common: +3, +5, +7) [another option]

-DePiep (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC) -DePiep (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I like it, since it doesn't necessarily rely on bonding to show which are the mainly encountered states. Can we show C as ascending? Sandbh (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
We can reorder for C, it's free. Below, earlier, we noted that we'd better mention the bolds first in a single list (so that would decide the ascend/descend order in most cases). But done this way, that rule does not work any more. We're back to the question: do we asc or desc in all infoboxes? I'd like to have a guideline however faint, to get similar presentation in boxes. -DePiep (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC) added that variant.
I like the proposal. We could do it.
Regarding the order to list the states in, it doesn't really matter. Both the ascending (which makes sense in its own way) and alternating for metals and nonmetals (which makes sense in its own way) are fine. It is a matter of taste, really, especially if we show the main states before the other ones, as proposed. Especially in that case, I would use the ascending ordering for all elements, but I would not really oppose if others disagree. --R8R (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I added some alternative wordings to the short demo list. Ideas? -DePiep (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
About ordering
I'm not sure about the ordering. A lot of infoboxes are descending, which indicates a habit (in science). I'd like to hear from Sandbh, R8R Gtrs, Double sharp about this ascend-or-descend At ordering:
"−1, +1, +3, +5, +7"
"+7, +5, +3, +1, −1"
-DePiep (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there's a real difference between the two. It could be done either way. None will get hurt.
Or we may say both versions may be defended with arguments of kinda the same level: Numbers should decrease, because they show an increase of electrons we have (IOW, more electrons = lower oxidation state, since electrons are negatively charged) and that looks cool, or we can show them increase because, you know, they increase and that looks cool. (In both cases, "that looks cool" is a simplification, but is actually the very essence of what it stands for.) But I can't really figure out reasons any more sophisticated than these, and since both mean little, and it's a question of personal preference. If others know better reasons for either version, I'd be pleased to listen.
Since they're both basically the same, I'd go with the ascending order if we decide we should standardize this. (I raise my doubts on if the effort will be worth it, though. However, standardization is a thing... I just don't want to do it myself, because it seems mostly pointless to me to spend time on this, but I am fine with any decision as long as I am not in.) Just a personal preference, no actual scientific reason, since I can't think of a very good one (or maybe I'm underestimating those we have, who knows). Or you can say the ascending order is more intuitively correct, which I will go with.--R8R (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Another alternative would be to choose between ascending and descending based on which one puts a given element's most common states earlier in the list. YBG (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Something along the same lines, since I expect to see the most important information listed first: Hydrogen, metals and metalloids = positive to negative. Nonmetals = negative to positive. Thus:
Mn: 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, −1, −2, −3
Si: 4, 3, 2, 1, −1, −2, −3, −4
Cl: −1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Sandbh (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Makes most sense. When situation is doubtful (eg, symmetry in boldings), existing edit order should stay. -DePiep (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding oxidation state 0[edit]

Split off topic
I think the oxidations states for all the elements are based on Greenwood and Earnshaw including the bolding (page 28, 2nd edt.)? And Carbon is not correct in an organic perspective - I think all the oxidations states from -4 to +4 are common in organic chemistry? And all the infoboxes should have added 0 as an oxidation state too (C has oxidation states 0, but a link to formaldehyde - the free element are more common than formaldehyde). Christian75 (talk) 09:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
This subtopic is not about correctness or sourcing of the ox states. It is about how we present them: use bold, order (ascending/descending?), describe the meaning of bold. If there are improvements to make in specific elements (like C), pls take it to its talkpage or open a separate thread here. -DePiep (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Off course its relavant before changing all the ordering. We do not source the bolding, and we are missing oxidation state +0 in nearly all a lot of infoboxes. Christian75 (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I think we should not use the OS zero if an element is found in this OS only in its free form. Because zeros in free state are obvious; but it is not just a matter of taste, I, at least initially, would think there may be a known, say, Na(0) compound. If we must add zeros, I suggest we change the line name to "Oxidation states (as found in compounds)" or smth. like that, just not to do it anyway. It would confuse me and surely some other people. Let's not do it.--R8R (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe its obvious, but so is the oxidation state equal main group number :-). But if its confusing to list OS 0, maybe it should be added to some kind of description to the entry. (and btw: the +0 are a matter of style - just checked Google and some other people do it too. I think its like writing +1, +2,... which could be written 1,2,... (as math people normally do)... Christian75 (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Christian75 Are you seriously going off-topic again, reversed direction this time, right after I have organised your flea jumpings? You really want to show off that you have not read this thread? Bye. -DePiep (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
DePiep No, Im talking about the plus in +0, not about the ordering. Please reread my post again. Christian75 (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
q.e.d. -DePiep (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it off topic, not when I removed the "+" before the zero at {{Infobox astatine}}. I've seen sources doing it without the + for the zero (although in that particular case they also removed the + for all the positive oxidation states). But to me it is a bit odd, because it makes me wonder if −0 would mean something different from +0. It's not really natural and obvious to me to put a sign in front of zero, because zero is neither positive nor negative.
About oxidation state = main group number: even that is not always obvious. Po(VI) and At(VII) spring to mind as cases when the group oxidation state is known only in a few compounds, and most known compounds are in some lower oxidation state. Rn(VIII) is not even known. (Granted, these are rare radioactives, but even a small exception forces readers to take note and not assume it's always the same – to me, a possibly dangerously effective source of misreadings.) Double sharp (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
(Interesting). -DePiep (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Conclusions[edit]

To be gathered. Topic is worth to be kept open. -DePiep (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation in infoboxes[edit]

The ongoing FAC has raised a question whether we really need the pronunciation part of the infobox (like /ˈæstətiːn/ or /ˈæstətɪn/ as-tə-teen or as-tə-tin). I don't really know, I'm fine with this either in or out. I'm also not sure if there is a place for a wider discussion... what do you think? Whatever the decision, the best would be to apply this not to the infobox astatine, but to the whole infobox element. (Which is easy to do, but some agreement first would do us good.) --R8R (talk) 09:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course changes must be applied infobox-wide.
See WP:PRON, eg #Placement. It is not absolute in this, but it says: "Several info boxes, such as many of the biography boxes, provide for a pronunciation entry. In such cases there is generally no need to repeat it in the lede, as at Alice Liddell." I myself find IPA in the opening sentence distracting (at least), so I prefer having it in the infobox. {{Respell}} may be added 'legally', which doubles the argument to put pron. in the infobox. -DePiep (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The question is not really "lead or infobox," it's more of "do we need it at all." I checked some articles with titles, just like in this case, meaning a very certain thing and not being real English words, but still not starting with a cap letter. Maglev, laser don't use it, but maser does.--R8R (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't get all of this. Sure, if pronunciation is unambiguous the pron can go. Would there be five elements for this? Your statement plus its examples are unclear. The examples may be wrong (in that, they could use a pron. key). What does the cap/noncap mean in this? -DePiep (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I picked three articles with technical names. Maser does feature a pronunciation key ("A maser (/ˈmeɪzər/) is a device..."), while the other two don't. "Cap" is "capital," I was just too lazy to type down the whole word, English is relatively flexible at that; those titles are words not requiring a capital letter. When there are differing pronunciations possible, we do feature them all, astatine is an example. (So are, say, antimony, molybdenum, and surely others.) So, I guess, we can let it go and abandon the pronunciation parameters altogether, but let's wait another day to see if there are any objections.--R8R (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
1. No, we keep the pron in the infobox. No changes are concluded here. 2. I understand capital=uppercase first letter, but again, what has that to do with pronunciation? 3. The examples do not define whether we should add the pronunciation, they are useless for this. 4. Not only should we mention multiple pron options, we must also mention the pronunciation when there is only one good pron, but wrong others (eg, bad stressing). This is why I expect no more that five elements that would not need a pron at all (only one unambiguous single pronunciation possible). 5. Pls be clear, you want to remove the pron completely, or move it to the opening sentence? -DePiep (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Oops, I see you already answered #5: remove completely. Well, up to you to prove that pronunciation is not needed at all. That would mean IMO: pronuncuiation is clear & unambiguous. For individual elements or maybe even for all. Go ahead (proving, that is). -DePiep (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
2. Such words, names of things but not proper names, probably may pose some difficulty with pronunciation for those who are not common with them. At least, they and astatine (and most other elements) are in equal positions at this. That was why.
3. And I didn't mean to say the opposite. Was showing the fact there are different approaches, that's it. This doesn't define anything, but is worth noting anyway.
4 and 5. Aha, I got it. But really, five would be too easy (tin, lead, mercury, gold, silver), and differences where they arise (as it seems to me) mostly come from where the speaker lives, or, in the case of non-native speakers such as myself, how they learned it. There may be no correct way as in "this way and no other for all of the Earth" for some of them. Wiki does seem to neglect this, for example, the Americans are prohibited to say "aluminum" (the word written in their dictionaries), and the British are not allowed to use the "sulphur" spelling (written in their dictionaries), but that's clear overdoing things, let's not follow this path. I am sure all of the British (or a vast majority) will pronounce the name of any element in the same way, whether it's nitrogen or praseodymium, and will not have an unbearable difficulty with this. I clicked on the names of around 15 elements in the lower half of the table, pronounced it, and checked if I got it right. I always did. It's easy for me (a non-native speaker) and it should be easy enough for anyone. Those IUPAC unun- names may make an exception, but well, there may be difficulties with those synthetic elements (like you need to be able to pronounce German to know the "s" in "darmstadtium" is actally pronounced as "sh"), but among the more natural names (at least the first 100) things should be fine. I'm still okay with them either in or out, but I need a rationale to defend either position (I need it for the FAC), and this one seems easier to defend. And in return, it makes me think that maybe that's what we should follow.--R8R (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
re re 2: we can not use the capitals for pronunciation, let's end this subtopic.
re re 3: background illustration then, but not leading to an outcome in this.
re re 4, 5: I'm not native en speaker either. As a reader, no IPA/Respell at all makes me insecure. For people like you and me, there is hardly an intuitive knowlegde, esp in English (Finnish is better in this ;-) ). More reply at John's post, below. -DePiep (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I was the one who raised this at the FAC. I am not against some elements having a pronunciation guide (astatine, darmstadtium and the like); I think that there are also many elements (gold, silver, iron, tin, zinc, mercury (element), oxygen, carbon etc.) which absolutely do not need one. My point was that there are no elements which need two rival pronunciation guides side-by-side as in /ˈæstətiːn/ or /ˈæstətɪn/ as-tə-teen or as-tə-tin and this seems to have stealthily become the default on element articles. It looks ugly, achieves nothing and I think we ought to change it, unless (which I doubt) a positive rationale and consensus can be established for it. Having carbon glossed as /ˈkɑrbən/ KAR-bən is ridiculous. --John (talk) 10:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I just replied on the FAC page. In short: Respell is by MOS: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation; and no they are not "rivals". As for removing obvious pronunciations (IPA and so Respell): this might be possible, and I can imagine that tin is a candidate. However, this should be done based on IPA & pronunciation knowlegde (let me ask kwami). So far, R8R and John have mentioned individual opinions/impressions of options. Simple example to show an error effect: mercury (deity) and mercury (element) differ so a pron is needed. I claim that if there is any chance of mistake (include stressing syllables), the pronunciation should stay. -DePiep (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
What utter rubbish. Does anybody with a clue wish to comment? --John (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
You could have asked about things that are not clear to you. I note that, after the 'discussion' you performed on the tempalte talkpage, again you resort to dismissives, non-reading, zero-effort to understand and evasion. Next time, if and when you take an effort when contributing to a discussion I might engage. But this unhelpful behaviour does not deserve an answer. -DePiep (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Mmm. Well, close the door behind you, I guess. Opining about how best to describe pronunciation in the English language when you are clearly not a native speaker and clearly do not have a clue about how words are pronounced in that language is likely to elicit dismissal. Bye. --John (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Is what I wrote. Well read. That is why I proposed to invite someone who knows about IPA and respell. Someone who knows what is prose, and what not. -DePiep (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Here by invitation. I added (or at least corrected) IPA in many of these articles. We don't generally give English pronunciations on WP, per WP:DICT. There are two major exceptions: Names, which you will not find in many dictionaries, or which may differ from another name of the same spelling; and new or obscure technical terms that also may not be found in an average dictionary. Another common exception are counter-intuitive words, whether they trip up native or L2 speakers of English.

However, since many elements probably deserve a pronunciation, and we have them organized so that we can navigate from one to another, why not include pronunciations for all? Granted, "tin" and "gold" may not be needed, but it's a matter of consistency: readers can depend on having a pronunciation for any element, without argument over where the dividing line should be. We do something similar with astronomical bodies: "Pan" and "Atlas" and pretty obvious, but it's nice to have the IPA regardless, just so you don't have to worry about them being weird. — kwami (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I discovered this discussion through Kwami's talk page. On Mercury, this word does not actually have two different pronunciations: the pronunciations given in Mercury (mythology) and mercury (element) are variants of the same pronunciation. /-kjʉr-/ and /-kjər-/ are different pronunciations of the cure sound. This is called the cure–fir merger, a type of vowel reduction.
As for DePiep's intelligence, there is no reason to call it into question. Even native speakers won't necessarily know about this merger, though they might pronounce it. DePiep clearly acted in good faith when he said that Mercury had two pronunciations. He was correctly reporting the differing IPA transcriptions in the two articles. — Eru·tuon 21:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Let's create a new article, List of chemical elements by difficulty of pronunciation. Then we can pick a point -- and list the list the pronunciation for every element from that point on. In all seriousness, if we include pronunciation, it should be in a standard but unobtrusive place, so it is easily found by those who need it but also easily ignored by those who don't. My first thought is to only include it where it is really needed, but if the standard place is unobtrusive enough, I wouldn't mind putting it on every element. YBG (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Difficulty might be too subjective: different people will surely find different things to be harder to say. Double sharp (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm a detached observer, but from my glance at element articles, pronunciations are included under the heading General properties in the infobox, along with appearance. This seems odd, because pronunciation is not a property of an element like appearance. Pronunciation needs to be placed somewhere more appropriate.
An option for unobtrusiveness is to make pronunciation collapsible, like the Chinese infobox in the article on Beijing. (Look below the main infobox and the notice about Chinese text. The pronunciations are found in the middle of the template, below the Chinese characters and the translation, under Transcriptions, with a show button that you click.) But some readers may prefer to have the pronunciation display automatically with no clicking. Just a possibility. — Eru·tuon 04:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
re YBG better in an "unobtrusive place": Worth pondering. Could be under the "Miscellaneous" header? Would be further away from the lede then, which is the other natural place where readers expect it to be. IOW, when it is out of first sight, the reader might think it is not there at all (should read guidelines in this). btw, I am very pleased with the fact that pronunciation (IPA, with or without the respelling) is not in the opening sentence, as other articles can have. I think we all agree it should not be there indeed. This is no point, except that it is good to note a worse situation for reference.
re Erutuon make it collapsible (show/hide button). Unfortunately, we should not design a page with that option. In the article body, no extra click should be required to get information (navboxes are out-of-body). This is a WP:ACCESSIBILITY guideline. An other reason is, that the mobile view does not have a show/hide button at all: mobile viewers see it always uncollapsed ("show" status). For example, see Beijing in mobile view (check the transcriptions in infobox). -DePiep (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Should this be read as a proposal to move the pronunciation data row as is to "Miscellaneous", say top position in there? -DePiep (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Upon further thought, I think I'm fine with leaving pronunciation in its current position in the infobox, on the assumption that it will only take a single line except for a few outliers like Aluminum/Aluminium. By generally consuming only a single line, having it appear in a consistent and expected location outweighs any residual concern for unobtrusiveness. But the criticism that pronunciation is not a 'general property' is valid. This could be rectified by changing the label from "general properties" to simply "general". Or perhaps as it is the very first category, the colored label-bar is not needed at all. I think I'd be happy with either, though I acknowledge that I've only looked at a couple of sample infoboxes and very easily might have missed a significant problem. YBG (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
That presumption is not warranted. And, its best position should not depend on this (text size?). But since I picked up the repositioning-idea from your earlier post here, I won't read is as a propsoal. -DePiep (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to remove obvious pronunciations[edit]

From the above discussion, I propose: remove from the element infobox pronunciation when it is not confusing (both IPA and respell form). This would be: gold, silver, tin.

Note 1: More elements could be added to this list, but so far no candidates with obvious pronunciation are mentioned.
Note 2: this does not prejudge any other pronunciation dicsussion, like "remove respell pronunciation", and "remove all IPA & respell pronunciation". That is: these discussions are not intruded upon and they can be started/continued separately (in a different place). withdrawn

-DePiep (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the majority of elements do not need to have pronunciation given. Only those which would cause a native English speaker of average intelligence and high school education level difficulty need to be glossed in this way. --John (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
That not the proposal. Not to play a game, but IMO this topic deserves its own discussion (-thread). They are two independent decisions (one does not say about the other). -DePiep (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the majority of elements do not need to have pronunciation given. Only those which would cause a native English speaker of average intelligence and high school education level difficulty need to be glossed in this way. --John (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Why did you copypaste this? Is it a mistake? -DePiep (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
No. --John (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Proposal witdrawn, lack of serious discussion. -DePiep (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's try another way[edit]

These intrusive and dumbed-down pronunciations were added to (almost?) every element. Was there a proper consensus to do so? If there was, it needs to be revisited. If there was not, they can be removed on sight. --John (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

What is dumbed-down? Check WP:ACCESS. -DePiep (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I checked WP:ACCESS. It doesn't seem to mention pronunciation guides. What was your point? --John (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
There was not a point. That's called a question mark. -DePiep (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed not. Anybody got an answer to my question? --John (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The status quo is the consensus. Where did you find that other process you mention? Oh, and for a revisit I'd like to read better arguments than "ugly" and "dumbed-down", as a "try [it] another way". It's been explained often enough to you, recently. -DePiep (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

At last[edit]

A long time desired improvement I have added: the ubiquitous category background color we use now has its legend connection in the {{infobox element}}.

Sodium in the periodic table
Element category   alkali metal

-DePiep (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to show the point: it's about the section-header background color, now having the key (legend) accessible/in-sight. -DePiep (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Mendeleev 1871 redrawn[edit]

Mendelejevs periodiska system 1871.png

I have asked graphicists to make Mendeleevs table more readable. Please take a look if the first setup is acceptable. See WP:Graphics_Lab #Mendeleev's_tables. -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. -DePiep (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Shall I replace the png file with the new svg one? The old one remains available, e.g. for a "History of PT". -DePiep (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Mendeleev's 1869 periodic table.png
Why make a new version of the original? The originals are the ones used in e.g. Zumdahl. Christian75 (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
As I said, readability. Useless without. What is Zumdahl? -DePiep (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Zumdahl is the authors of the book "Chemistry" which a lot of chemistry students have read. So if the images are changed, pleaes dont call it Mendeleevs PT, but a reconstruction of Mendeleevs PT, because all chemist (and like) knows how his PT looks like. Christian75 (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Its a table, not a painting — for Higgs sake. Could these chemistry students read that Zumdahl copy? If not, what did they learn from it? If yes, that's exactly what we want to achieve here too. It is the table as Mendeleev published it: structure & textual content. We stay close to its original style, that's a nice bonus. -DePiep (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Higgs sake? I just say, dont call it Mendeleevs PT, and I have given you one source which use the original. Zumdahl didnt coice to remkae it, so I think we should not either, unless you have a source which did. Christian75 (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Why would Zumdahl define this for us at in the first place? I answered your Q "Why make a new version of the original?". Should do. -DePiep (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
At a first glance the re-rendering of Mendeleev's 1871 table looks superb and even manages to retain a similar style. I'll print them out a bit later and do a side-by-side comparison. Good work that. The text attached to the image file could note that it is a cleaned up rendering. Sandbh (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the comment! Please do let me know if I've misread any of the symbols; the clearer version here might be more useful - it was only found after my first attempt. NikNaks talk - gallery 11:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
OK. The rightmost superscripts for RH4, R2O5, R2O7, R2O4 need to dropped to be in line with the top of each O. In Gruppe V., ==73 should read ==72. Rest is fine. Sandbh (talk) 04:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
May I suggest to replace the "==" with regular "="? I myself mentioned "==" to note the extra-length equal sign used in the originals. But reproducing those as "==" is misleading I guess. "=" is fine, the old style is not available. -DePiep (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I have replaced all instances of == with = and fixed the 72/73. However, I cannot understand why the superscript for numbers higher than 3 is so off; they are all the unique unicode characters for those indices, so they're not really superscript in the file itself. There's no reason why some should be higher than others except that the MediaWiki renderer has it wrong. Opening the file directly in Chrome has them placed all at the same level, where you'd expect. I'm baffled. I've tried using a new font to fix the issue and it seems to have helped. NikNaks talk - gallery 13:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Superscripts like in R2O5 now look OK with me. -DePiep (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll add notes about 1869 on the GL page. -DePiep (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

That's:

Updated FA Periodic table. -DePiep (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Mendeleyev's PT (1871)
If you really want a new version of the historic one, why not translate the german version to english? The reason I do not like the change are that I would expect to find the original PT in the history section and not a reconstruction, especially when it claims that it is Mendeleyev' PT. Christian75 (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I already explained to you that it is a table, not a painting. Now you come repeating that this is a new "version" (let me spell it out: 1869 and 1871 are different versions). -DePiep (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course 1869 and 1871 are differnt version. The File:Periodic table by Mendeleev, 1871.svg are from Zeitschrift für Chemie, thats why it says "gruppe" (group) and reihen (row), and thats why I ask; why not translate it to English? (The image I added in my last edit are, despite the name, from 1871 File:Dmitry Mendeleyev Osnovy Khimii 1869-1871 first periodic table.jpg and by Mendeleyev). You do not have to explain it to me, its a question of different opinions. If its just a table, why not translate the Rusian to english too? But I see it more like a "historic document", like Bill of Rights has the original document as a picture. And like every page on the internet has the original one if they talk about the history of the PT. Christian75 (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Now just stop writing what I do want or would want, I'm supposed to know that myself. Next, I suggest you reread this whole section and try to come to a coherent reasoned point for yourself. Your notes are a bit, eh, meandering. Then if you also show you have processed arguments already answered (instead if skipping/ignoring/repeating them), I can respond constructively forward. -DePiep (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I have written nothing about what you "want or would want". Please reread it. Christian75 (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
The original one has great historical value, and it certainly ought to be shown in an article like history of the periodic table, instead of a reconstruction, because there the main topic is the history. But when using it to show placements, and not historical development, like in astatine, clarity becomes more important, I think (look at that small size!). (And I have seen books that re-typeset Mendeleev's table as well, although the original seems more common: but I think that's because pretty much all the examples there would use the standard 18-column table.) Double sharp (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
(ec) "If you really want" [1]. (And a shortcut: In there you use the word 'version' in a way that caused me to explain it again. Like meaning 'not a different version'). -DePiep (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Molar volume[edit]

By request [2], molar volume (data row) is added to {{Infobox element}}. See astatine for example (below densities).

|molar volume=
|molar volume ref=
|molar volume comment=

The default unit is cm3/mol (do not enter this). For gases, dm3/mol is used II'mC. For these (a dozen), alter the default and set |molar volume unit=dm3/mol or whatever seems fit. . -DePiep (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

By now, it is[edit]

|molar volume=
|molar volume ref=
|molar volume comment=
|molar volume unit=<!-- cm3/mol is default, otherwise add your unit here -->
I clarified |molar volume unit=. -DePiep (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting 14-category periodic chart[edit]

here, see page 2

The stupid link isn't working; this google search results page shows the link as its first result:
Background Data for the Chemical Elements - Springer
link.springer.com/content/pdf/bbm%3A978-1-84628-669-8%2F1.pdf
Appendix A: Background Data for the Chemical Elements 1183. Appendix. A. Table A.1. Obsolete and historical names of the chemical elements. Obsolete ...
Clicking on that link does work as I just tried it. Sandbh (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Hydrogen is an alkali metal. Would work better if the label was "Hydrogen and the alkali metals".
  • Sc, Y, La and the lanthanides are categorised as "rare earths and lanthanides", which would give the acronym REAL metals :)
  • Technetium uncategorised
  • A new name for the post-transition metals = fusible metals. I presume that, even though the alkali metals have melting points as low as the fusible metals, that the alkali metals would require special handling to melt, to avoid explosions, hence the fusible[-friendly] label for the PTMs seems OK.
  • Unique categorisation of B, Al, C, Si and Ge as semi-metals
  • Only N, P and As are categorised as "pnictides"; Sb and Bi are semi-metals
  • Pnictides, chalcogens and halogens appear to be exclusively non-metals.

Some of the rest of the data tables in the other 150-odd pages are quite good. Sandbh (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Could you fix the link? -DePiep (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@DePiep: try now. Sandbh (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Weird: found it once (& downloaded), but now it fails again. -DePiep (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
re: interesting, but not very sophisticated imo. For example that pnictides issue: it only says pnictides for the non-metals, and below in the Pnictides column it says different. (They did not solve that contradiction: Pnictide is a group so the whole column is Pnictides. Like we said & solved nicely here about halogens: the column is halogen, and the metallishnesh-trend may be different (At is halogen by group and metalloid by metallishenss-trend). -DePiep (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Aren't pnictides the binary compounds (e.g. K3P, K3As), and pnictogens the group? Double sharp (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I won't visit this topic any more until there is a working link. -DePiep (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Here's a working link (p.1182): it's a direct link, while Sandbh posted a Google search that gives this as the first result. Double sharp (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's the whole chapter Sandbh (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Lr ionization energy, group 3 rumblings and Jensen (again)[edit]

courtesy of Eric Scerri. --- Sandbh (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Added the Lr ionization energy value to {{Infobox lawrencium}}. Double sharp (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The Scerri approach I understand and find convincing. That is the main presentation we use, alternative schemes are or should be described in topical articles. I don't think we should change our presentations. Or you two should advise me to study this issue more deeply ;-).
Note: Sandbh, I understand you picked up this story because of your Daily Mail subscription :-).
While we are at it, Sandbh and Double sharp: which Scerri book would you advise me to start with? And what would be a good introduction to understand quantum mechanics wrt elements & shells? Scerri at amazon -DePiep (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
DePiep I would start with The Periodic Table: A Very Short Introduction. I will ask Eric if he knows of a good intro to quantum mechanics etc. Sandbh (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that should do for the next months. btw that Springer link you gave on this page (the bad one) made good intro reading too. -DePiep (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
From Eric: "The best of my books to start with is my 2007 book, The Periodic Table, Its Story and Its Significance. Books on QM. There are many of course. Pauling and Wilson is still a classic, as are more modern books like Atkins and Friedman." Sandbh (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Inspiring. thx. -DePiep (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Adkins and Friedman's Moecular Quantum Mechanics (I suppose it is) isnt easy reading (its require some math skills too). We were reading Atikins "Physical chemistry" before reading Adkins and Friedman. Christian75 (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

More marking options for micro PT[edit]

Resolved
Hydrogen (diatomic nonmetal)
Helium (noble gas)
Lithium (alkali metal)
Beryllium (alkaline earth metal)
Boron (metalloid)
Carbon (polyatomic nonmetal)
Nitrogen (diatomic nonmetal)
Oxygen (diatomic nonmetal)
Fluorine (diatomic nonmetal)
Neon (noble gas)
Sodium (alkali metal)
Magnesium (alkaline earth metal)
Aluminium (post-transition metal)
Silicon (metalloid)
Phosphorus (polyatomic nonmetal)
Sulfur (polyatomic nonmetal)
Chlorine (diatomic nonmetal)
Argon (noble gas)
Potassium (alkali metal)
Calcium (alkaline earth metal)
Scandium (transition metal)
Titanium (transition metal)
Vanadium (transition metal)
Chromium (transition metal)
Manganese (transition metal)
Iron (transition metal)
Cobalt (transition metal)
Nickel (transition metal)
Copper (transition metal)
Zinc (transition metal)
Gallium (post-transition metal)
Germanium (metalloid)
Arsenic (metalloid)
Selenium (polyatomic nonmetal)
Bromine (diatomic nonmetal)
Krypton (noble gas)
Rubidium (alkali metal)
Strontium (alkaline earth metal)
Yttrium (transition metal)
Zirconium (transition metal)
Niobium (transition metal)
Molybdenum (transition metal)
Technetium (transition metal)
Ruthenium (transition metal)
Rhodium (transition metal)
Palladium (transition metal)
Silver (transition metal)
Cadmium (transition metal)
Indium (post-transition metal)
Tin (post-transition metal)
Antimony (metalloid)
Tellurium (metalloid)
Iodine (diatomic nonmetal)
Xenon (noble gas)
Caesium (alkali metal)
Barium (alkaline earth metal)
Lanthanum (lanthanide)
Cerium (lanthanide)
Praseodymium (lanthanide)
Neodymium (lanthanide)
Promethium (lanthanide)
Samarium (lanthanide)
Europium (lanthanide)
Gadolinium (lanthanide)
Terbium (lanthanide)
Dysprosium (lanthanide)
Holmium (lanthanide)
Erbium (lanthanide)
Thulium (lanthanide)
Ytterbium (lanthanide)
Lutetium (lanthanide)
Hafnium (transition metal)
Tantalum (transition metal)
Tungsten (transition metal)
Rhenium (transition metal)
Osmium (transition metal)
Iridium (transition metal)
Platinum (transition metal)
Gold (transition metal)
Mercury (transition metal)
Thallium (post-transition metal)
Lead (post-transition metal)
Bismuth (post-transition metal)
Polonium (post-transition metal)
Astatine (metalloid)
Radon (noble gas)
Francium (alkali metal)
Radium (alkaline earth metal)
Actinium (actinide)
Thorium (actinide)
Protactinium (actinide)
Uranium (actinide)
Neptunium (actinide)
Plutonium (actinide)
Americium (actinide)
Curium (actinide)
Berkelium (actinide)
Californium (actinide)
Einsteinium (actinide)
Fermium (actinide)
Mendelevium (actinide)
Nobelium (actinide)
Lawrencium (actinide)
Rutherfordium (transition metal)
Dubnium (transition metal)
Seaborgium (transition metal)
Bohrium (transition metal)
Hassium (transition metal)
Meitnerium (unknown chemical properties)
Darmstadtium (unknown chemical properties)
Roentgenium (unknown chemical properties)
Copernicium (transition metal)
Ununtrium (unknown chemical properties)
Flerovium (post-transition metal)
Ununpentium (unknown chemical properties)
Livermorium (unknown chemical properties)
Ununseptium (unknown chemical properties)
Ununoctium (unknown chemical properties)
mark=metalloid
Hydrogen (diatomic nonmetal)
Helium (noble gas)
Lithium (alkali metal)
Beryllium (alkaline earth metal)
Boron (metalloid)
Carbon (polyatomic nonmetal)
Nitrogen (diatomic nonmetal)
Oxygen (diatomic nonmetal)
Fluorine (diatomic nonmetal)
Neon (noble gas)
Sodium (alkali metal)
Magnesium (alkaline earth metal)
Aluminium (post-transition metal)
Silicon (metalloid)
Phosphorus (polyatomic nonmetal)
Sulfur (polyatomic nonmetal)
Chlorine (diatomic nonmetal)
Argon (noble gas)
Potassium (alkali metal)
Calcium (alkaline earth metal)
Scandium (transition metal)
Titanium (transition metal)
Vanadium (transition metal)
Chromium (transition metal)
Manganese (transition metal)
Iron (transition metal)
Cobalt (transition metal)
Nickel (transition metal)
Copper (transition metal)
Zinc (transition metal)
Gallium (post-transition metal)
Germanium (metalloid)
Arsenic (metalloid)
Selenium (polyatomic nonmetal)
Bromine (diatomic nonmetal)
Krypton (noble gas)
Rubidium (alkali metal)
Strontium (alkaline earth metal)
Yttrium (transition metal)
Zirconium (transition metal)
Niobium (transition metal)
Molybdenum (transition metal)
Technetium (transition metal)
Ruthenium (transition metal)
Rhodium (transition metal)
Palladium (transition metal)
Silver (transition metal)
Cadmium (transition metal)
Indium (post-transition metal)
Tin (post-transition metal)
Antimony (metalloid)
Tellurium (metalloid)
Iodine (diatomic nonmetal)
Xenon (noble gas)
Caesium (alkali metal)
Barium (alkaline earth metal)
Lanthanum (lanthanide)
Cerium (lanthanide)
Praseodymium (lanthanide)
Neodymium (lanthanide)
Promethium (lanthanide)
Samarium (lanthanide)
Europium (lanthanide)
Gadolinium (lanthanide)
Terbium (lanthanide)
Dysprosium (lanthanide)
Holmium (lanthanide)
Erbium (lanthanide)
Thulium (lanthanide)
Ytterbium (lanthanide)
Lutetium (lanthanide)
Hafnium (transition metal)
Tantalum (transition metal)
Tungsten (transition metal)
Rhenium (transition metal)
Osmium (transition metal)
Iridium (transition metal)
Platinum (transition metal)
Gold (transition metal)
Mercury (transition metal)
Thallium (post-transition metal)
Lead (post-transition metal)
Bismuth (post-transition metal)
Polonium (post-transition metal)
Astatine (metalloid)
Radon (noble gas)
Francium (alkali metal)
Radium (alkaline earth metal)
Actinium (actinide)
Thorium (actinide)
Protactinium (actinide)
Uranium (actinide)
Neptunium (actinide)
Plutonium (actinide)
Americium (actinide)
Curium (actinide)
Berkelium (actinide)
Californium (actinide)
Einsteinium (actinide)
Fermium (actinide)
Mendelevium (actinide)
Nobelium (actinide)
Lawrencium (actinide)
Rutherfordium (transition metal)
Dubnium (transition metal)
Seaborgium (transition metal)
Bohrium (transition metal)
Hassium (transition metal)
Meitnerium (unknown chemical properties)
Darmstadtium (unknown chemical properties)
Roentgenium (unknown chemical properties)
Copernicium (transition metal)
Ununtrium (unknown chemical properties)
Flerovium (post-transition metal)
Ununpentium (unknown chemical properties)
Livermorium (unknown chemical properties)
Ununseptium (unknown chemical properties)
Ununoctium (unknown chemical properties)
mark=6

In {{periodic table (micro)}}, you can highlight groups of elements by seting |mark= to any group number or major category name, e.g., |mark=6 or |mark=metalloid. Furthermore, the micro PT senses when it appears on an element page (or its infobox page) and highlights the single cell for that element; see, for example, hydrogen and {{infobox hydrogen}}. I think it would be very helpful if this template could be set up to highlight a particular element's cell in a more general context. I propose that |mark=1, |mark=H, or |mark=hydrogen -- or maybe any one of them -- be used to mark the hydrogen cell. Ideally, you could highlight multiple elements by using forms like |mark=11,19,37,55,56,78,79 or |mark=Fe,Co,Ni,Gd,Dy or |mark=boron,antimony. This would provide a very nice way to illustrate the bullets at Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals § Anomalous properties. I think that all that would be necessary would be to change the code to conditionally draw the border in {{Periodic table (32 columns, micro)/elementcell}}, but I'm not completely sure. Can anyone (e.g., DePiep) verify that at least the single-element version is a relatively easy thing to do and either do it themselves or perhaps point me in the right direction? Thanks! YBG (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this option is needed, very useful. I'm brewing on it. -DePiep (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
YBG, I plan to use an atomic number list (not symbols), because that's easier for the unnamed superheavies. Would that be OK? Or better use symbols? -DePiep (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Symbols it will be: |mark=Fe,Co,Ni,Gd,Dy. Free list. -DePiep (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Hydrogen (diatomic nonmetal)
Helium (noble gas)
Lithium (alkali metal)
Beryllium (alkaline earth metal)
Boron (metalloid)
Carbon (polyatomic nonmetal)
Nitrogen (diatomic nonmetal)
Oxygen (diatomic nonmetal)
Fluorine (diatomic nonmetal)
Neon (noble gas)
Sodium (alkali metal)
Magnesium (alkaline earth metal)
Aluminium (post-transition metal)
Silicon (metalloid)
Phosphorus (polyatomic nonmetal)
Sulfur (polyatomic nonmetal)
Chlorine (diatomic nonmetal)
Argon (noble gas)
Potassium (alkali metal)
Calcium (alkaline earth metal)
Scandium (transition metal)
Titanium (transition metal)
Vanadium (transition metal)
Chromium (transition metal)
Manganese (transition metal)
Iron (transition metal)
Cobalt (transition metal)
Nickel (transition metal)
Copper (transition metal)
Zinc (transition metal)
Gallium (post-transition metal)
Germanium (metalloid)
Arsenic (metalloid)
Selenium (polyatomic nonmetal)
Bromine (diatomic nonmetal)
Krypton (noble gas)
Rubidium (alkali metal)
Strontium (alkaline earth metal)
Yttrium (transition metal)
Zirconium (transition metal)
Niobium (transition metal)
Molybdenum (transition metal)
Technetium (transition metal)
Ruthenium (transition metal)
Rhodium (transition metal)
Palladium (transition metal)
Silver (transition metal)
Cadmium (transition metal)
Indium (post-transition metal)
Tin (post-transition metal)
Antimony (metalloid)
Tellurium (metalloid)
Iodine (diatomic nonmetal)
Xenon (noble gas)
Caesium (alkali metal)
Barium (alkaline earth metal)
Lanthanum (lanthanide)
Cerium (lanthanide)
Praseodymium (lanthanide)
Neodymium (lanthanide)
Promethium (lanthanide)
Samarium (lanthanide)
Europium (lanthanide)
Gadolinium (lanthanide)
Terbium (lanthanide)
Dysprosium (lanthanide)
Holmium (lanthanide)
Erbium (lanthanide)
Thulium (lanthanide)
Ytterbium (lanthanide)
Lutetium (lanthanide)
Hafnium (transition metal)
Tantalum (transition metal)
Tungsten (transition metal)
Rhenium (transition metal)
Osmium (transition metal)
Iridium (transition metal)
Platinum (transition metal)
Gold (transition metal)
Mercury (transition metal)
Thallium (post-transition metal)
Lead (post-transition metal)
Bismuth (post-transition metal)
Polonium (post-transition metal)
Astatine (metalloid)
Radon (noble gas)
Francium (alkali metal)
Radium (alkaline earth metal)
Actinium (actinide)
Thorium (actinide)
Protactinium (actinide)
Uranium (actinide)
Neptunium (actinide)
Plutonium (actinide)
Americium (actinide)
Curium (actinide)
Berkelium (actinide)
Californium (actinide)
Einsteinium (actinide)
Fermium (actinide)
Mendelevium (actinide)
Nobelium (actinide)
Lawrencium (actinide)
Rutherfordium (transition metal)
Dubnium (transition metal)
Seaborgium (transition metal)
Bohrium (transition metal)
Hassium (transition metal)
Meitnerium (unknown chemical properties)
Darmstadtium (unknown chemical properties)
Roentgenium (unknown chemical properties)
Copernicium (transition metal)
Ununtrium (unknown chemical properties)
Flerovium (post-transition metal)
Ununpentium (unknown chemical properties)
Livermorium (unknown chemical properties)
Ununseptium (unknown chemical properties)
Ununoctium (unknown chemical properties)
  • Yes check.svg Done. Use like |mark=Au, Fe. -DePiep (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    • WOW, DePiep Rocks! thank you so much. By the way, numbers or symbols doesn't really matter to me. YBG (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
      • @DePiep:: I see you have also removed the special pagename logic. Excellent work! By the way, is there a some common property amongst the apparently random list of elements? One that survives being shaved by Occam? YBG (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
        • So it's symbols only now, so |mark=9 keeps working for the group; list order can be random and writing "AU" does not produce an error here. Yes I removed that "mark Au when page is gold or infobox gold" logic because that was too fragile and unneeded elaborate (done 118 times/page). Infobox element now uses this |mark={{{symbol|}}} too. If one sees any issues please report. Yeah of course my newly discovered class of elements has a common property; I'll leave it for you to puzzle for a while. (Really, I had a collegue once who in such a list did find a number pattern - spoiled the joke). Once again, I fell like Mendeleev must have felt. -DePiep (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I note: entering |mark=AU will not produce an error or maintenance categorising. Of course it won't show as intended either. Do a count in the preview, I suggest. -DePiep (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

More on issues & features with the micro PT[edit]

Hmmm. Today they show OK. Struck but left here for archival reasons. -DePiep (talk) 07:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • We could add a mark2= option that marks elements dotted or red line bordered, to be explained "Only sometimes considered part of ...".
  • We could make a similar template for the three metal-nonmetal colors (now using an image). Any use & need for this?
  • Other articles that could use this free list: Rare earth element, transuranium elements (& current pre-merge trans-X elements, see above #Pix in Trans-X articles).
More in here: Category:Sets of chemical elements.
-DePiep (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
A period can be entered by this |mark= list. Adding this extra would only be a shortcut (for the editor). On the other hand: the cell formatting is processed 118 times per micro PT. Adding this redundant feature would add to the pageload time. So I advise against it. -DePiep (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I add re Parcly Taxel, as this topic developed (below): I also think that the list-by-symbol is the most editor-friendly way. It does not require you going to search the documentation page for parameter details &tc. Just typing the symbol list: what can go wrong? Very editor-friendly, this makes me a good template-editor and happy. -DePiep (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Does this mean we should eliminate group and category marking like |mark=3 and |mark=metalloid? YBG (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
No, let's keep those. Works fine, nothing to fix. I'm not that sharp on load speed. But I think the mark-by-symbol-list is easiest for every editor & every situation passing by. No need to add extra shortcuts that expand the /documentation. (Today I would not add group option for the same reasoning. The category is needed anyway b/c of the colors. Note that the cat naming is precise, "metalloids" (plural) will fail -- unlike the very more forgiving {{element color}}. All b/c that of bit of speed.) -DePiep (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
What about using separate parameters |markgroup=3, |markcategory=metalloid, |markelement=H, |markelementlist=H,He, |markfrom=19|markto=36? While these could all be parsed as part of |mark=, if they were separate, it seems to me that the complex processing time would be expended only when it is actually used. I may be overthinking all of this, but if the template gets executed 118 times, every little bit might help. YBG (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Not needed, I don't mind load speed. Current number (group) and cat name (for cat) do not interfere, so no mistakes. It's just, I see no need to add options that require an editor (you and me included) to go to the documentation page for parameter spelling & meaning & options. I am very happy with the symbol-list option we now have, it's editor friendliest. (now go spend your time asking for the other suggestions I listed above ;-) ). -DePiep (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks for all you've done. YBG (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I only get a hyperlink when hovering over the bottom quarter or so of the cell. Any way to make it work in the entire cell? YBG (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Not good. Will take a look. -DePiep (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Should be OK now. Or ping me. -DePiep (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Much appreciated. 16:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

List of metalloid lists[edit]

At the talk page for List of metalloid lists I've asked for proposed additions to the main list, especially older and more recent citations. I'll aim to periodically add these to the list and update associated metrics, whenever/if ever there's a critical mass of them. Sandbh (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Radium[edit]

Should Radium-223-Chloride be an article about Radium-223 or Radium-223-Chloride ? Should this be an isotope article, or a pharmacological chemical article? See talk:Radium-223-Chloride for the discussion -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

There's a requested move going on at the linked talk page. IMHO, it ought to be on 223Ra as opposed to 223RaCl2, as the root thing that makes it work is after all the radium, not the chloride salt; and I have hence supported the move back to 223Ra. Double sharp (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Quantum fold periodic table[edit]

Here. Check the key folds tab, too. (Added by Sandbh at 23:25, 22 April 2015 UTC (YBG (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)))

Very cool! Is there a connection between this table and Eric Scerri? YBG (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Not that I know of; they may have asked if they could have a page with his books on it. I looked at it and thought it was superb; wondered if it would work with ScYLaAc (boo! hiss!!) but couldn't vizualise it in my head; and wanted to know when we could have a Wikipedia version :) Sandbh (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why it shouldn't work with Sc/Y/La/Ac; it's just that the fold then has to cut through the d-block.
I must admit though that I'm not so keen on their colouring Ag (for example) as an s-block element because its differentiating electron happens to be a 5s one. Isn't block assignment based on available valence electrons, in which case Ag is clearly in the d-block? (Not sure where this leaves group 12, though.) After all, electron configuration isn't everything when predicting the chemistry of the elements: Fe and Ru behave rather differently, but Ni and Pd are much more similar to each other, even though the electron configuration tallies in the former case but not the latter! Double sharp (talk) 08:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
PS note erroneous config for Lr; needs to show p rather than d electron.
PPS they're updating it now. Sandbh (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
PPPS note that they've swapped Fl and Lv. Double sharp (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Eh, ADOMAH anyone? -DePiep (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how that would work: ADOMAH doesn't really have obvious places to fold as the blocks are disconnected. Double sharp (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────(outdent) More facts in our element cells: yesss. (First candidate: our bold ie common valences). Folding the PT (by vertical folds): go. As the Video PT prof did before. (cannot do that graphically today on wiki). Major refinement I'd like to know: what facts, or dimensions, are those bubbles saying? Does their size mean anything? Why is the gold core yellow? Where is the key (legend) at all? OK. From here: I get that we can improve presentation. What facts from that link, per cell, should we add/improve? (Personally: it does not add any info to me. I only do recognize the folding lines). -DePiep (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
To me, something is not OK or clear. The circular balls showing the incomplete shell? The free electron shown bigger? Some half-ball on top? What's that with the d-colors appearing halfway d-bock? Me, the half-layman, does not understand QM any better from these images. (The idea of folding is OK, but that's just the blocks, right?). -DePiep (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────(outdent)
OK, I really need more time to study this. This I understand, so far, in the PT and its legend:
  • The grey core circle represents the closed (completed) subshells, and with it the core increases in size over the periods. See for example group 1. This core also can have the marker for radioactivity, but I guess that is unrelated info for the topic. Comment: Unexplained is why the core of Au -only- is yellowish not grey.
  • All colors refer to the four 'blocks' (so there are four basic s-p-d-f colors; these are used in shades. I guess block is not exactly the right word here). I think the folding option for the hardcopy is (mostly) just supporting the block structure & colors, not an extra information.
  • The pearl collar of colored circles represent incomplete subshells (colored by their block). Per block there are these maximum number of pearls: s=1, p=3, d=5, f=7. E.g. The Au example shows an incomplete s-pair (half an orange pearl), and all five d-pearls.
  • Empty pearls too have a place marker (transparent = bg block color with a white outline; for example Sc). This too supports the graphic structure to show a 'filling sequence in a subshell', saying 'there is a maximum'. Great. I think that the pearl string being circular is not essential.
  • The bigger pearl or half-pearl, in a lighter shade of block-color, marks the differentiating electron. I guess the "difference" is with the previous element (first lower atomic number), like "the electron just added when walking the Z's". The whole cell bg take this block color! This illustrates the jumpy filling sequence in the f-block like when going Eu-Gd-Tb. Not directly showing is the repositioning of the previous (now jumping) electron, e.g. the 'disappearing' d-electron when going from Cm to Bk; this must be deducted. Comment: I think only half a pearl should be light-colored always, because only one electron is added. The Au example suggests the two electrons are differentiating (the full pearl is lighter). Also, graphically I find it confusing that this pearl is drawn bigger. What is exploding in there? I'd choose a different way to mark it (just an asterisk in it for starters). Also the shading being lighter put me wrongfooted. To stress an graphic point, one would darken it. My association is: lighter=lesser.
The graph nicely pulls attention to the block-spoiling diff electrons: (d in f-block, s in d-block. Comment: first time I see this clearly (here it's written not drawn: correct but not illustrating).
All in all, it is a great way to show graphically the incomplete subshells for an element individually, and in the table structure (walking through the PT by group and/or by period) showing the filling sequence, and its jumps. It beats any textual description.
Would be great if we could have such graphs in a (big cell) PT. The folding option would be an extra, but without it the show is OK already. -DePiep (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Template:Periodic table (f-block) is the example to compare, I was looking for: is has the open shells in the f-block (OK) written (good). The irregular filling pattern is present, using red color (OK) and can be deducted (not ideal). The graph beats this one. Note to ELEM editors: this template is not used in an article any more. Should that be corrected? At the moment, we do not have anything showing the f-block shell filling. -DePiep (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Chem template[edit]

Can someone explain this?

Using {{chem}} adds extra obnoxious space before the line
O
2
: {{chem|O|2}}
But using the html subscript does not.
O2: O<sub>2</sub>
I'm not sure why this is.

If someone can explain it, I will be most appreciative. If someone can fix {{chem}} so it does not have this problem, I will be even more appreciative. YBG (talk) 03:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I see that {{chem}} has provisions for including superscripts, and if there were happen to be superscripts, then the extra leading before the line would be understandable. My question is, if the template is rendered without superscripts, shouldn't it be possible to render it in a way that avoids the extra leading? YBG (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the issue, I'd like to have better examples (with graphic spaces, i.e. showing). But hey, why not at Template talk:Chem directly? -DePiep (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I mean to say (the underscore is the preceding text):
_O
2
_O2
So? -DePiep (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the extra space that was meant is the space between lines, not within lines. So:
TCO pointed this problem to me when we were writing fluorine.--R8R (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I see, it is adding vertical whitespace. {{chem|O|2}} produces:
<span class="chemf" style="white-space:nowrap;">O
<span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:85%;text-align:left"><br />2
</span>
</span>
So the styler is introducing inline boxes with shifted areas (vertically). I don't think is needed. -DePiep (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
(And a break inline?) -DePiep (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

There are six Pt group metals, right[edit]

I hesitate to ask because these questions can get folk aggitated: could we agree that there are six platinum group metals? For casual readers and those working in the area, that would be my advice. In my 40 years working with PGMs, I have never seen the radioactive heavy threesome included, and I worry about giiving undue weight to a pretty esoteric perspective with no ramifications for the real world, IMHO.

Platinum group metals (PGM) in the periodic table
H   He
Li Be   B C N O F Ne
Na Mg   Al Si P S Cl Ar
K Ca Sc Ti V Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Ga Ge As Se Br Kr
Rb Sr Y Zr Nb Mo Tc Ru Rh Pd Ag Cd In Sn Sb Te I Xe
Cs Ba * Hf Ta W Re Os Ir Pt Au Hg Tl Pb Bi Po At Rn
Fr Ra ** Rf Db Sg Bh Hs Mt Ds Rg Cn Uut Fl Uup Lv Uus Uuo
 * La Ce Pr Nd Pm Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb
** Ac Th Pa U Np Pu Am Cm Bk Cf Es Fm Md No
   Platinum group metals

--Smokefoot (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's the only journal article I've seen that even discusses Hs, Mt, Ds alongside the PGMs. Even so, it only calls them "congeners" of the PGMs. OTOH, it's a more common extrapolation among "PT fans" (one, two, three), which sometimes don't even bother to distinguish Hs, Mt, and Ds from the standard (and much more useful) PGMs. Is that where this addition to WP came from? I've un-highlighted Hs, Mt, and Ds in the table (they weren't even mentioned elsewhere in the article, which is usually a bad sign): hopefully that will prove uncontroversial. Double sharp (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

template:authority control[edit]

Oh dear. The bots are taking control by doing bot added Authority control in barium [3]. What a commanding name (aggressive twice, note). It gives control to wikidata.

Dear wikicommander. Can you explain why I should care to edit? KasparBot -DePiep (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

First look up authority control (I think the words sounds more aggressive for a non-native english reader), and second I agree that its really strange to add to barium. It added two links - one to some Japanese text, and one link to a German text - both links just to confirm that barium is an element. I removed it again. Christian75 (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I know what Authority control means, it's a name. It is aggressive in English still, irrespective of native language. It may be useful for princess Diana, but not for chemical elements. I think wikidata is overstretched in this one. -DePiep (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
You wanna request an exception for such scientific articles? Parcly Taxel 13:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Exception to what? Phosphorus is not Diana? -DePiep (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Molar mass for molecules: which atomic mass (source)?[edit]

Here at {{Drugbox}}, there is a talk to get the automated calculation of molar mass by atomic mass (from input like H=2|O=1). Together with {{Chembox}}, there are 15,000 potential articles.

My question is: for the atomic mass of an element, which source numbers should we use? (and knowing that IUPAC uses ranges like [1.234, 1.345], which number to use at all?). Issues like rounding and uncertainty can be addressed later. Practical laboratory rounding says "2 decimals is OK". -DePiep (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Found CIAAW for source. More here. DePiep (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Why not use the figures at list of elements, including the conventional single-number atomic-weight values for elements like H with the ranges? Double sharp (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
List of elements uses CIAAW or unsourced numbers.
In the documentation for {{Chem molar mass}} I have explained four different types of value, and the source I use: 1. CIAAW straight, 2. CIAAW conventional (a second list in their spreadsheet, for H etc.), 3. Four existing radioactive elements, 4. Nonexistant radioactive elements. For #4 CIAAW does not give any value, I have used the value we publish already: longest living isotope (could be called OR).
I have not found any other source. If an other source exists, we should sort out why their value should trump CIAAW's. -DePiep (talk) 11:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Neat[edit]

Nergaal (talk) 06:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)