Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Naming rules: new section
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs)
259,776 edits
m Archiving 10 thread(s) (older than 24h) to /dev/null.
Line 8: Line 8:
{{WP Elements|class=project|importance=NA}}
{{WP Elements|class=project|importance=NA}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archive =
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 10
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
<center>
<center>
Line 27: Line 24:
{{clr}}
{{clr}}


== [[Chemical elements data references]] ==
== Oxygen isotopes for deletion ==


This should probably not be in article space. Template or wikispace is more appropriate methinks.[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]]&nbsp;{<sup>[[User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|κοντριβς]]</sub>&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;[[WP:PHYS|WP Physics]]} 16:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

:A template placed in the standard references section would be best, IMO. --[[User:Mav|mav]] ([[User talk:Mav|talk]]) 22:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

== Time to replace nav images? ==

Many different issues have been mentioned with the current set of nav images (wrong/misleading neutron numbers, elements in wrong category/series, misleading crystal structure, almost useless empty shells, etc). The German version of WikiProject Elements, however, long ago abandoned nav images in favor of a small HTML table that highlighted the relevant box representing the element being viewed. I translated that and created a mock-up for discussion here. See below link.

The big benefit I see is that (in addition to having a clickable mini periodic table), we can change the format of the table much more easily; one table to edit vs 118 nav images.

Current format/layout is just for demonstration purposes; we can change it however we like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zinc&oldid=281977709

Here is the source table:
{{User:Mav/Sandbox/PeriodicTable}}

Here is a compact version that would allow us to finally put images of elements at the top of the infobox; just to the right or left of the nav table:
{{User:Mav/Sandbox/PeriodicTableCompact}}

So - what does everybody think? --[[User:Mav|mav]] ([[User talk:Mav|talk]]) 22:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

:I like it. I suppose we could use the compact version for elements that can we have good compact images for and then just use the extended version for those without, eh? --'''[[User:Cryptic C62|Cryptic]]&nbsp;[[User:Cryptic C62|C62]] · [[User talk: Cryptic C62|Talk]]''' 00:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks - but I'd prefer to have one standard format. The element images are, pretty much, already cropped to fit nicely in the Appearance part of element infoboxes. So that alone should not preclude us from choosing a compact version if we decide that is best. I tried to create a mock up of that but failed. Somebody with more experience playing with wikitables will need to do that. --[[User:Mav|mav]] ([[User talk:Mav|talk]]) 02:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

:I'm leery, primarily in that if it broke (e.g. on certain devices), it'd probably break really nastily. The clickability is easily possible using ImageMap, and I've thought several times about adding the functionality. I also don't like the compact layout from a purely aesthetic point of view—it looks cluttered, and that might be compounded by having an element image right beside it. I wonder if the current images can be improved, but I don't have enough data to do this myself. Aside from that, it's neat. :) <nowiki>{</nowiki>{[[User:Nihiltres|<span style="color:#233D7A;">Nihiltres</span>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki><span class="plainlinks">[[User talk:Nihiltres|talk]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?user=Nihiltres log]</span>}<nowiki>}</nowiki> 01:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

::We will of course test this to make sure it works on various browsers and platforms. I already created an image map but was not going to implement it until all the current table images get updated. That effort, however, stalled about a third of the way through due to yet more valid complaints about the images. Hence the idea to have a single table to edit vs over a hundred images. A sample nav image map is below. --[[User:Mav|mav]] ([[User talk:Mav|talk]]) 02:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

::{{ElementImageMap
| symbol=O
| name=oxygen
| crystal structure=cubic
| period=2
| number=8
}}

:::I like the German version better since it makes a little underscore appear when you hover over a box. That makes it easier to tell where exactly you are on the table. --'''[[User:Cryptic C62|Cryptic]]&nbsp;[[User:Cryptic C62|C62]] · [[User talk: Cryptic C62|Talk]]''' 02:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
::::I was looking at the German version and I didn't see that feature. This is one of those inconsistencies I'm talking about. <nowiki>{</nowiki>{[[User:Nihiltres|<span style="color:#233D7A;">Nihiltres</span>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki><span class="plainlinks">[[User talk:Nihiltres|talk]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?user=Nihiltres log]</span>}<nowiki>}</nowiki> 14:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
::An idea: Use some images and some tables. If the tables are of constant size, we could effectively duplicate the current images in HTML, while retaining the format of the current images by using some images within the table, e.g. the crystal structure diagrams have only so many variations. While it might involve more images total (depending on what is done for the Lewis diagrams), it would make correcting errors in the compilation much easier, while not sacrificing greatly what's already there. It still has the problems of a table version, but I thought it might be worthwhile to consider. <nowiki>{</nowiki>{[[User:Nihiltres|<span style="color:#233D7A;">Nihiltres</span>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki><span class="plainlinks">[[User talk:Nihiltres|talk]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?user=Nihiltres log]</span>}<nowiki>}</nowiki> 14:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
:::I support using such a HTML table instead of the present one. But I think we should stick to an in-line table, not the "compact" one suggested above. The element images can stay where they are in the infobox IMO.--[[User:Roentgenium111|Roentgenium111]] ([[User talk:Roentgenium111|talk]]) 00:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

== Include EC numbers in Element fact boxes ==

I suggest to include [[EC number (chemistry)|EC number]] in Element fact boxes, as CAS number is already. I've made a template for this purpose: [[Template:Elementbox_ec_number]]. --[[User:Eivindgh|Eivindgh]] ([[User talk:Eivindgh|talk]]) 21:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

== Manganese ==

The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manganese&diff=733995&oldid=698598 addition] of [[User:Dwmyers]] in february 2003 is still the major part of the histrory section and for me it looks like a little changed sentence by sentence copy of the book [http://books.google.de/books?id=TlbJrzRqNxEC Production of Manganese Ferroalloys] page 11, chapter history of mangneses. What is the right action to take if this is a real copy right violation? --[[User:Stone|Stone]] ([[User talk:Stone|talk]]) 07:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

:Well, if it's a good source, I guess we could just delete the offending content and rewrite it. If we start from scratch, we'll be less likely to end up with something that too closely resembles the source. --'''[[User:Cryptic C62|Cryptic C62]] · [[User talk: Cryptic C62|Talk]]''' 15:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

::The same I would suggest. I will try to rewrite the stuff.--[[User:Stone|Stone]] ([[User talk:Stone|talk]]) 17:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

== [[Template:Chemical Element Isotope]] ==

Take a look and feel free to debug it. With this all the isotope articles can be tagged, without clogging the stub/start list of articles of the main template. [[User:Nergaal|Nergaal]] ([[User talk:Nergaal|talk]]) 01:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

== proposal about infobox templates ==

at present, in the infobox, the stable isotopes have only natural abundances and the number of neutrons in each isotope. Imo the latter is really redundant, and I believe that for example, having the nuclear spin of the stable isotope (perhaps not only for the stable one) is incredibly more useful for an encyclopedic article. thoughts? [[User:Nergaal|Nergaal]] ([[User talk:Nergaal|talk]]) 05:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

:I think this depends on who we want the infobox to appeal to. It seems to me that the isotopes section currently presents information that everyone can understand, though I suppose having the number of neutrons ''is'' somewhat redundant given the naming convention for isotopes. Nuclear spin is something most people won't understand, even if they read the article on it. --'''[[User:Cryptic C62|Cryptic C62]] · [[User talk: Cryptic C62|Talk]]''' 16:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

::But the same thing can be said about the information that is given right now for the radioactive isotopes (or perhaps for half of the infobox). Anyways, IMO the nuclear spin is the second most important thing for a nuclide after the abundance. [[User:Nergaal|Nergaal]] ([[User talk:Nergaal|talk]]) 17:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

:::Well.... for NMR applications, the spin is pretty important. Something I wish our infoboxes have. --[[User:Rifleman 82|Rifleman 82]] ([[User talk:Rifleman 82|talk]]) 18:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

::::Well, if both of you think it's important to have, then no objections here. --'''[[User:Cryptic C62|Cryptic C62]] · [[User talk: Cryptic C62|Talk]]''' 03:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

== gamma boron ==

Hi I posted something to the Project chemistry talk page and wanted to add it also to this talk page:

Hi, there is something happening at the [[boron]] aticle which needs a hand from more experienced admin or a editor, better familiar with the politics. Two groups discovered the new allotroph of boron and now one is accusing the other that he copied from his paper, because he got it previous to publication. This two groups are now plying a little bit with the boron article. Could we use some of the original research things on both groups to calm down the situatiuon? Thanks

:: The discussion should happen at the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry]]
---[[User:Stone|Stone]] ([[User talk:Stone|talk]]) 10:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

:::Started article [[Allotropes of boron]].--[[User:Stone|Stone]] ([[User talk:Stone|talk]]) 20:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

== Sporcle ==

Don't know if you guys have ever heard of Sporcle, but it's a game in which you're given a category and have to name all members of that category as fast as possible. I found one for the periodic table:

http://sporcle.com/games/elements.php

After about 10 tries, I was able to name all 118. Booyah! --'''[[User:Cryptic C62|Cryptic C62]] · [[User talk: Cryptic C62|Talk]]''' 15:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

== copper ==

The google sholar search on the sentence ''A copper pendant was found in what is now northern Iraq that dates to 8700 BC.'' [http://scholar.google.de/scholar?hl=de&lr=&safe=off&q=A+copper+pendant+was+found+in+what+is+now+northern+Iraq+that+dates+to+8700+BC.&btnG=Suche&lr=] yields two hits, but I think as the sentence is there since 18:22, 22 October 2002 I think this a copy from wiki. Any suggestions?--[[User:Stone|Stone]] ([[User talk:Stone|talk]]) 22:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

:No good references = cut it out. It is especially useless when considering the sentence which precedes it: "Some estimates of copper's discovery place this event around 9000 BC in the Middle East." Considering ''this'' fact, the pendant bit is trivial at best. --'''[[User:Cryptic C62|Cryptic C62]] · [[User talk: Cryptic C62|Talk]]''' 03:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

== Unblock and then [[boron]] topic ban for [[user:Aoganov|Aoganov]] ==

Read and comment [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Unblock_and_then_topic_ban_for_Aoganov|here]] if you like. --[[User:Mav|mav]] ([[User talk:Mav|talk]]) 14:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Plan now enacted and discussion is archived [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive194#Unblock_and_then_topic_ban_for_Aoganov|here]]. --[[User:Mav|mav]] ([[User talk:Mav|talk]]) 01:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

==Oxygen isotopes for deletion==
[[Oxygen-24]] , [[Oxygen-15]] , [[Oxygen-13]] - have been nominated for deletion. [[Special:Contributions/70.29.208.129|70.29.208.129]] ([[User talk:70.29.208.129|talk]]) 07:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
[[Oxygen-24]] , [[Oxygen-15]] , [[Oxygen-13]] - have been nominated for deletion. [[Special:Contributions/70.29.208.129|70.29.208.129]] ([[User talk:70.29.208.129|talk]]) 07:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


Line 182: Line 77:
:::Actually, it would be better if the bot simply placed {{tl|v0.5}} on the relevant articles instead of having an internal parameter. If there are too many banners, the {{tl|WPBS}} bannershell can be used instead. Maintenance would be easier, and bots working on WP0.5 articles would also have an easier time. [[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]]&nbsp;{<sup>[[User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|κοντριβς]]</sub>&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;[[WP:PHYS|WP Physics]]} 07:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Actually, it would be better if the bot simply placed {{tl|v0.5}} on the relevant articles instead of having an internal parameter. If there are too many banners, the {{tl|WPBS}} bannershell can be used instead. Maintenance would be easier, and bots working on WP0.5 articles would also have an easier time. [[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]]&nbsp;{<sup>[[User talk:Headbomb|ταλκ]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|κοντριβς]]</sub>&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;[[WP:PHYS|WP Physics]]} 07:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


==BOTREQ==
== BOTREQ ==


See [[WP:BOTREQ#Tagging and categorizing for WikiProject Elements (somewhat complex)]]
See [[WP:BOTREQ#Tagging and categorizing for WikiProject Elements (somewhat complex)]]

Revision as of 07:30, 7 June 2009

Noticeboard
(edit · history · refresh · watch · article alerts · old notices · recent changes)
WikiProject iconElements Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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 page, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TOC Article alerts Archives

Featured article candidates

Good article nominees

  • 15 Aug 2024 – Radium (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Reconrabbit (t · c); see discussion
  • 26 Aug 2024 – Terbium (talk · edit · hist) GA nominated by Reconrabbit (t · c) was promoted by SirBrahms (t · c), see discussion

Featured article reviews

Articles to be merged

Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
Archive 5
Archive 6
Archive 7
Archive 8
Archive 9
Archive 10
Archive 11
Archive 12

Oxygen isotopes for deletion

Oxygen-24 , Oxygen-15 , Oxygen-13 - have been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:articles for deletion/Oxygen-24,WP:articles for deletion/Oxygen-15,WP:articles for deletion/Oxygen-13. Are there guidelines for notability of isotopes? A cursory glance of isotopes of oxygen does not tell me why Oxygen-15 was nominated when Oxygen-17 was not. Oxygen-17 is stable, but to me stability does not equal notability. Plus, there is an Oxygen-16 article as well. Oxygen-16 is by far the dominant isotope, but in my mind that makes it less notable by itself since normal oxygen is essentially oxygen-16. TStein (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, Oxygen-16 is notable but only in nuclear physics as a doubly magic nucleus. But does this make it an exception that proves the rule? TStein (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that stability or unstability does not confer notability, for some elements, radioactivity is more notable that stability for semi-common isotopes. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've been tagging some isotopes and there seems to be some confusion with which templates articles should be tagged. Here are certain suggestions (the general idea, the details could differ) which could give the project a lot more structure, with very little effort from your part (<3 bots!):

  • Only {{WikiProject Elements}} should be used to tag articles, the other templates would be deprecated/deleted/redirected
  • If the title is of the form Element, then it would be tagged by {{WikiProject Element|element=yes}}, and placed in Category:Element and Category:Chemical elements.
  • If the title is of the form Element-X or Isotopes of element, then it would be tagged by {{WikiProject Element|isotope=yes}}, and placed in Category:Element.
  • Isotopes of elements could possibly be tagged as |class=list, and default-sorted as Element, Isotopes of
  • If these pages are redirects, then {{WikiProject Elements|class=redirect |importance=na}} would be used.
  • Each Category:Element would be placed in Category:Chemical elements, and tagged by {{WikiProject Elements|class=category|importance=na}}

This would make it very easy to monitor the AfDs/PRODs of specific isotopes, ensure that all isotopes and elements are tagged and properly categorized, as well as reduce the confusion about which template to use. Bots could also create redirects based on the isotope tables (not necessarily all of them). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On your third point, shouldn't isotope-related articles also be placed in category:Isotopes vs Category:Chemical elements? Other than that, your plan sounds good and avoids template duplication. Also, we may want to put group and period articles in their own category. I see that some are already in category:Periodic table, which makes sense. --mav (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it could also be placed in Category:Isotopes or something like that. Perhaps placing them in Category:Isotopes of element, which would itself be placed in Category:Element and Category:Isotope by elements. Aka the tree would be something like:
  • etc...
Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems most logical. --mav (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Head, feel free to expand the Chemical Element template. There has been some discussion a while ago how to do this and your way would probably be the best. Nergaal (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well if everyone's fine with this, I'll work on it over the week-end and will make the botreq soon after.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I noticed the old element banner pretty much placed everything in WP0.5. Was this correct/desired behaviour? Should it also do the same for isotope articles? It would probably be much better to have a |WP0.5=yes parameter so WP0.5 doesn't get cluttered with lists, redirects, categories, bad taggings, etc... Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea (although "WP0.5" is a fairly awkward parameter). Nergaal (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In what cases should the wp0.5 be set to |wp0.5=yes ? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it would be better if the bot simply placed {{v0.5}} on the relevant articles instead of having an internal parameter. If there are too many banners, the {{WPBS}} bannershell can be used instead. Maintenance would be easier, and bots working on WP0.5 articles would also have an easier time. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 07:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BOTREQ

See WP:BOTREQ#Tagging and categorizing for WikiProject Elements (somewhat complex)

Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ununbium

Does someone know when/if the IUPAC publishes a decision on the discovery rights for ununbium? After the independent confirmation of Uub by the Swiss in 2008, I don't see why they shouldn't accept the GSI's discovery now. The article ununbium claims the Joint Working Group's report would be published in "early 2009", but gives neither sources nor an exact date.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will get an answer from the press release on the webpage of the GSI.-Stone (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery of the element with atomic number 112 (IUPAC Technical Report) Nergaal (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Unfortunately, the GSI link leads to unlinked headlines, but Nergaal's link works.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naming rules

Most of the unnamed chemical elements (112-118) have the boilerplate claim

According to IUPAC rules, names used for previous elements that have ultimately not been adopted are not allowed to be proposed for future use.

but none gives a reference. Is this actually true? If so, IUPAC broke its own rule in the element naming controversy by proposing hahnium for element 108 (already proposed and used for 105), among others. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements&oldid=294933204"