Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements

Bring all the element articles to GA-class or above (turn the "Periodic Table by Quality" completely dark green and blue.) (104/124 = 83.9% as of August 2023)

and in the longer(!) term:

Bring all element articles to FA standard (turn the "Periodic Table by Quality" completely dark blue.) (22/124 = 17.7% as of August 2023)

In each case, the important supporting articles should be understood as included. However, we understand that some topics are either innately ill-defined or have too little known to ever develop to GA/FA.

Element info boxes and atomic mass/atomic weight

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first appears to be a progressive move away from the now somewhat deprecated "atomic weight"; however atomic weight has been replaced by "relative atomic mass" not "atomic mass".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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead sentence consistency in element articles

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

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

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

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

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

That is an artifact from 2002 before I added the NavBox to the template. I felt it was necessary to have a link back the periodic table at the top of the article instead of at the end. But that is no longer needed due to the link in the NavBox. However, I still think it is appropriate to have a mention and link to periodic table when the article talks about the element's position in the table ("Examplium is a chemical element that heads Group X in the periodic table." is fine, IMO while "Examplium is a chemical element in the periodic table." should be changed to something more informative) --mav 01:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I take from that that my edits as I described are acceptable as they occured when the lead sentence read like your latter illustration. I'll sit on my hands for a few days and let others chime in, but I feel better about what I have already done. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

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

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

Carbon

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

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

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

Oh crud: I don't have access to any of those. Thanks for trying. — RJH (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to the first one! This might be enough to add the references.-- Stone (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Series" to "Element category"

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

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

Abundance of the chemical elements

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

I have problems using the templates for boinling and melting points

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

Specific Activity

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

Merge proposal

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

Super duper heavy element articles

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

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

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

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

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

I agree, and I think we should make your recommendation a project guideline. --mav (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked them and you are right, the articles are pretty much useless. But instead of the systematic element name redirect, I think it would be more appropiate to use the "Period 8 element". Also, even though it is popular culture, rather than just deleting them, I think it is better to put that info into the period 8 element page. Nergaal (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is an even better idea. Make it so! :) --mav (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Periodic table (large version) under Featured list review

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

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

Featured topic?

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

I think that is a great idea and will add that to the goals. --mav (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --mav (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, WP:FT? criterion 3.a) says only three of the articles have to be FA-class for topics of nine articles or less, so all that needs to be done is to make noble gas a GA. 142.151.169.129 (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's also the matter of the lead article, Noble Gas. That also needs to be GA / FA. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 12:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Groups

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

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

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

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

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

Yep - A great many supporting articles to this project need to have project templates on their talk pages and most of those need ratings. Thank you for starting that process. :) As for the groups... well, some of them have names and some don't so the ones that don't get systematic names. An yes, there is some overlap in groups and families. We just need to make sure we are talking about the same set of elements. I'm not sure how to handle this better... --mav (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might be wrong, but this is the usual practice in most textbooks I've seen. The main groups (the old ones ending in A) had special names except for boron, carbon & nitrogen. The problem with these 3 was probably that the emements vary greatly in their chemical reactivity to recieve a term that covers their reactivity consistently (while the other 5 are clearly either metal or nonmetal/mettaloids). Since all these 8 were main groups, they probably deserved a bit more attention in naming them. On the other hand, the transitional metal groups have truly only 3 elements that are actually usable and therefore people probably didn't realy bother naming them (also, from a very superficial point of view, transitional elements have similar rather reactivities). Nergaal (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a name for the nitrogen group: pnictogens. Other than that, you are right, only a few groups have proper names, while all the others are referred to either by number or by the name of the lightest element. We already have plenty of redirects to account for the various possible names, but perhaps there are still some missing redirects. --Itub (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove undiscovered elements from the periodic table

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

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

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

or even

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

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

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

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

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

This has been discussed many times allready. This is an encyclopaedia, not an official database or IUPAC. By the same thought process we should delete the article on Kosovo because it is not a recgnized country yet. But wouldn't that be really retarded? Nergaal (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please go read Talk:Ununseptium to see the overwhelming support against your arguments. Nergaal (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood me, as Itub pointed out. By my thought process, Kosovo only shouldn't have been included in a List of independent countries at the time of your comment - as indeed it wasn't (it is not even in it now). IMO, an encyclopedia should only contain verified facts, and (as far as I know) the discoveries of elements 113-116 and 118 have not yet been verified by an institution other than the respective "discoverers" themselves (I admit 112 has been verified independently recently). And I don't see any reason for including Uus in the table, neither from you nor from Talk:Ununseptium.--129.70.14.128 (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

129.70.14.128 is not saying that the article should be deleted, but just that it shouldn't be included in the figure of the periodic table. I disagree with 129.70.14.128 anyway; I think that labeling it as undiscovered is enough. --Itub (talk) 07:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Itub for clarifying this to Nergaal; however, could you give a reason for your opinion? As I said, I consider it misleading and inconsequent to include it, as we do not include the undiscovered elements from period 8 .--129.70.14.128 (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of metallic elements

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

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

Tables with "number of neutrons" for each element

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

A / GA

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

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

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

IMHO, since there is no actual review process for A-class, then they should not be listed as above GA. Also, there is a huge gap between B and GA and I think the high quality B that sitll lack some parts (citations or say full compounds section) could be listed as something else. And since A is fairly useless otherwise, A could take care of these articles. So I am in for 1. Nergaal (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, I understand the motivation for having A class above GA, but in practice GA standards have increased enough that it really is the other way around for all projects except maybe the largest and most active. So yes, I support promoting GA to be just under FA for our purposes here. We can then agree that an A-class is an article that is getting close to at least GA standards by our reckoning but has not formally passed any community-wide process. In either case, being a GA or FA trumps anything we have here. --mav (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Do list box

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