Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.96.166.49 (talk) at 11:04, 4 December 2011 (→Follow up on change to A-class). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.
 FA A GABCStartStub FLListCategoryDisambigDraftFilePortalProjectRedirectTemplateNA???Total
2909710112596340172307311161228,90522810010,247
TOC Article alerts Archives

Featured article candidates

  • 23 Sep 2024 – Otto Hahn (talk · edit · hist) FA nominated by Hawkeye7 (t · c) was promoted; see discussion

Good article reassessments

Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
Archive 5
Archive 6
Archive 7
Archive 8
Archive 9
Archive 10
Archive 11
Archive 12
Archive 13
Archive 14
Archive 15
Archive 16
Archive 17
Archive 18

Should the main element article be the main repository of data on the isolated element, or not

This is a question that has to do with more than just style guidelines, as it threatens to be made a decission via the "style backdoor"

Here's the RFC

Possible vandalism? Legit edits?

Some IP changed some entries in the island of stability article (see [1]). I reverted, out of precaution, but it's possible the edits make sense. I personally have no idea, so if someone could check this and see if it should have been reverted, that would be great. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slight inconsistency

While looking over Alkali metal, I noticed a slight inconsistence with Noble gas. In alkali metal, it does not include Hydrogen as an alkali metal, but in noble gas, it does include Ununoctium, even though it is likely that ununoctium does not exhibit properties of noble gases. Should this be fixed, or am I missing something? Yankeesrule3 (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and fixed noble gas, leaving alkali metal open for discussion - its lead clarifies the inclusion. Materialscientist (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect pages for isomers

Using the new redlink recovery tool, I stumbled upon a red link to the isomer of niobium, Nb-93m. (The link was in activation product.) I had the tool server create a re-direct page (Niobium-93m which redirects to isotopes of niobium. I am not certain if that was the best thing to do, though. For one I am uncertain about the notation of the m. (I am more familiar with using an asterisk or star.) For another, I am uncertain of its notability, even for a redirect. Whoever composed the table in activation product thought it fit to include it in its limited list, though, which is why I created the redirect page. Your thoughts would be welcome, since I am certain that I will run across other isomers and I would like to know what the best practice is. Thanks.TStein (talk) 03:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in chemistry at AfD

List of important publications in chemistry has been nominated for deletion. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in chemistry.  --Lambiam 22:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project steering, again

Now (as at the time of writing) there are NO current GAN/GAR/FAC/FAR/PRs, which is bad. Hence, we need to discuss what things we should be working on now. The best bet is with the article about group 12 elements, as it looks like it has the most potential for improvement. The next thing on the roster would be silicon - a great material but an underdeveloped article on Wikipedia (it's only a C-class, and there are a lot of references to silicon in external sources). Start-class lanthanides like holmium are another possible candidate - maybe we should aim for all Cs? Whatever we decide to do, make sure it's sustained, as this project needs to get back on its feet - fast. FREYWA 16:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since last time we had this topic we lost several productive editors and others are far less active than before. Most of the activities were focused on the GANs and the one FAC we had in the last weeks. The other two active spots are Silicon and Sulfur. As there is already activity we should help there.--Stone (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated alkali metal for GAN now, but after I finish with that, I was planning to work on Sodium, in order to make alkali metals a good topic. Maybe we should try to work on nitrogen as well in order to get period 2 elements to GT. I guess we could also try to convert all the stubs to start-class? Yankeesrule3 (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stubs to Starts seems like a good idea. Since both nitrogen and sodium are very important elements in the real world we should work on sodium first (alkali metals are more important than period 2 elements). FREYWA 07:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sodium and potassium

I edited substantial aspects of sodium and potassium. Sometimes I can appear to be a pushy editor, but if others have concerns, please say something and I will go back and re-edit. Comments on the themes/opinions that I am trying to re-emphasize:

  • The metallic elements are of modest importance (almost none for K), although we all recognize the significance of expounding on the nature of elementts. So while it is understandable if the articles emphasize the metals (this is the only article to do so), we want readers to be mindful of the fact that it is the compounds that are of dominant(!) interest.
  • I tried to slightly prioritize the commercial apps by listing the main uses in descending order. The caveat here is that just because something is used on a small scale does not mean that the item is not notable. The main challenge with compounds of Na+ and K+ is that there are so many uses. Also, if not managed, the apps section can degenerate to the level of ultra niche-y uses. At least in my opinion.
  • solutions of these ions consist of aquo complexes for the most part, not just naked Na+.

But again, if editors are slightly alarmed or worried, then say so, and I will try to address problems I might have introduced tomorrow.--Smokefoot (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The primary topic page for FE, Fe and fe

Does really Fe have to redirect to Iron? Ca, Hg, or Pb do not redirect to Calcium, Mercury (element) or Lead, for example. —  Ark25  (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. You have a point. Since there are two of us, I'll try to fix this unless we get massive objections from others. SBHarris 02:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss change in Fe at Talk:Fe. "Fe" might have a primary topic when "Hg" doesn't, for example. If the new consensus is that "Fe" no longer has a primary topic, Fe (disambiguation) will need to be moved to the base name, otherwise it's WP:MALPLACED. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vote (everybody, please go to TALK:Fe for this.

My redirect of the redirect has been revertd by JHunter. Okay, everybody: iron (element) is now the primary topic for iron. But (question) should iron (element) be the primary topic for Fe? Personally, I say:

  • No. For that automatically makes iron (element) the primary topic for FE and fe also. I think Fe should be handled as are all the other two-letter symbols which may happen to stand for chemical elements, but (in other forms and other capitalizations) may stand for many other things also. Examples given above. The capitalization problem is the root of this discussion. If you make the element the primary topic for the symbol, you make it the primary topic for any two-letter combination. Fe must direct to the same page as FE, so that (as it is) FE and fe must primarily direct to iron (element) also, even though FE and fe are never used as a symbol for iron. I suggest that that is not a good thing. As a policy, for this reason, I think that two-letter wiki pages should NEVER direct primarily to the chemical element, but instead, always to a dab page. SBHarris 20:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis on quality

One slide on WP:elements in the section called "some high importance efforts".

PowerPoint: Wikipedia's poor treatment of its most important articles

69.255.27.249 (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to read and it makes me feel happy. The blue periodic table is still a good way in the future, the all green one I will observe myself and not my grandchilds. --Stone (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are a rock! RetiredUser12459780 (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My views and responses on the subject are here. Much easier for me to make this a link than to cross-post same text to multiple areas! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RecentChangesLinked

I noticed a problem with the recent changes tab on the top of the page. The category that it links to changes for does not include the supporting articles such as the groups and periods. I propose we instead link the recentchangeslinked to WP:ELEM/PTQ. This would ensure that all articles covered by our project are in the recentchanges. If no one objects to this, I will change it in a couple days. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use this one? Recent Changes. If any page is missing it is easy to add at User:Stone/PSE,--Stone (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great. Changed. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that we should move this to project space? It could also just serve as a nice list of articles for us to have. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to move it. I created it because some articles in the scope of the project did not show up in the recent changes list.--Stone (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up on change to A-class

Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 11#B+ class (and the earlier discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 11#A-class), now that all former A-class articles are regraded, Bplus-class is unnecessary. It is not formally listed in the scale linked from the project template and is not recognised by the automatic reports and bots. Can I check that it is now OK to delete Template:Element color/Bplus and Category:Bplus-Class chemical elements articles and remove Bplus from Template:WikiProject Elements/class and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Articles/Periodic Table by Quality? DrKiernan (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you do that? If even unnecessary, it may be kept, just for the day when we need it again. Not in the formal scale, but is common, and listed among the common nonstandard ones. Visit WP Albums and tell them to delete Future-class. And what if we offence the bots? All these negative sides seem to be crossed by the usage of it in future (I will use it). Not common even for the project, so what? We'll need it one day.
Sorry if anything looks offensive. IMHO--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For me, it would be fine, but I think that we should get a consensus one way or another before any action. My vote, however, is to remove it because I don't like how it breaks the automatic reports. I don't plan on using it, but I can see why people would or wouldn't, so I think we need a vote. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

114 & 116 named

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements&oldid=464018207"