Jump to content

Talk:Chemical symbol/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Other symbols that look like element symbols

I have just added the symbols Ar (aryl) and Bu (butyl) to this section. Obviously the section is not intended to be a comprehensive list of short chemistry abbreviations but I believe these two are common ones that are just as notable as some of those already listed, particularly Ar, the chemical element symbol for argon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I-hunter (talk • contribs) 13:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Oops, sorry! I-hunter 13:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Symbol Explanations

Would it make sense to, for the elements where the symbol isn't obvious, to put the origin of the symbol on this page? yes it would that i you should know

Done. -Thibbs (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia school

I need to be able to get to information of how many electrons, neutrons, and protons. also find out some information on the atomic mass and the atomic numbers in all of the periodic table. This comment was written in the main article by 216.125.165.194 at 18:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC).

For atomic numbers, atomic masses etc. see for example periodic table (detailed) or list of elements by atomic number. The number of protons equals the atomic number Z (e.g. 6 for C). The number of electrons also equals Z in neutral atoms. Regarding neutrons see for example isotope table (divided). The number of neutrons equals the you should know this even if it boringmass number A (e.g. 13 for the isotope ¹³C) minus Z. --Eddi (Talk) 21:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Please see WP:TALK -Thibbs (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Iupiter vs. Jupiter

There have been several edits in the past which have changed the word "Iupiter" to "Jupiter" under Pictographic symbols. According to the Lapp source the correct spelling is, in fact, "Iupiter" and not "Jupiter." I suspect that these edits are mainly attempts at typo-correction, but unfortunately in this case these well-intentioned edits are unsupported by verifiable sources. -Thibbs (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Corruptions?

I'm not quite sure why words like Actinum and Bismuth are described as corruptions. Aren't these words rather standard transliterations from Greek and German into Latin? I suggest getting rid of the word corruption, or replacing it with "transliteration". Rwflammang (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This sounds reasonable. -Thibbs (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Accessibility

In some cases the explanatory use of colour may be of great assistance to those who are primarily visual-spatial coders. Removing colour from this page, even with the best of intentions, will make the subject that much more difficult to conceptualise for countless people like me who think in pictures and need colour content to facilitate understanding.

It seems this is a little far to go in assuaging concerns pertaining to one disability, as this creates problems for those of us with different disabilities. Removing colour wouldn't be a proportional response to the problem. However, it might be possible to offer an "accessible" version of the page for those who cannot perceive the full spectrum, and keep a full-colour version for those who learn best with colour coding. Otherwise, a useful article will be drained of a good deal of its explanatory and expository capacity, which would be regrettable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.1.185 (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Symbol etymology

Why does the symbol etymology column, when the element's symbol is immediately obvious from the name, list instead the etymology of the element's name and not stay blank, or simply show the element's name with the letters devoted to the symbol in bold? Elium2 (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If the element's symbol is obvious from its name then it's clear that the same etymology would be applicable to both the name and the symbol. Etymological origin isn't exclusive, so just because the name of the element has an origin X doesn't mean that the symbol can't have the same origin X (especially if the symbol is obvious from the name). I think we'd have to change the column header from "Etymology of symbol" to "Etymology of symbol (unless shared with the element's name)" if we were to do away with those entries and I don't think that would look aesthetically pleasing. -Thibbs (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Atomic Weight Sorting

Maybe no one cares, but if you try to sort the element table by weight, it seems to sort by string or something rather than by numerical means. Am I reading the table wrong or is it completely broken? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.161.133 (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing. The weight column is necessarily a string field because it contains brackets within many of its elements. You would therefore be better off sorting by atomic number, which closely parallels the corresponding weight. --Glenn L (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Problem solved. -Thibbs (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

WildBot announcements

checkY Problem addressed, so I've shifted these tags down the page for transparency. -Thibbs (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

OK now that I understand how WildBot works, I've restore the template so that it can delete itself when it's ready. Sorry for the confusion. -Thibbs (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed, Former and Suggested

I would like to clarify here about the above three terms, because originally, there are so many symbols are "proposed". I think there should not be too much "proposal" of symbols, and I found that's true. To tell you ostensibly how I categorize the symbols that are not currently used, I clarify what "Proposed", "Former" and "Suggested" describe.
"Proposed" describes name/symbol that is nominated during acceptance of corresponding "permanent" name/symbol by internation standards organization (current is International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry).
"Former" describes name/symbol that is existed before acceptance of corresponding "permanent" name/symbol by internation standards organization.
"Suggested" describes name/symbol that is adverted after acceptance of corresponding "permanent" name/symbol by internation standards organization.
Obviously, "Proposed", "Former" and "Suggested" name/symbol are not a part of standard, but distinguishing what the non-standard name/symbol belongs is important for us know the reality. 195.239.158.54 17:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure I properly understand the difference between your use of the terms "Proposed" and "Suggested." According to my understanding there would be no "Symbols not currently used" which would fall under "suggested." In the meanwhile, I had independently come to the same conclusion as you that the differences between "symbols not currently used" should be clarified and I BOLDly made the change without referencing talk first. The scheme I had come up with split these names into 4 subcategories.
  • Category 1 - Name changed due to a standardization of, modernization of, or update to older previously used symbol.
  • Category 2 - Name designated by discredited/disputed claimant.
  • Category 3 - Name proposed prior to discovery/creation of element or prior to official re-naming of a placeholder name.
  • Category 4 - Temporary placeholder name.
As I see it, my Category 1 is the same as your "Former" category, my Category 3 is the same as your "Proposed" category. I notice that my Category 3 contains the word "proposed" in it and as such I think we are generally in agreement on this. My Category 1, however, does not contain the word "former" and I propose that as my scheme is but a modification of yours and as there is no remarkable difference between our use of these two categories, my category 1 should be modified to include the word "former." -Thibbs (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)



I found this absolutely wonderful and thorough site that has virtually every proposed symbol and name. Rather than going through each element, the owner kindly made a separate page, each linking to the source. It is very well cited. I recently added some former symbols, but I would like to make our list complete using this. It also his pictorial symbols for some. MANY OF THESE are not on our list, and it's quite daunting. But here is the root list:

"Names That Did Not Make It"

Also, it includes suggested names for even the yet to be discovered 118 (uuo), and if we include that, we should also include [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JES1981 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is the symbol for Strontium Sr?

Does anyone know why the symbol for Strontium is Sr? I would have expected it to be St following the convention of most (many) of the other elements. An explanation in this article would be informative.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

What else for strontium you expect? -DePiep (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Tin is Sn. They don't all follow the same pattern. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 09:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The table in the section "Current symbols" uses WP:piped links to display the Latin, Greek, etc. word from which the symbol is derived while linking to its English equivalent. This also causes the English word to pop up, "tool tips" style, in most browsers. In response to my question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Innovative use of piping on Symbol (chemical element) another user calls this "Definitely an improper use of piping." Is there another style – maybe plain text or some formatting designed for tool tips – that might avoid the problems of linking to DAB pages or to Wiktionary? Cnilep (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The bulk of that material was added in 2006, long before tooltips were in common use. And today even tooltips are off limits for that sort of thing because of WP:NOSYMBOLS. I've just been leaving that info as it is because it didn't seem like it was causing any problems but if it violates the MoS to link to Wiktionary and you feel it would look better in another format or that it should simply be removed then I don't think anyone could stop you short of an appeal to IAR. So go ahead and be bold. -Thibbs (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hm, that page (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility) recommends against using 'tooltips or any other "hover" text' (emphasis added) except for abbreviations using {{abbr}}. The chart can probably accommodate both words in one column. Cnilep (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Again, I think the explanation for the link hovertext is that it was added in 2006 before WP:ACCESS was part of the MoS. Anyway it looks fine now. The only suggestion I'd make is to reinstate a reworded version of the original note at the top since it may not be intuitively obvious that the bracketed words are a translation. Oh also I think you missed the pipelink translation for "Rheinprovinz". Otherwise it looks like it's very much in conformance now. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge chemical symbol to here?

The two pages seem to be trying to be identical in scope, and there's nothing on chemical symbol that wouldn't integrate well into this page. 93.96.208.82 (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Not a bad idea in theory. I'd give it a mild support. -Thibbs (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. I did not see a difference in definition. Target name Symbol is good too. -DePiep (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Agree. The other article is pretty short, so it would be good to merge them together. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 09:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd say let's not do that (a merge is still ok of course). Within the topic domain (let's say chemistry & physics), the words "chemical symbol" are rarely if ever used for this. More to the point is "element symbol", or simply better "symbol" (as our element pages show). Within this topic "symbol" is the common word.
Now in wiki, other topic domains enter that also use the word "symbol" internally (like IPA alphabet, astrology). For this reason we need to WP:DISAMBIGUATE our word. And that is done by adding a bracketed postfix, like (chemical element). Disambiguation clearly does not ask us to specify a correct title by changing it; it points to the bracketed addition and keep the title correct. That is why we better keep using symbol (chemical element). -DePiep (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
That's a good point, DePiep. I was thinking of "element symbol" anyway. I'm not sure how we could determine whether "symbol" is more commonly used in the literature or "element symbol", but anyway the merge should result in redirects either way so readers using either term should be able to find their way. -Thibbs (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Once we agree there should be some disambiguation term (=brackets), we can zoom in on the exact wordings indeed.
About your detailed point (content page to be named "element symbol" or "symbol"?; "chemical symbol" now disapproved by both of us IIC). I know one guideline: when there is a choice, use the simplest one. First te wp:title page points to use WP:COMMONNAME, we already get. Then WP:PRECISION says we better use the simplest form. That would be "symbol" then ("element symbol" can redirect, especially since the content title will have a DAB term). This would save us to research most common used word(s) within chemistry & physics; there will be no clear winner I expect.
My personal preference would be, following these guidelines and because the simple form is not wrong in any way, to move the merged content page to symbol (chemical element).
Note that we could push the merge forward already. A page move/title change can be done afterwards, as a separate independent conclusion. -DePiep (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. It's been months without a single voice of opposition and our recent back-and-forth is highlighting the issue for anyone currently watching the page. It looks to me like there's a general consensus to merge. -Thibbs (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Symbol (chemical element) is an overdisambiguated title. There is no article at symbol (astrological element) or symbol (IPA element). Perhaps symbol (element) would be sufficiently disambiguous for our purposes? --John (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
or Symbol (chemistry)? "element" in science can mean different things (at neighbouring maths for example). No big issue for me this. -DePiep (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Symbol (chemistry) would work. --John (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Fine with me. Go ahead. -DePiep (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Done, and I performed the merge as well. --John (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The merge is not done well. The lead only accounts for symbol (element), and not for other symbols in chemstry like tBu which isnt a "internationally agreed code for a chemical element" Christian75 (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
For reference, here is a link to the old merged article and this is a record of the merge to this article where it can be seen that the old lede defining "the symbols of a chemical element" as:
was altered to define "a chemical symbol" as:
So I'm not sure I can agree that the merge was problematic. It would seem that tBu which isnt a "internationally agreed code for a chemical element" is also not an "abbreviation that is used to denote a chemical element" or that has "been officially chosen by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry." Most likely tBu would have fallen outside the scope of both articles. If you believe it should be added to Wikipedia (and why not? I agree it should be.) then I'd try TBU or even Symbol (chemistry)#Other symbols. -Thibbs (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Okey, it wasnt a bad merge (because both articles where about symbol as in chemical element). I assumed it wasnt. But the article as it is now, is more generally about chemical symbols, and tBu (tert butyl) is listed in this article, like other chemical symbols for groups of atoms. And therefore the lead should be rewritten to reflect this. Christian75 (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

exotic atom symbols

We're missing Mu, Ps, and Pn (the last one, annoyingly, can also mean a general pnictogen). Double sharp (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Ω

It looks like Ω may be an unofficial symbol for 18O per this pdf from a conference: "It is frequently referred to as Oxygen-18, O-18, 18O or Ω." Does anyone else use this symbol, though? I've never seen it before. Double sharp (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Need source for chemical symbol standardisation , and previous use

Under 'Symbols not currently used' some (eg A, Bo, Ch, Fl, Hy) say "Current symbol is ..." ref nb 7 - but nb 7 just refers to 'standardisation, modernisation' etc Is there a reliable source saying when specific symbols were standardised ? And is there a source (possibly the same) that lists the no-longer-to-be-used symbols ? - Rod57 (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I've added a source for A->Ar being 1957 but it does not mention Bo for Boron, Ch for Chromium, Fl for Fluorine, or Hy for Mercury.
Boron#History,Chromium#History make no mention of 'Bo','Ch' so do we need a source here for these and others ? - Rod57 (talk) 09:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The short answer is: Yes, sources for these claims would be great. There seems to at least be mention of "Fl" for Fluorine here, but I don't see much else about them on-wiki. I haven't checked, myself, but the IUPAC website may be a good place to look for sources for these dates. -Thibbs (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Tentative Symbols

Would it make sense to add the symbols of element names such as Io for Ionium, Cb for Columbium and Eb for Ekaboron that were once used or proposed, but are no longer officially used?

It seems that this has now been added to the page and while I do believe that this section is historically interesting, there are a huge number of these tentative symbols. The table we currently have is much smaller than it has potential to be given the number of once-used names. I would suggest that this section be greatly expanded and then made into a collapsible table which we could do for all tables which do not display currently used names.
As a second point, I also think that we should avoid the use of names which were never used in literature although they fit a naming scheme. For example, although one could imagine the term EkaHolmium (using Mendeleyev's scheme) or Ennennium (using the IUPAC scheme) as systematically generated tentative names for Einsteinium, we should refrain from including it in the table since (to my knowledge at least) neither name was ever used. -Thibbs (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, "ennennium" is technically not even allowed by the IUPAC scheme, which was explicitly only for elements with atomic numbers greater than or equal to 101. However, "eka-holmium" was indeed used by no less than Seaborg. Double sharp (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Well I still stand by the original point which was about "the use of names which were never used in literature although they fit a naming scheme" and not about Einsteinium in particular. That was just an (apparently poor) example. -Thibbs (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent unsourced changes

Regarding this series of unsourced IP edits, I am concerned that there are has been no evidence provided either in the body of the article nor in the edit summary. I've broken up my concerns in sections below:

A brief Google search for some of the additions (e.g. "UrII" as an additional symbol for Uranium II) seems to provide no support in the form of reliable sources. In fact a current search on Google for "UrII" and "Uranium II" gives only 9 hits and none of them are relevant whereas a search for "UII" and "Uranium II" gives several hits from Google Books (Cambridge University Press, etc.) related to radiochemistry. I'm almost certain that I had originally taken the "UII" symbol from the Leighton source listed in the References section of this article, though I'd have to retrieve the book from storage to double check. Some of the introductions (e.g. MeTh2 as an additional symbol for mesothorium 2) were subsequently self-reverted, but this makes me wonder if these additions have been made from memory/personal experience or whether they were in fact based on reliable sources. In addition to the lack of evidence that additions like "UrII" are real, I also think that for an article whose emphasis is symbols, we should list these symbols in their own row in the table rather than fold them into the entry for a related symbol. Anyway, for now I have deleted the additions and would urge that sources be offered when/if they are restored.
  • Removals
A number of entries have also been removed by the IP editor who made the above additions. These entries were not sourced inline and I have restored them for now with "citation needed" templates in order to treat their removals as good-faith challenges. As the thread started just above this one suggests, sources are needed for all of these entries. I hope to retrieve both the Lapp and Leighton sources soon so that I can cite them properly inline. Sources would be excellent for the remaining entries and especially for the entries that have now been flagged as needing citations.

-Thibbs (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I was the one who made those changes. The entries I removed came from this paper http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/totomark/PeriodicTable/MarksBrosPT1994.html, so I don't think they count (I removed them again). You seem to be right about things like RdF and UrII though. I wonder why considering the occurrence of Rd and Ur on some older periodic tables? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8602:73F0:F83F:7D24:F8FD:487 (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, the source you have provided lists many if not all of the symbols you have again removed. Please stop removing verifiable information from this article. You may instead be interested in providing inline references for them, but if you do so be cautious to take our reliable source guidelines into account because the source you linked just now appears to be of dubious reliability. -Thibbs (talk) 11:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I removed those symbols because the source is of dubious reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8602:73F0:29AD:DDAC:2135:DC31 (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The source isn't even used in this article. You can't just find an unreliable source and then use that as justification for blanking all claims it makes irrespective of whether or not the claims are verifiable via other actually reliable sources. Consider that your poor source makes the claim that the Lanthanide series starts at atomic number 57. Should we consider that claim to be false simply because it's presented in a poor source? Of course not. There are many sources of the highest reliability that can be used to verify that claim. It doesn't matter whether or not an unreliable source repeats the same claim. -Thibbs (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
In a 2-second google search I immediately found reliable corroboration for the use of "berzelium" (the first entry you have repeatedly blanked) for example. See this. Have you made any effort to search for reliable sources to corroborate these claims you persist in removing? -Thibbs (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The berzelium from the reliable sources apparently referred to a mixture of thorium and yttrium that was wrongly believed to be an element (see here http://elements.vanderkrogt.net/didnot.php), not praseodymium, and apparently never had an associated symbol. I did find a reliable source for "odinium" https://books.google.com/books?id=znDfRvx9pPMC&pg=PA2&dq=odinium&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirqpqZrq7QAhUGYyYKHZRLAxEQuwUIJDAB#v=onepage&q&f=false, but it referred to vanadium, not samarium, and again no symbol was specified. I was unable to find reliable sources for the others; the only other sources I could find at all were referencing that first unreliable article I linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8602:73F0:29AD:DDAC:2135:DC31 (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Correction: your berzelium does have a symbol. I've added it, carolinium, and emanium, I've learned something, and I owe you an apology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8602:73F0:29AD:DDAC:2135:DC31 (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
It's not my berzelium. I am not advocating for anything except the retention of verifiable historical symbols. I commend your recent post hoc efforts at researching these removals, but you need to slow down a little and do research before you blank the entries you are personally unfamiliar with. Your most recent edit has wiped away Danubium which is covered in a paper for the peer-reviewed journal, Foundations of Science. See João Leal's article entitled "The forgotten names of chemical elements" (June 2014, Volume 19, Issue 2). The article mentions Danubium as a historical name for technetium as well as listing the symbol for Odinium as "Od" (which you've above asserted not to have a symbol). Please be more cautious in your editing. The reason people are reverting your edits is because they look like vandalism. Can you work with us here instead of carrying on on your purge alone? -Thibbs (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Leal must be referencing that first article I linked to. Regardless of whether it's reliable, it's from 1994, and its authors have developed a nomenclature system unique to them which includes renaming elements that have had established names since at least the 1950s. I don't think their new symbols can or should be considered "historical". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8602:73F0:29AD:DDAC:2135:DC31 (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
For now let's just stick to what can be verified in reliable sources and what can't. I would suggest that we simply flag dubious items with the {{citation needed}} template for now and approach this matter in a measured and careful manner so as to avoid losing reliable and verifiable information. For materials that you have already excised from the article I wouldn't mind discussing them on the talk page, but let's gather a list of the items you cut and see what we can glean from a careful examination of the reliable sources. Does that sound like a good way forward? -Thibbs (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
It does sound good; I always like to be reasonable (sorry if I haven't been giving that impression). The symbols I removed are: Da danubium (technetium), Bz berzelium (praseodymium), Ty tyrium (neodymium), Od odinium (samarium), Me mendelevium (erbium), Sp spectrium (ytterbium), Mt meitnium (protactinium), Cb columbium (americium). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8602:73F0:29AD:DDAC:2135:DC31 (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
OK thanks. I have no problem leaving them off the list for now and I will have time on Friday to look into this more deeply. I do see a surprising amount of references to that and another article by EJ and JA Marks published in Foundations of Chemistry, so hopefully something will emerge that we can work with. If these terms were really invented as neologisms in 1994 then I do think they should be considered in light of this Wikipedia policy. If you remove any other terms, please document them in this discussion thread so they can be reviewed more easily. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to remove a few of the symbols I just added (namely Bz berzelium, Cn carolinium and possibly Em emanium), since the list could conceivably go on forever if we try to sort through all the pre-atomic number symbols that can't be easily associated with a specific space on the post-atomic number periodic table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8602:73F0:29AD:DDAC:2135:DC31 (talk) 03:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Are there criteria you are using in making your selections in this cull? It would be helpful to spell them out because to an external observer these decisions seems completely random. There are not an infinite number of symbols so a list documenting all verifiable ones would not literally go on forever. Keeping articles to a reasonable size is something to keep in mind, but we must also remember that this is a digital, not a paper encyclopedia project. -Thibbs (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I've reviewed the Leal source pretty thoroughly now. He lists his sources so that makes it easier to see how he determined the alternative names he lists. From his sources I've attempted to be even more discriminating and to only use his article to cite claims based on non-alternative-medicine peer-reviewed journals and books by blue-linked authors like Marco Fontani and John Emsley. There are a number of homeopathy journals listed, but the author appears to be making the point that these alternative terms persist in areas like homeopathy rather than suggesting that there is any merit to homeopathy's underlying claims. Anyway to be on the safe side I have ignored claims based on those journals.
Leal also cites some non-peer-reviewed sources like Peter van der Krogh's personal website (which has been linked earlier in this discussion and which appears in the sources section of this Wikipedia article), the Departmental website for York University, encyclopedic entries from Chemeurope.com, and an About.com entry written by Anne Marie Helmenstine (a Chemistry PhD). For now I've considered these all to be questionable and haven't used the Leal source as a reference for claims based on those sources. Obviously we can track down the original peer-reviewed sources as well if that would be helpful.
There is still considerable material in the book by Fontani, Costa, and Orna, and of course Van der Krogh's website also has citations as do some of the other "questionable" sources from the Leal article. So there are plenty of areas in which to expand this search for sources. I hope that we can approach this cautiously going forward, and I think that if this section of the article appears to be getting too large (was this a factor in the recent decision to cull?) then we can always split the article to cover that topic independently. -Thibbs (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

inorganic symbols

There are also many shorthands for ligands (e.g. acac, bpy, COT, diars, dien, dppf, en, edta, and lots more) that also act like symbols in formulae like Ru(acac)3. Double sharp (talk) 08:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Symbol "Ms" for Masrium

Well supported by Fontani's Lost Elements ref, fitting radium periodic table location ( but not being radium itself--false discovery). That secondary ref cites multiple primary refs and even a derivation for the name. DMacks (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Suggesting tweaks on the list table

This article has a list table that seems to mirror that appearing in List of chemical elements. As the emphasis of this list is the symbol, I wonder if there is any reason to include all of the properties and characteristics of each individual element. Although characteristics like number, period, weight, density, melting/boiling point, and abundance may have minimal relation to the symbols (perhaps mainly in relation to descriptive element names like barium which refers to weight, fluorine which describes its flowing nature, etc.), I can't think of a good reason to include columns on electronegativity or specific heat capacity.
I suggest we follow the lead of List of chemical element name etymologies and remove some of these unrelated columns to shorten its overall length and to enhance navigability. Does this sound like a good idea? -Thibbs (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Personally I would remove the "C" and "X" columns immediately, and I would even be comfortable with removing the information in the "Atomic weight", "Density", "Melt", and "Boil" columns as well. Any thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I support scapping origin-of-name, as redundant to List of chemical element name etymologies and not clearly on-topic for symbol. In the few cases where the symbol is not obviously related to the current name in English, there could be a footnote, or a separate section discussing these situations. I also support scrapping of all physical properties that are strictly related to the elements in their pure form (density, melt, boil, C, X) or properties completely unrelated to symbol (abundance). I lean mildly toward removing group/period, as these are not really relevant to the symbol idea, but they are often used when identifying elements. I would keep weight, as this is related to the mass-number detail of the symbol. DMacks (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I would say that the origin-of-name column does generally relate to the symbols inasmuch as most of them are derived from a specific word. But I can understand your perspective on it too. I wonder if merging the symbol and the etymology pages (and perhaps even this page) would be a possibility or if it would be better to still keep them as two (or three) separate pages.
In regards to abundance, I think you're right that it makes sense to get rid of it. Maybe it makes sense to exchange that column for a "date of naming of symbol" column since that is a potentially significant facet.
As far as group and period are concerned, I can't really see much/any benefit either unless the etymology is included as period may be potentially significant in that the Noble gasses generally end with -on and the Halogens generally end with -ine.
We should probably hold off for a few days at least before making the change to allow for further discussion from other editors, but at this point I'm comfortable at least leaving "Atomic weight" in the list and removing abundance, density, melt, boil, C, and X. -Thibbs (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

OK I removed the six columns we discussed previously. I think it's already a big improvement. I'm open to further removals of other columns down the road if that would be helpful. -Thibbs (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 18 April 2020

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed, before the WP:SNOW freezes up the works. BD2412 T 04:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Symbol (chemistry) → Chemical symbol – ...A good WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. "Symbol (chemistry)" is a tad awkward; "Chemical symbol" might be a bit better. (Also, it seems there used to be two articles — "List of elements by symbol" and "Chemical symbol" — which were merged into one at this title. It was only at this title so it didn't interfere with "Chemical symbol" before they ended up being merged entirely. However, "Chemical symbol" is a better and less clunky title than "Symbol (chemistry)" for the concept in general.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Symbol vs. notation

Afaik, in notation of nuclide, atoms and elements only the element symbol is a symbol. So, 232U is a notation (of a nuclide), and "U" is the only symbol in here. "symbol of an atom": red book The article shouuld be adjusted for this I think. -DePiep (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Interesting point. Is there a specific page number in the redbook that would be instructive? I was skimming through and I see that on Page 64 at the bottom there is a discussion of "nuclide symbol(s)". -Thibbs (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Good point. TOC says, pdf-p58/377: "Names and symbols of atoms", and "Symbols for new elements" ie, the Ubn form — element symbols.
Then, there is "i n d i c a t i o n o f m a s s , c h a r g e a n d a t o m i c n u m b e r u s i n g in d e x e s ( s u b s c r i p t s a n d s u p e r s c r i p t s )" (59/377): single meaning of 'symbol' again. ("index placed around the symbol"). HTH. -DePiep (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I was looking at the redbook p44 (IR-2.15.3.6, pdf-p56/377) just now and they referenced Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry II - 2.2.5. (I took a snapshot here). It could be a combination of formal definitions mixed with informal explanatory text (though the thought makes me shudder). Definitely worth pondering, though. -Thibbs (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I like your 'informal explanatory text' description. Still, we're supposed to accept 18O as a symbol too then. That is: of a nuclide (the specification is relevant), not just an atom. OTOH, 8O would not be a symbol as it does not specify anything more than O = oxygen atom. More RSs with a definition? Article should be edited to show this consistently, I guess. -DePiep (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I think that sounds like a good idea. Per the above discussion, we may want to rewrite the lede a little. When that happens it might be good to draw more emphasis to the symbol itself and there to make definitions clear. -Thibbs (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Latin alphabet

The second sentence in this article includes “Element symbols ... normally consist of one or two letters from the Latin alphabet...” This is true but it is misleading. About 10 of the elements have symbols based on the element’s name in the Latin vocabulary but newcomers to chemistry are likely to miss the subtle distinction between alphabet and vocabulary, and interpret the second sentence as ALL elements have symbols based on the Latin name for the element. It is true that everything in this article is written using the Latin alphabet. It is unnecessary to state this in relation to element symbols. It would not be acceptable for Wikipedia to write “The New York Times is a newspaper using the Latin alphabet” even though this is strictly true. Similarly, it is unnecessary to state that all element symbols are based on the Latin alphabet. I will remove these words. Dolphin (t) 22:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I doubt it would confuse anyone since it is a common expression and because it's linked. I think the relevance of the characters is to highlight and differentiate the modern characters as Latin rather than Chinese or the older Daltonian and alchemical symbols which were abstract and/or astrological. I've shifted up the sentence about Chinese characters a bit higher as their placement was a it out of the blue. I think it shows the reason for bringing up the characters rather than the languages. -Thibbs (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Raising the matter here on the Talk page by starting a new discussion thread means the matter is now open for discussion in an attempt to garner multiple views from different Users. It doesn’t mean my edit is open to reversion by every User who has a view on the matter; that is a recipe for edit warring. Please allow sufficient time, say a week, for other a Users to join the discussion and provide their points of view. In that way, we may find consensus. Seeing I started the discussion thread I will restore my edit. I look forward to reading multiple views on the matter. Dolphin (t) 05:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Of course your edit is open to reversion by any User who has a view on the matter. I was following WP:BRD, not edit warring. Can you explain again about how the blue-linked expression "Latin alphabet" would confuse anyone when the topic of the article is "Chemical symbol"? -Thibbs (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
My explanation is that the expression "Latin alphabet" is not blue linked. Dolphin (t) 12:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
In addition to the older non-alphanumeric symbols, it's fairly reasonable to think that modern science might use all sorts of non-Latin alphabets for various symbols (Greek often, and also Cyrillic and Hebrew come to mind). Conversely, The New York Times immediately identifies the paper as "American", so there is no reason to suspect it would be anything except English. The topic is the symbol, not the linguistic relationship to its current name. I agree that the symbols do sometimes seem unusual in that regard, and the second lede paragraph clearly notes it (though the word "earlier" suggests that these were former symbols, not current symbols based on former names). DMacks (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
My thanks to Thibbs and DMacks for joining the discussion. We are discussing the lead section of this article. Some excellent guidance is provided at WP:EXPLAINLEAD. In particular, it says While the lead is intended to mention all key aspects of the topic in some way, accessibility can be improved by only summarizing the topic in the lead and including the technical details in the body of the article.
As the article stands at present, half the first paragraph in the lead of Chemical symbol in the English Wikipedia is talking about the significance of Chinese characters for displaying chemical symbols in the Chinese language! I say again - all this in the first paragraph in the lead. Clearly, this is not compatible with the guidance provided at WP:EXPLAINLEAD. Dolphin (t) 12:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree that China or the Chinese language is not the topic of the article. The same is obviously true for Rome or the Latin alphabet which you have removed. But if you think that Latin and Chinese is WP:UNDUE in the lede then I think you are mistaken. Latin symbols and Chinese symbols are today the only characters that are used for modern elemental symbols. There's actually a great history to the topic:
The elemental symbols used to describe atoms originated in ancient times and were refined and changed in time as new scientific discoveries unfolded. From the days of the early Alchemists, Chemistry has evolved. Dalton made significant contributions to systematizing the symbols and then Mendeleev provided the specific structure using the Latin alphabet as symbols for the elements. Mendeleev's scientific articles and his personal notes were written in Cyrillic, but significantly he used Latin characters as his symbols. Today Mendeleev's symbols are standard. The only exception in the modern era is the Chinese symbols. Both the Latin symbols which are used worldwide and the Chinese symbols which are used internally in China are the only symbols used today. For readers interested in an encyclopedic treatment of the topic and because Wikipedia caters to an international readership, I think it makes sense to restore the portion of the Latin language which make up the symbols and the Chinese symbols which are the only other modern elemental symbol used today. Both of those should be discussed in the lede. -Thibbs (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I have no objection to all your information being placed somewhere in the body of the article (provided it can be supported by reliable published sources.) My point is that the third sentence in the lead of the article is not the appropriate place for this level of detail. Surely WP:EXPLAINLEAD supports my point rather than yours? Dolphin (t) 13:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
The characters that make up the symbols are fundamental to the topic (i.e. the symbols). I'm not sure we would be best serving the readers by burying this information deeper in the body. Where do you suggest this information should be mentioned if not in the lede? -Thibbs (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd support reintroduction of "Latin alphabet". Point is, these are symbols so anything goes. Numerous are greek alphabet symmbols (math, chemistry, physics) etc. Also non-script symbols are in use, even in early chemistry element notation. It is good to keep in mind: by defining a symbol this way, as IUPAC does, it looses being a "proper script" (as usage in cyrillic texts show: no transcription). -DePiep (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
@DePiep: The opening sentence in this discussion thread (and my edit of the article) refers to “element symbols”. Wikipedia recognises 118 chemical elements. For the purposes of the English Wikipedia, not one of these 118 elements has a symbol that is Greek, Cyrillic, Chinese or anything else that is likely to be unfamiliar to English-speaking readers. Dolphin (t) 02:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I know. The point here is: IUPAC chooses it to be Latin. It is their definition. It is not an editors OR choice. (had not IUPAC chosen it, greek cahrtacters could be in there). This article must describe the RS-definition -DePiep (talk) 02:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for that. What is the meaning of RS-definition? "Reliable source"? Dolphin (t) 11:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I meant to say: another reliable source that states that definition. Could be WP:secondary, tertiary source, or another IUPAC publication. -DePiep (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as there has been no consensus to remove the link to Latin alphabet, and it's been nearly 2 weeks, I've restored the original language. Further discussion (if needed) should continue on the talk page and not in mainspace. -Thibbs (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

But why the "normal'ly", as in by habit or preference? It is a definition (by IUPAC). -DePiep (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I support DePiep's challenge of the word "normally". The comprehensive table in the article (Chemical symbol#Symbols for chemical elements) showing all the elements and symbols, shows that every element has a symbol consisting of one or two letters. There is no element with a symbol consisting of zero, three or more letters. Consequently, the word "normally" is incompatible with the table contained in the article. Dolphin (t) 12:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Actually, three-letter symnbols are defined too by IUPAC (for >= E119, like Uun etc). My point is that it is defined by IUPAC, not a common practice. -DePiep (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
"But why the 'normal'ly'" - This was added by Kranix in March 2017. It looks like the edit was basically just grammatical in nature, but I may be wrong. It's true that the 1- and 2-character symbols are normally used since they are the elements we see in nature, but the theoretical extended periodic table's 8th-nth periods are entirely filled with 3-character placeholder symbols. In theory there would be more 3-letter symbols than 1- and 2-letter symbols. So perhaps "normal" can be interpreted differently. I don't have a strong opinion on keeping or removing the word, but I'd be interested in hearing Kranix' thoughts. -Thibbs (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh, wow, I didn't expect my random copyedits to present such a relic for future generations. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter either – I probably just thought the sentence would flow a bit easier for me as a reader if I was 'prepared' for the exception to follow by a word like 'normally', but it's really just my (non-native) ear telling me that. Kranix (talk | contribs) 23:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I suppose "normally" will be correct once we again have pending additions to the PT, this time to an eighth row. Double sharp (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Berzelius

That said, one thing I wonder is which language Berzelius had in mind that his symbols would be matching, even for the elements whose symbols fit their English names. After all, in other languages there would be different mismatches, e.g. nitrogen (symbol N) in French (azote), German (Stickstoff), or Swedish (kväve). I wonder if he might have just used Latin for all his symbols, and we just don't think about it that way in English because our names for many scientific things really are Latin. In which case saying that the symbols were usually meant to match the letters of the English names would be incorrect until we get to the more modern elements. Double sharp (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

(Jöns Jacob Berzelius I assume. -DePiep (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC))
(Yes, he invented our modern alphabetical symbols. Double sharp (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC))
Why I bring this up: it has to do with the previous topic. (I should have made that clearer, sorry.) The most obvious way to deal with the duplication problem is to just say "The element symbols typically match the English names of the elements, except for eleven instances which match the Latin names" – that's what I first thought of. But that may not be accurate if English was not the language Berzelius was trying to match. If he was going for Latin in all cases (which would make sense in his time period), then it would rather be accurate to say that element symbols were at first meant to match Latin, but now that Latin has been eclipsed as the language of science, they match the modern languages. Double sharp (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, Berzelius meant Latin for all elements: [2] Burzuchius (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
"Chemical Signs'", great! 1814 then. Thx. -DePiep (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
So we should start section Chemical symbol § History for this! Please do so, someone. -DePiep (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 1) Thanks!
Oddly enough, I can't find in the 2002 or 2016 IUPAC guidelines for naming elements anything about the symbol. It would surprise me greatly if they were still based on Latin; more likely it's English, since that's the only language the Red Book codifies IUPAC-approved names of the elements for. I should like to know more with sources, but I can't find them. But then again, since all names since Berzelius' death (1848) have been pretty much international, maybe the precise language used to get symbols has not been codified because it wouldn't make any difference for new elements. Double sharp (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Irregular symbols

@DePiep: There is no consensus for your recent edit. All of those familiar symbols already exist in this article's section titled "Symbols for chemical elements". What benefit is there from separately highlighting the 11 "irregular" symbols to duplicate them in their own section? The etymologies of the 11 highlighted symbols already appears in the "Origin of name" column of the "Symbols for chemical elements" table. Any additional information should be added to the "Origin of name" column rather than duplicating these special symbols. -Thibbs (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

This would leads to the removal of name etymology, as that is not the topic of the article. -DePiep (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
@DePiep: I disagree. It is obvious that the addition you included is close to identical. For simplicity I've drawn up a basic table so that you can explain what portion differs from the original. Whatever difference you have noticed can easily be changed in the "Origin of name" column of "List of chemical elements" table.
Comparison between original and DePiep's table revealing obvious duplication
Original text (i.e. "Origin of name" column of "List of chemical elements" table) DePiep's duplicated text (i.e. "Etymology" column of "Etymology of non-trivial chemical symbols" table)
the symbol Na is derived from New Latin natrium, coined from German Natron, 'natron' "Na": from New Latin natrium, coined from German Natron, 'natron'
the symbol K is derived from Latin kalium "K": from New Latin kalium
the symbol Fe is derived from Latin ferrum "Fe": from Latin ferrum
from Latin cuprum, from Ancient Greek Kýpros 'Cyprus' "Cu": from Latin cuprum
The symbol derives from Latin argentum "Ag": from Latin argentum
The symbol derives from Latin stannum "Sn": from Latin stannum
The symbol derives from Latin stibium 'stibnite'. "Sb": from Latin stibium 'stibnite'
The symbol is from wolfram, the old name of the tungsten mineral wolframite "W": from Wolfram, originally from Middle High German wolf-rahm 'wolf's foam' describing the mineral wolframite[3]
The symbol derives from Latin aurum "Au": from Latin aurum
The symbol is from the element's Latin name hydrargyrum, derived from Greek hydrárgyros, 'water-silver' "Hg": from its Latin name hydrargyrum, itself from Greek hydrárgyros, 'water-silver'
The symbol derives from Latin plumbum "Pb": from Latin plumbum
There is no consensus for your recent edit because the original text (i.e. "Origin of name" column of "List of chemical elements" table) is a near identical duplication. Any additional information (rewording, etc.) should be added, re-worded, re-titled, or otherwise altered in the "Origin of name" column rather than duplicating the 11 "irregular" symbols. -Thibbs (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

talk restart

talk restart (arbitrary): how to proceed best
As I said, the name etymologies should be removed. This article only needs the clarification "Mg from/for magnesium", not the etymology of the word/name magnesium. The eleven irregulasr symbols then can have their background added (in the same list). But even worse, name etymoplogy is presented in some half a dozen articles, Category:Naming of chemical elements, which makes it impossible and ineffective to keep these correct & consistent. -DePiep (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
There is no reason to create a subsection for "Etymology of non-trivial chemical symbols" from the "List of chemical elements". Etymology is a component of the "Origin of name" column. The name of the symbol is intrinsically part of the chemical symbol which is the topic of this article. Splitting these 11 symbols as the first section of this article is needless and confusing.
There are many ways to put chemical symbols into newly defined categories. You could have a table of single-letter symbols (H, O, N, Y, W, U, etc.), a table of double-letter symbols (Ar, Pb, Sc, Ta, Ne, Os, etc.), a table of symbols starting with vowels, a table of symbols starting with consonants, and any number of other variations. None of these would add any benefit beyond the original table which has all of the elements and any needed description of the origin of their symbols in a single table. -Thibbs (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I have removed te 11-irregular-symbols-table for now.
Your reply here does not address the essence of my post: element name etymology does not belong here (this article is way too big because of sidetracks really). So what should we do with the table? -DePiep (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I suppose the guideline would be WP:SIZERULE. But the tables that we have here are not prose, so the total size of the article is relatively small. Perhaps it would be sufficient to use autocollapsed tables so the different tables could be used to reduce reader fatigue if the tables are too long, but is this primarily a mobile issue? It doesn't seem way too big to navigate comfortably. As far as the strict removal of name rather than symbol, wouldn't we have to remove all names too? I don't think that would really be a benefit. I'm not sure whether anything that has existed for years needs any addition or removal, but perhaps it would be a good idea to see what the other member of the community think. I'll ping @DMacks:, @Dolphin51:, and @Double sharp: to see what they think. Please feel free to ask others who might help us. -Thibbs (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
IMO it is not bite size. It is too many subtopics handled in the article (like: name etymologies).
I propose to replace the table with {{Symbol (chemical element)}} (new & developing). -DePiep (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
See also List of chemical element name etymologies -DePiep (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, the etymologies of the element names is irrelevant. In many of the old cases the symbols came later. And obviously after that the symbols usually matched the letters of the name anyway, so I'd imagine that the name came first and then the symbol came after it. Double sharp (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

So do we prefer {{Symbol (chemical element)}} then? -DePiep (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments DePiep and Double sharp. The etymology of the names don't bother to me, but if it seems problematic then I won't argue. The main issue to me is to keep out the duplication of symbols. A single column would be the place to put all information related to the etymology. -Thibbs (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chemical_symbol/Archive_1&oldid=1184209983"