Template talk:Infobox element/symbol-to-oxidation-state

Create talk!

 Gah4 (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the group II oxides were weak bases, but obviously that depends on what you compare them with. Magnesium oxide (hydroxide in solution) is milk of magnesia, commonly used as an oral medicine. I don't know about the ones farther down, but I would expect even less basic. Gah4 (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continues at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#Oxidation_state for wider audience. Not here. -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

recent

Hello @DePiep:!! The error i was trying to fix was on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_element/symbol-to-oxidation-state/doc (included to show the type of error) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meitnerium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_meitnerium ... and maybe others! Those red errors would not disappear on the meitnerium page, no matter what I did, so I followed the breadcrumbs to this page In truth, the problem seems solved, even after your reverts, so I guess I didn't really do much! Appreciate the assistance, please prevent me from accidentally destroying the whole site! Horsesizedduck (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, it is OK as it is now. Any error you see that needs fixing? -DePiep (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, it really is ok right now. The error that used to show up doesn't even show up on previous versions of the page, which actually bothers me. I saw you considered my edits breaking in the history comments. What broke? Horsesizedduck (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red notices in article references section. Most likely caused by *named* refs with diff content in (sub)templates. -DePiep (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Again, thanks for the directions. Horsesizedduck (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @DePiep: I've discovered the error again: pages are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscovium and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_moscovium

Here's what I can tell:

--> The problem is always the reference "BFricke", which is "defined multiple times with different content";

--> The common connection is this template, and the fact that these are chemical element pages;

--> More specifically, it has to do with a "radius" and "oxidation state" entry in an element sheet.

I think I might have fortuitously fixed the issue with the "meitnerium" page after editing this template: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_meitnerium

In any case, I'll leave it to you to investigate the finer details, if you choose.

Cheers! Horsesizedduck (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Horsesizedduck: Good report :-) . Yes that is an error of course. The solution is: in every page, define <ref name="BFricke">...<ref/> as exact copies (so: copy/paste). The error message occurs when it is defined not *exactly* the same. OTOH, when redefined multiple times with the same content, no error occurs.

In the infobox it can be defined once and then re-uysed by name (because infobox is always transcluded complete). However, {{Infobox element/symbol-to-oxidation-state}} requires same definition throughout (all elements ...), because only single-element data is read from that one (only meitnerium, only moscovium).

Line of solution then would be:

1. in {{Infobox element/symbol-to-oxidation-state}} repeat the same definition everywhere;

2. in infoboxes, repeat the same definition at least once (then call that ref by name)

3. in articles, repeat.

Better: first create template {{cite BFricke1975}} to simplify reuse (my example: e.g. {{CIAAW2013}}).

Now if you can agree with this approach, you can pick it up to implement all & take the honours. Otherwise, I can do it. -DePiep (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Horsesizedduck: I have created ~~{{BFricke1975}}~~{{Fricke1975}}, because it is difficult to describe its details. Later more. -DePiep (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{Fricke1975}} is ready for use now. You want to spread it? -DePiep (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to! Thank you for offering the credit! What are the relevant pages? Horsesizedduck (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

listed main ones at {{Fricke1975}} (talk). Keep a visual check, its tricky. I noticed that the article onlky has a named ref (using the infobox definition). -DePiep (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done. Won't edit in this unless you ping me. -DePiep (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

eh, re [1] in moscovium: my idea was to replace these with {{Fricke1975|name}}. -DePiep (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, I was just experimenting to see if that would work. :) Horsesizedduck (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bad news

I've been trying to replace every "Bfricke" ref with the template you made, and the preview always shown the error unchanged, introduces the same reference a second time, or creates a new error.

I believe I am out of my depth, so it would be best if you made the necessary changes @DePiep:. Horsesizedduck (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, wait, I have a last ditch solution. In this template, some of the BFricke names are not in quotations! Horsesizedduck (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It did not work, and I've made enough of a fool of myself honestly. At least I called someone who knows what they are doing Horsesizedduck (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have done itr for moscovium: article + infobox + this template. Not the replacement everywhere, and the use of ref, name. The error is gone. Later today I'll look further. -DePiep (talk) 05:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @DePiep:

How has this little side-project gone?

I've noticed another article that is BFricked: Roentgenium

Meitnerium also refuses to budge... Horsesizedduck (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote here, I've done Mc as an example because I thought you were missing the setup core. I'll do the others as listed. -DePiep (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done} I have edited all pages as listed at Template talk:Fricke1975 (the elements). Some instances might have slipped trough. -DePiep (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed N(0)

N(0) atoms are in tetrazole rings, see the Template against which the Infobox is compared. Olthe3rd1 (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

re [2]: We should not and can not source by Wikipedia, but if there is a source in — please add here. -DePiep (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a source from literature to my template edit. Olthe3rd1 (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

new edge cases: +ref please

@Double sharp:, could you add a source for Cn (+6) you added? Apart from the obvious OSs, we'd like to have high-quality info in here. I assume you have a source at hand? ;-) -DePiep (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just added it, thanks for the reminder. I'd added the ref to Copernicium, but apparently forgot to do it here. :) Double sharp (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thx. Next time I better wait a bit longer ;-) -DePiep (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced claims please

@Nucleus hydro elemon: About this edit.

Intention of the OS lists is to upgrade wiki quality, i.e, add sources for claims. This includes claims "main" (=bold) or not. For this, es "see their corresponding articles" is not enough, and does not build a good data set. More so because we have two lists in public 1, 2 (which, ideally, in long term should converge to same-set).

Also, we could use criteria for "main OS" made explicit. The good news is: enwiki is miles ahead of wikidata. DePiep (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OpenMOPAC.net

Is this source that used by several elements reliable? Also, the link is probably dead, as I only get "The requested document was not found on this server." after I clicked into it. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed one. These kinds of sites are not reliable. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So many pointless "oxidation states".

Why did chemists invent "oxidation state"? To give a handy rule of thumb for guessing chemistry. If every possible number is called an "oxidation state" the concept is completely useless.

In my opinion only the major "expected" oxidation states should be included in this data and each should be referenced to secondary sources. Otherwise this is just misinformation or chaff Johnjbarton (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the oxidation states do not show up in the articles

A bug causes bolded oxidation states to not show up in articles for heavier elements. How do I fix this?

The bug as it appears in Unbihexium

BombCraft8 ^{(talk) (contributions)} 00:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking: How do I edit the data to correct problems in the oxidation state numbers, please edit template:Element-symbol-to-oxidation-state-data. However, these elements have no "common" oxidation state according to our reference. These elements are unstable or only predicted.

The predicted states for Og are clearly not correctly input, if you can access the ref or another one and repair that would be great. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]