This template is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this template, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements articles
This template was considered for deletion on 3 April 2012. The result of the discussion was "keep".
The image File:Plutonium3.jpg, which has long been used for this article, is a 1945 black and white image. I think it should be changed to File:Plutonium ring.jpg, which is also a sample of nearly pure metallic plutonium, but a newer color image. This has been debated before in the edit history: [1] It was argued that the plutonium ring image is unsuitable because it's oxidized, but we know for sure that the 1945 grayscale image isn't oxidized too and we can't see it because it's grayscale? Pinging @Materialscientist:, @Double sharp:, and @Whoop whoop pull up:, who were involved in this issue. HertzDonuts (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the fact that the plutonium-ring image is in color, and, thus, gives a much-better idea of what plutonium actually looks like, outweighs the presence of surface oxidation on the ring, especially given that we don't seem to mind using images of superficially-oxidized samples in the infoboxen for other elements (just to list a few, the infoboxen for scandium, lead, and uranium are all illustrated by samples of the metals with surface oxidation present) and that the oxidation on the ring is very visibly superficial, taking the form of a discoloration of the metallic surface rather than any significant coat or crust. (Also, looking closely at the grayscale button, I strongly suspect that it has surface oxidation as well.) Whoop whoop pull upBitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes22:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Sc and Pb pictures show both a relatively untarnished cube, together with other tarnished lumps. So it's not quite the same. Uranium is indeed an issue, but I'm not sure we even have a picture of untarnished uranium.
But to be fair, there's obviously going to be a shortage of images of Pu, and all of the existing ones will probably have drawbacks. If it's generally thought that an oxidised colour image is better than a less-oxidised black-and-white one, that's fine with me. Double sharp (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support changing this: in my opinion seeing the oxides is good anyway, because it's what the metals actually look like. The ring has the extra bonus of being a piece in actual practical use. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrfoogles: I'm not sure I understand your first sentence. To me it seems that our picture of potassium should not be a completely corroded pile of oxides, but maybe I mistake your meaning. :) Double sharp (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
…I thought it was pretty clear, but I like oxides because they form naturally; as shown, practical examples of plutonium naturally have oxides if they’re not specifically removed. I like seeing what people who work with plutonium see, and what I would likely see if I held some in my hand. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrfoogles: Well, that's exactly the point I'm making. Practically speaking, if you leave potassium out in the environment, it's naturally going to be completely corroded into a pile of oxides. But for a case like that, I feel like a specially cleaned sample is going to be more representative of potassium the metal. So why shouldn't that generalise to all reactive elements, like plutonium? Double sharp (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, basically three reasons
One, all metals look kinda the same (gray, shiny), and the oxide coatings give them a bit of uniqueness. I don't care about the exact metal appearance quite as much.
Two, while obviously I wouldn't like a pile of oxide dust, this thing is still solid. I think some parts are unoxidized, liked the inside back, maybe.
Three, seeing the actual kind of plutonium they use in nukes is cool
For example, iron with some patches of rust would be pretty good -- it shows both the metal itself and how it oxidizes naturally. It seems a bit artificial to show an image that only exists for a couple seconds, or in a vacuum chamber. For example, this lithium image.
I do agree that there's maybe a little too many oxides on the ring, but for me that's offset by the fact that this is how it looks practically -- it's cool to see how what the stuff actually looks like when it's manufactured for e.g. nuclear weapons use. Plus, although I would like if there were less oxides, at least it's (a) in color, and (b) not just some vague grey blobs as in the other photo.
Basically what @Whoop whoop pull up said above, plus *some* oxides is great. Ideally articles would balance the metal, the oxide, and practical examples. I'd consider another image, but it's hard to beat actual practically manufactured nuclear plutonium on the interestingness scale of photos. Mrfoogles (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrfoogles: Yeah, it is an interesting question! I'm not sold on your opinion for the stable reactive metals – for one thing, it seems good to me that we show strontium's slightly yellowish colour, even if those conditions are rather artificial – but for plutonium there are of course few choices and all images we have are imperfect in some way. So, you have my support if you want to change the Pu picture to the somewhat oxidised ring. Double sharp (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had actually never seen strontium: for that one I see your point. It's subtle but it is yellow. Thanks for the support, but I don't know if you noticed someone already changed it, so it's kind of a moot point. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Another option: this image of plutonium-238. Not saying I support it, but it's there. No obvious oxidation, but a major lack of detail. On the interest factor, it looks like the kind of thing that could be used in RTGs. I think the ring might be better for generality over use cases, though. Mrfoogles (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ring also has the advantage of showing the element can be (relatively) stable; the pellet might confuse people into thinking it's always as unstable as plutonium-238. Mrfoogles (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
