Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements

FA	A	GA	B	C	Start	Stub	FL	List	Book	Category	Disambig	Draft	File	Portal	Project	Redirect	Template	NA	???	Total
30	0	96	35	102	87	34	1	169	131	273	5	0	115	1	16	3,378	232	0	0	4,705

Long-term topics, archived

• Metalloids and categorisation (2013; archive 15)
• Group 3 constitution (2017; Periodic table/archive 9)
• Group 3 (tyranny of blocks; arguments) (2018; archive 33)
• Reclassifying the nonmetals (2017/2018; archive 35 et al.)
• Inspiring: Periodic table ("@Droog Andrey: I love the design of your table. ^_^")

Dubnium at FAC

We're having one more FAC, and I hope it'll go well! I'll be very glad if you can find some time to comment the article. R8R (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2018‎ (UTC)

150 years Periodic table of elements

32

32 featured content items: Featured articles (29) H, He, O, F, Ti, Zn, Ge, Y, Nb, Tc, Xe, Cs, Ir, Pb, At, Fr, Th, U, Pu, Cf, Db, Nh, Ts, Og, noble gas, metalloid, periodic table, heavy metals, radiocarbon dating Featured lists (1) periodic table (large cells) Featured topics (2) noble gases, period 1 elements Signpost interviews: 2011, 2013 Detailed list Article quality in the periodic table Other high quality articles

In 2019, we will celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Periodic Table. As Richard Feynman said: "If there is one thing we would comminicate to other life forms in the universe, it would be that we have discovered that all stuff is made of these atoms".

I understrand we can pin a more exact date to it: March 6th 1869 Mendeleev send his Table to RSC, later that month published in the first volume(!) of the RSC journal.

Now I propose we prepare an article for this anniversay to be a WP:TFA. FA Periodic table was on Main Page last January, so that one is not usable. Could we make History of the periodic table an FA? Other candidates? Or the Periodic table as a WP:POTD?

References

-DePiep (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

You've got my support. Unless something better surfaces, History of the periodic table seems appropriate. YBG (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

but it's not FA yet (nor GA). MAybe one of the FA elements is recyclable. -DePiep (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd prefer something more general than a specific element. What would it take to get the history article up to snuff? Or we could take one of Mendeleev's predicted elements. Gallium is GA and germanium is FA. Or could we go for a trifecta of metal-metalloid-nonmetal? Metalloid id FA, nonmetal is GA, and metal is C but has recently undergone significant improvements. But I'm not sure the M-M-NM is central enough to the PT and to Mendeleev's thoughts. For a really stretch goal, we could work on the carbon group (currently C) and all of its members (currently 1*C, 4*GA, 2*FA) - and turn an entire column blue. But overall, I still think the history article is the best one for the 150th, but it would require significant effort to improve it to FA status. YBG (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not that good in bringing an FA. -DePiep (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• As it happens, THE UNITED NATIONS PROCLAIMS [2019] THE INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF THE PERIODIC TABLE OF CHEMICAL ELEMENTS. Official website. -DePiep (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• ┌─────────────────────────┘ We should ask & get an exception: FA Periodic table be TFA in March 2019. That is what an encyclopedia is for. -DePiep (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

MAX phase(s)

Should MAX phases be moved to MAX phase? This would be consistent with WP:SINGULAR, but there may be extenuating circumstances. YBG (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

See also WP:PLURAL. YBG (talk) 02:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Singular. It is a list at best, not a class. And IMO no other plural-rules apply. -DePiep (talk) 07:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• But why is it named "Phases" at all? DePiep (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

  Good point. Phase lists many definitions, including Phase (matter), a physically distinctive form of a substance, such as the solid, liquid, and gaseous states of ordinary matter—also referred to as a "macroscopic state". wikt:phase says A component in a material system that is distinguished by chemical composition and/or physical state (solid, liquid or gas) and/or crystal structure. It is delineated from an adjoining phase by an abrupt change in one or more of those conditions. But the article, while explaining MAX in detail nowhere explains "phase". Can anyone check the literature to come up with an explanation? And perhaps decide what is the best article? From a linguistic point of view, "MAX phase alloy" seems much better than either MAX phases or MAX phase, but I defer to others. YBG (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Categories into plural?

• Reading WP:PLURAL especially exception #1 re Class (set theory) and further orthography, I think we should re-example re-examine our our category names: "Alkali metals"? (article title, periodic table legend). -DePiep (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  As I read WP:PLURAL, it seams obvious that our category articles should be plural. These articles seem to fit WP:PLURAL so well that they could well serve as additional bulleted examples. YBG (talk) 07:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  I agree. If none disagrees, please start a Requested Move discussion for these categories.--R8R (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  Let's flesh it out a bit first. See consequences, check similar/different situations. -DePiep (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Would imply Metal → Metals. -DePiep (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I doubt it. While, for example, alkali metals are clearly first and foremost a specific set of elements that often go together, this is not the case with metals, which is first and foremost rather a singular term that applies to many elements. The word "metal" simply has too much value on its own to be considered primarily as a subset of the chemical elements.

I think we should pluralize titles of our sets of elements that we use in our main PT (alkali metal, post-transition metal, etc.) and alike categories that don't fit into that scheme (platinum group metals, pnictogens, etc.) as well as group and period articles (group 3 element, period 6 element, etc.)--R8R (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I mentioneed "metal" because it is in the same PT legend, only one class higher. That is, if we apply class concepts & naming to alkali metals etc., we should also appy it to the higher class. Wrt "platinum group metals" &tc.: probably yes, sure let's get that list together (from here?). wrt group 3 element: never into "group 3 elements", change it into "group 3". PT groups already have a name, no need to create a detour. "FC Barcelona" is the club, not "FC Barcelona players" (IOW, don't define a class by listing its members, but do so by describing/naming the class). See the 2013 disappointment. In general, we need to apply the "class" concept thoroughly (as applied by linguists, mathematicians, ...). -DePiep (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Metal is used not only to name a class of ~95 chemical elements, but also for innumerable alloys and other compounds. In common speech, it refers to a generic type of material, not to a specific class, comparable to plastic, wood or paper. Like soap and glass, it has both a common definition and a technical chemical definition. But our category names and the group names refer to definite finite classes of elements, and so IMHO should be treated differently. I would have our PT legend say "[[alkali metals]]" but "[[metal]]s" for consistency. YBG (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

(re last sentence: I think you meant to write the opposite?) Sounds good. Still, if the article stays "metal", we can label it "metals" in the PT legend. SAme for "non-metal/s" I guess. What with article "metalloid/s"? -DePiep (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────┘@DePiep: No, I think I said it as I intended. Here is what I'd see as the first part of our PT footer legend:

[[metal]]s						[[metalloids]]?	[[nonmetals]]?
[[Alkali metals]]	[[Alkaline earth metals]]	[[Lanthanides]]	[[Actinides]]	[[Transition metals]]	[[Post-transition metals]]		[[Reactive nonmetals]]	[[Noble gases]]

This has the metal article title in the singular but all other category and super-category article titles in the plural, although ^? indicates I'm a bigbit unsure about "metalloid" and "nonmetal". YBG (talk) 05:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, it was about the wikilabels etc. We understand that the plural article pages do have the content, not redirect. -DePiep (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Yea, I was trying to indicate by the wikilinks which article would be the real article with content. YBG (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘ re the ?-question marks remaining: better [[metalloids]] as article (because the chemical class is not main issue), and treat nonmetals like metals: [[nonmetal]]s because similar to "metal" more general meaing. -DePiep (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll buy in to [[metalloids]]. But I would decide [[nonmetal]]s/[[nonmetals]] based on the article content because:

• An article titled [[nonmetals]] seems like it would describe a definite class rather than a type of substance, so I would expect to see an article about a definite class of 17^± specific chemical elements.
• An article titled [[nonmetal]] seems like it would describe a type of substance rather than a definite class, so I would expect to see not only about those specific chemical elements, but also about substances commonly referred to as non metal like paper, wood, glass, and the like, as in the sign I described at User talk:YBG/Archive 4 § Re nonmetals

It is a subtle distinction, but one reinforced by the article metal which describes not a (just) specific definite class of chemical elements but rather a general type of substance; not just metallic chemical elements, but also alloys and other "metal" substances in the common vernacular. But maybe this is too subtle. Thoughts? YBG (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

(do not archive) -DePiep (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

While not in our standard legend, rare-earth metal/s might qulify for plural for the same reason. Todo: check other set names in Names for sets of chemical elements. -DePiep (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Notability of undiscovered elements

May I suggest that this project establish an internal policy of when it thinks an undiscovered element is sufficiently notable to merit its own article? Then we could avoid discussions such as are now occurring at Talk:Unbibium. I suggest our criteria be something like this:

Add up the following points

• (a) 1 points for a recorded attempt to synthesize the element (see WP:LASTING)
• (b) 1/m points for a scholarly article devoted to this element alone
• (c) 1/n points (x>n)(n>m) for a scholarly article with a useful mention of the element, where useful is tentatively defined by length (how many paragraphs??) and the existence of content (e.g., predicted properties) that could be included in the article.

If the sum is at least 1, then the element is worthy of a stand-alone article.

I welcome comments on this, either a refinement of the criteria, additional criteria, or suggestions for m and n. Note that the criteria have been set so that as soon as there is a recorded attempt to synthesize the element, it becomes notable, based on the idea that the attempted synthesis is an event that meets the criteria for WP:LASTING, Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. An attempted synthesis is indeed a precedent for the eventual discovery or for a long series of unsuccessful attempts. Possible values for (m,n) are:

• (1,3) Either (1) a recorded attempt to synthesize, or (2) a scholarly article devoted to this element alone, or (3) three useful mentions in scholarly articles
• (2,3) Either (1) a recorded attempt to synthesize, or (2) two scholarly articles devoted to this element alone, or (3) three useful mentions in scholarly articles, or (4) a combination of useful mentions and stand-alone articles

Once our group has achieved consensus, then we should figure out how to create an policy to include in Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines. I tried to find a criteria devoted to chemical substances to see if there was anything that could be used with advantage, but I didn't find any. YBG (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@YBG: Could you explain what you mean by "1/m"? Sandbh (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

"1/m" = "1÷m" Does that explain things? (p.s., I've made a small correction above) YBG (talk) 05:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Oops. I fixed it again. Here's a history of what it has said: "(x>n)" → "(x>n)(m>n)" → "(x>n)(n>m)" — YBG (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Here is an equivalent manner of expressing the same criteria:

Add up the following points:

• (a) m×n points (n>m≥1) for a recorded attempt to synthesize the element
• (b) n points for a scholarly article devoted entirely to the element
• (c) m points for a scholarly article with useful information about the element, where 'useful' is to be defined in terms of length (paragraphs?) and the existence of content (e.g., predicted properties) that could be included in the article.

If the sum is at least m×n the element is considered sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article.

@Sandbh, Double sharp, and DePiep: Comments? YBG (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@YBG: Your idea has a precedent in the form of WP:1729! To be honest my guideline has been more along the lines of "I know it when I see it", as lame as that is, as when an element becomes notable it will obviously be so as it starts getting mentioned in lots of papers and slideshows everywhere as a target of synthesis attempts (present or future) and predictions. I will look around to see if anything has changed for the next ones up to around 126, at least. Double sharp (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Element 124 seems particularly promising. It has been considered as the limit we could get to in one generation, through Cf+Fe or Cm+Ni (nickel projectiles would indeed get us to 126). But more importantly, it is also eka-uranium, and hence early predictions on natural superheavy elements should give us something; for similar reasons (the magic number), element 126 might be worth a look at now. Depending on exactly how much detail is available, we may now have enough to construct a passable article. I doubt elements 123 and 125 would have as much, but it seems much more possible than it did back in 2011 when those two odd ones were redirected. Double sharp (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Google Scholar searches '"element 124" superheavy' and 'eka-uranium' bring up some mighty interesting papers that I shall look at when I'm not on my phone. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

So... what now?

Hey everyone at Project:Elements! Just wanted to check in to see what everybody is thinking for the next big project that we'll be working on? In the meantime, I've been waiting to hear back from more people on Unbibium before I get working, but is there anything that anybody is working to get done? Just want to hear some input about the stuff going on... If it were up to me and I wanted to write a FA article, I'd start on chromium or beryllium. Then again, I don't have the experience to perform such an undertaking. Ah well. Back to raising c-classes to b-classes. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, History of aluminium is currently at FAC. I have been short of free time to spend on WP lately, but when it does come I plan to do some more good old 2016-style GA spamming. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd welcome any contributions to the Metal article. It's sobering to think that but for metals we'd still be in the Stone Age. Sandbh (talk) 04:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I already mentioned that History of the periodic table is an ideal title to see as an FA on main page next March (150 y). Also, appart from element articles, there are Category:Category:Chemical elements articles by quality element related articles that could use an upgrade. -DePiep (talk) 06:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, UtopianPoyzin! We're not a particularly large project and there haven't been WikiProject-wide projects; this will probably not change anytime soon. At the present moment, you could help a lot by providing a review at the FAC page for History of aluminium; I would be really thankful for that. After the review is over, there'll still be Sandbh with his very ambitious project of metal; this project will clearly require a lot of labor and he will certainly appreciate help. I will be waiting for Double sharp to improve the remaining sections of aluminium, then we'll hold a GAN and probably a peer review to bring the article to the FA quality level.

If you want to try to go for FA with either Be or Cr, go for it! Personally, I essentially joined the project when I decided to bring fluorine to the FA quality; at the time I had no major Wikipedia experience and even my English was fairly weak. After lots of writing, trying this and that, observing other editors' writing, finding various information, and so on, I've developed my own writing style; I learned to enjoy writing, learned not to be afraid of ambitious projects, learned to find joy in making technical information (which our encyclopedia articles are by definition) accessible to common people who could actually learn something and feel proud for that. I will be happy if there is one more editor who writes high-quality element articles (not necessarily styled like mine) and I'll be glad to help you become one with an article of your choice. We all started somewhere, so don't be afraid to ask for help. Also, you can write me an email and I'll send you a few books that I find really useful when writing articles.--R8R (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

mass Chembox Hazards addition

Tornado chaser has added {{Chembox}}, (hazars section) to some 40 element pages. For starters, I have moved them to an appropriate section (Precausions, Safety etc.). I don't know if these additions are FA-grade. There may occur a difference between text and hazard box (see Chromium#Toxity: text says "see Chromium toxicity", hazard box says "No hazards"),. Also, all content in the box is code (phrase numbers, firediamond codes), but no description. -DePiep (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I was on the fence about putting the box in when no hazards are listed, I will remove those(I did wonder if that chromium one would be confusing). But I find it odd that a hazard infobox would be a problem in an article about a dangerous element, as it is standard to include the GHS warning codes, fire diamond, ect in chemical articles. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

DePiep. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Tornado chaser that these boxes might be helpful to keep articles about hazardous elements in line with those of other hazardous substances. But DePiep is correct to raise the issue about whether the quality of information and quality of presentation is suitable in featured articles. YBG (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks OK now, in the section & empty ones removed. My worries are about aligning prose & hazard box (which might refer to different situations, like chromium(VI) etc.). Best would be if text and box agree nicely, as a mutual support, when relevant. I will remove the "at STP" footnote, as hazards refer to real life not laboratory situations. Will use |NFPA_ref= when applicable. -DePiep (talk) 09:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Some elements might have other {{Chembox Hazards}} parameters applicable. (See parameter list, testcases demo). -DePiep (talk) 09:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

User Eudialytos

User Eudialytos is "helping" by putting a lot of unformated references in the articles about elements. Either we reformate all the insertions or we delete them? Here the Contributions of Eudialytos.--Stone (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

infobox element: "a metal"

It crossed my mind that we could/should add to the infobox, in top: a "metal/metalloid/non-metal". -DePiep (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

We could add m/moid/nonm to the category in top of infobox: "non reactive" -> a non-metal". DePiep (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

No, mostly redundant and otherwise needless details (syaing Ln's are a metal is not top info).

Not done Withdrawn. -DePiep (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Isotopes articles first sentence

Over at MOS talk:FIRSTSENTENCE, I have asked for advice on whether and how to bold & link words like "carbon" and "isotopes" in Isotopes of carbon. -DePiep (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Answered, that easy. I'll change the articles shortly. -DePiep (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Unbolded, e.g. sulfur. -DePiep (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Magic nuclear numbers

I started to add a table to Stable nuclides § "Magic numbers" and odd and even proton and neutron count like this:

Number of protons	Number of neutrons
	Even	Odd
Even	146	54
Odd	48	5

Unfortunately, when I counted up the nuclides from the chart at the end, I got 146 even-even, not the 152 listed in that section. Probably some bonehead error on my part. Does anyone else think such a chart would be helpful? If so, could someone else double-check my count? Thanks! YBG (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this question, but I did remove the ""-quotes from the word 'magic number' [1]. -DePiep (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Planned move: from (large cells) into (detailed cell)

I want to move Periodic table (large cells) --> Periodic table (detailed cells) (preliminary talk).

My reasoning: "large cells" does not count, not even as a DAB specifier. Point is, re Periodic table, that it can contain more info. -DePiep (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done - DePiep (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

IUPAC IUPAP JWP catchy name

Dank is preparing nihonium for TFA. This from my talkpage:

• Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 17, 2018

Hi DePiep, can you find an article for me that mentions that IUPAC subcommision and talks about its role in element naming? - Dank (push to talk) 22:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Dank If I understand your question: nihonium has links IUPAC and International Union of Pure and Applied Physics IUPAP. IUPAC/IUPAP Joint Working Party is a bit stubby indeed. Alse there are ref #23, ref #47. hth. -DePiep (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually it is not a subcommission, but a cooperation ("JWP") between two independent organisations IUPAC IUPAP (Chemistry & Physics) - DePiep (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Pinging User:Double sharp. I can understand the objection about the stubby article, although sometimes we do use links just to define terms. What's your preference? - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC) I mean, do you like the link, and do you like the current text, that says "subcommission"? That wording doesn't seem to be supported. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Dank: It is complicated, especially in this case because while IUPAC and IUPAP were working together, IUPAC went ahead and published the acceptance of the discoveries without wating for IUPAP. Perhaps it should instead say "In 2015, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) announced recognition of the element and assigned the naming rights to Riken"? Although that has the problem of not mentioning that IUPAP ought to play a role in these things, that may be a bit too much to explain in a blurb. Double sharp (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It's up to you guys, but I think I agree, that's too much for a blurb. - Dank (push to talk) 13:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘What would be a nice short description/link for the JWP? -DePiep (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Nihonium TFA

Yesterday, 2018-11-17, nihonium was TFA. Day page visits went from ~1,000 to 47,000. [2]. Nice and great. - DePiep (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Style errors

It seems that every single one of the articles about isotopes of elements violates the manual of style. Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead ... If the article's title is absent from the first sentence, do not apply the bold style to related text that does appear. And yet is all of them that I've looked at, the name of the element is in boldface with a blue link, and sometimes the word "isotope" is also put in boldface. I have fixed some of them; people should fix the rest. 51.6.138.66 (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. See earlier Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Advice_on_title_bolding, and MOS:BEATLESINUS. Will happen. - DePiep (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done - DePiep (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

About Sidebar periodic table

About Template:Sidebar periodic table(edit talk links history) Currently, it has as top section:

• 18-column (detailed cells)
• 32-column (detailed cells)
• Alternative forms
• Janet's left step
• Beyond period 7 (Aufbau Fricke Pyykkö)

I'd say: this is not systematically consistent.

It mixes graphical presentation (18-column, 32-column) with scientific statements. List by scientifical statements:

• Mendeleev 1869
• Mendeleeev 1871 (table was transponed after 1869; Reihe not periods)
• ?1900 (aka 'long' version, A/B groups not Reihe; added group 0/noble gases)
• current periodc table (118 elements)
• categorisation? (as we do at enwiki)
• Janet's left step
• ADOMAH (4D, by the 4 quamtum mechanical identifiers)
• Beyond period 7 (Aufbau, Fricke, Pyykkö)

Also possible, more detailed: group 3 issues, H position, ...

I'd prefer to move any graphical variants to way below (if present at all). Graphical variants:

• Mendeleev 1869
• Mendeleeev 1871 (table was transponed after 1869; Reihe not periods; BTW, the 10-column form)
• 'long form' (189x/190x?): Reihe into A/B groups
• adding lanthanides/actinides as sub-table (Seaborg etc).
• 18/32 column forms

Disclosure: wrt the periodic table, I am a long-time advocate to keep graphical forms apart from scientific claims. Especially on this page. -DePiep (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@DePiep: Granted that your two lists are distinct, they are, nevertheless, both lists of varieties of periodic tables, and as such, I would advocate for keeping them adjacent. Much as someone might like to educate the general reader as to the distinction between the two types of varieties, IMHO a template simply doesn't have sufficient bandwidth to adequately address what arguably would appear to the general reader as a subtle and esoteric distinction. The best one could hope for in a template would be to contrast the two and leave the reader to infer the distinction. This purpose would best be served by having the two lists adjacent to one another so that they may be compared and contrasted.

It would help me understand what you have in mind and form an opinion if you would provide a mock-up of what you have in mind. YBG (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Greetings! - I'm a new user interested in helping here

Greetings, Wikipedians of WP:ELEM! I'm new to Wikipedia and I decided that out of interest, I would like to contribute to this WikiProject. I already started making a handful of edits, and I would like to know what's going on/what the priorities are right now and how I can help. I've had some experience already with research writing but not on the scale of a project such as Wikipedia, so I would also greatly appreciate starting tips. ComplexRational (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: Here are some ideas of where you could help

• History of the periodic table - we'd like to improve it so it can be featured next March for the 150th anniversary of the PT.
• The various articles listed under Article Alerts at the top of this page
• Check out the various discussions in progress on this page and add your 2¢ to any that strike your fancy.
• Watchlist this page for new discussions and appeals for help

Welcome aboard. YBG (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, @YBG:. ComplexRational (talk) 02:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: By the way, I was not notified by your ping because when it was not correctly formatted it when you signed your comment. Later, when you corrected its format, you did not add a new signature. For pings to be sent, the correctly formatted ping and your signature must be added in the same edit. I mention this because it took me a long time to finally figure it out myself. And I still get messed up by confusing : and |. My best defence against this (and a lot of other mishaps) has been to use both "Show preview" and "Show changes" before "Publish changes". But I tend to forget. Especially when it would have been most helpful. Sigh. YBG (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

UtopianPoyzin stresses out (I hope not) our most recent member

Hey @ComplexRational:, just thought I'd drop by because I see that you, too, are a new user here. I've been active here for a little over a month, and figured I'd tack on to some of the points YBG made to see what I can do to help you get acquainted here. Here are a few things to note...

• For one, I figured I'd plug my project real quick. You say that you have been lurking around for a while, so in that case, I'll take it that you are aware of the different classes of articles here at Wikipedia. As a sort of initial project, I decided that I wanted to elevate an article to FA status. So, with the help of User:David notMD and Stone, we are in the process of getting Chromium up to the rank of Featured Article. I'd love it if you could help out there.

• We have a peer review at Chromium going on at the moment, so if you don't feel comfortable making substantial edits, it would be very appreciated to instead leave a review in the likes of what R8R is doing. Anything there would be helpful. I have been very busy, and I don't have time to thoroughly review R8R's review, but just completing a review for yourself it would be great.

AHEM. Sorry about that. Now I'll get into the parts that are very much recommended here at WP:Elements for all of the members here.

• YBG recommended that you put the Project Page on your watchlist, and I will as well. However, it might also be helpful to find the frequently edited articles here and add them to your watchlist too so you can also monitor the progress being made around here.
• Make sure you participate in any community discussion that require the input of a group of people. I'll mention the FAC going on over at History of aluminium. R8R would love it if you could review the article he has been working on over the last month, and he's getting pretty close to FAC. Same thing goes with the Chromium peer-review. Maybe a bit of bias, but it exists.
• Talk to the primary editors in WP:Elements to gain more insight on the works here. They might offer more ideas for areas of editing focus, or they can recommend users that are enlisting help with editing the article they are working on. The article for Gold is the most infamous article here for quality, and albeit ambitious, that is an article that will require boosting in quality at some point. You can try your hand at Phosphorus and Sulfur as well to raise them to GA quality.
• To add to the previous point, you can always just ask other editors about their project; they don't even have to be the most active out of everyone. Just see if they need help with a project. I can name Sandbh as someone who is working on the very broad article of Metal / Metals, so you may want to ask him if he needs assistance. If you want to do your own thing and work on your own article, that's fine too.
• Refresh yourself on the quality rankings. I'm not saying that you don't know them all ready, but you should have a good idea about the criteria an article must meet for A-Rank, as well as GAs and FAs.
• Give the WikiProject goals a read. Not much to be said there.
• Relax. This is a goal-based WikiProject, sure, but it is also a rather laid-back one as well. Everybody here has a goal that they have in mind from a single article, to maybe a few that they would be working on simultaneously. I hope I didn't scare you away with the massive list of things to do, but just know that we'll be there if you need any guidance around the WikiProject. Literally all you need to do is find something you want to work on, and then just work on it whenever you get the chance. All my list was doing was giving you some ideas of where you want to start working, and what needs the most help right now. I, too, am a student, and I have a lot of stuff going on as well. There isn't any rush to finish fixing an article's quality (unless otherwise stated), and because this WikiProject focuses on a closed set of articles, there shouldn't be a need to create new articles for now. Just fix the ones here. Get C-Classes to GA. If you want to do what I'm doing, take a GA and get it to FA. It doesn't have to be Chromium, but it can be. Try Beryllium or Nickel as suggestions if you want to raise a GA to FA. Up to you in the end. Hope I didn't scare you away... I'm new here as well, and I, too, am learning how to properly go about this Wikipedia ordeal... UtopianPoyzin (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your tips, @UtopianPoyzin:! I already am watching this page, and I may check out the other editors' projects soon. I still need a few days to familiarize myself with the GA and FA criteria before I can attempt a review of History of aluminium and/or Chromium. In the meantime, I started a userspace draft of unbibium to work on and maybe try to bring to GA - this should be a comfortable stepping stone before moving to the much greater challenges of Metal, Gold, etc. ComplexRational (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, nice! I actually really appreciate you doing that! Unbibium was also my beginning project too; when I started last month, it remained only as a redirect page. I started to make a draft article for Unbibium, and after getting a preliminary "no" to move the article to the mainspace, it was recommended that I start an RfC for whether the article should exist, and it ended up passing! It was at that point that I was able to edit the article directly rather than the draft, so I left the draft as it was and developed the main article. During the RfC as I waited for the results to trickle in, I ended up going to Chromium to work there instead, putting Unbibium off to the side as the next project I'd work on. What I will do for you is this; back in late September, I began working on Unbibium in public draft space, where it still exists as of now. Because I see that you borrowed areas of the article that I had up to use in your article, I will add everything that you implemented into your draft article, and copy it into the public draft article. Draft:Unbibium will then be yours to keep and edit. From there, you will be able to edit the official draft article rather than a prototype in your user sandbox. I'd recommend that you work on the Draft article rather than the User page article; I plan on dropping by to help you along your way. It is a suitable undertaking, and figured I'd join you to finish the job. I will not make any edits without your approval though. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@UtopianPoyzin: In the past few days, I continued work on the public draft; feel free to make suggestions at the draft's talk page - I'd be glad to collaborate on this project. I did have one other question, though: when I will start work on more articles, when is it more appropriate to make substantial changes over days or weeks in a) userspace, b) public draft space, or c) main article space? ComplexRational (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• @ComplexRational: Working in the userspace is all fine and good, however, your own userspace is usually where you would work on developing an idea that you would like to implement into an article without the input of any outside helpers. If you believe that you have a better idea on what an article's lead should entail, your personal userspace would be the place to go to get it written up. From there, as an extension to the example, you could go the talkpage for that article and post a link to your userpage with the lead idea, and have the community see if they want it. A userpage can also be used as a personal sandbox, which many are. However, userpages are just spaces to test out editing ideas, comparing a previously written paragraph/section with a self-written one, and a place to evaluate a text written by 1-2 (maybe 3) people.
• Having a public draft page is the place if you know that many people will want to collaborate to rewrite an article or add a significant expansion (like what you are doing). Because the work that you will be doing will more than likely go straight into the article itself, its best to have a public draft that is easily accessible to everyone than a draft isolated on a userpage, where only you and those aware of it will be able to see it. A userpage draft would be suitable if 2-3 people will be working on the draft, but if there is an expected volume of people working on creating a draft, the public draftspace is the best place to keep it. That way, changes can be made as a group, easily accessed, and edited without touching any of the base text on the main article. Even if there aren't that many people that end up working on it at the end, at least there is easy access just in case somebody wants to view it.
• Editing the article directly usually happens the most out of these options. Edit the article directly if a consensus for change was made (in a talkpage or direct message), or if it is a small change that will not affect the overall readability of the article (such as a typo, grammatical error, or stale reference). However, these rules fluctuate based on the quality of an article. A rule of thumb that I myself follow is never edit a Featured Article without asking to do so on the talk page. If it is a FA, it's there for a reason. I don't touch those, and it is best not to do it without permission from the community. Good Articles also follow a similar guideline. If a GA doesn't have all that much content in the article, its probably fine to add more references to go along with a new section you wrote straight into the article. However, it is still best to ask before substantially changing GAs. Once you get into the C-Class articles and Start-Class articles (that are not receiving daily edit attention), it is fine to ignore the rules for draft spaces. If they aren't receiving consistent fixing, then any edit that you believe is for the better most likely is. Still, vandalism is bad (however I doubt you would vandalize articles), and there is a level of common sense that goes into editing a base article off the bat. Creating a draft edit would not gather enough people to provide feedback in a reasonable amount of time. Good edits are most likely good edits for c-class and start-class. However, draft spaces are recommended for GA articles, and practically required for FA articles. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Figured I'd say a small bit more. If your are elevating a Featured Article to a WikiJournal, or if you are elevating a Good Article to an A-Class or a Featured Article, you can edit the article directly; that's fine. Also, if a GAC or a FAC are occurring, any edits suggested by the reviewers are almost always required to go into the main article before passing onto the next rank; the reviewer will decline your candidacy if you fail to do so. Same thing goes for a Peer Review; if edits are suggested by someone, they don't often need to go into a draft space before going into the main article; they just go straight into the article. Ref-fixing is a very common occurrence here at Wikipedia, and you can ref-fix any quality of article; as long as you are fixing it right. Finally, if an article has an semi-protected or extended-confirmed-protected, just because you have the ability to edit, doesn't mean you should. Those edits should go into a talkpage or a draft article before implemented into the article; it got protected for a reason, I wouldn't go making edits there just because you can.

@UtopianPoyzin: Thank you very much for clarifying these guidelines and procedures. What is your take so far on Draft:Unbibium? ComplexRational (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll talk there. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Isotopes of elements pages

When reading the isotopes of elements pages, there are a few recurring problems (in my opinion) that I feel need attention as they appear to have been neglected for some time:

1. Observationally stable isotopes: all isotopes with Z > 66 are supposed to be theoretically capable of alpha decay, but aside from a few exceptions such as isotopes of lead, isotopes of tungsten, isotopes capable of double beta decay, and ^180mTa (where theoretical half-lives are provided), I cannot find any sources suggesting this decay - even if it is energetically possible. Even the most recent NUBASE report and CN14 say they are completely stable. What gives? Furthermore, as stated in several pages including list of nuclides, spontaneous fission is claimed to be possible for all isotopes with A > 92. There even is a citation needed tag and I have not found any support to this claim. Is this WP:OR that went unnoticed for years?

   I could not tell you if this was original research, because I wasn't the one who wrote the article. To be fair, I would probably leave the information there with a citation-needed tag for a while until we find a source that disproves the claim made. We could never know if the claim about spontaneous fission possible for every A > 92 isotope is true or not; we have no source, and don't know if one exists. If we find evidence that spontaneous fission is NOT possible for even one instance where A > 92, then it is enough to delete. Until then, leave the citation-needed tag. That's just my take though. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

   Possible SF for surprisingly light nuclei seems to be one of those "folk" results that people have heard of but is not actually published. There arw probably some less formal (but still from serious scientists) places you can find this; I will look for them. Bear in mind that possible decay is not a very cool result to publish unless you can expect the half-life to be such that you will see it in your lifetime, or if we're dealing with Pb and it would necessitate a textbook update to say that the heaviest stable elwmwnt has moved down from bismuth to lead and then to thallium. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 10:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

   Here is an admittedly pretty lame source: "heavy nuclei are instable for spontaneous fission; according to calculations this should be valid for all nuclei with A [sic] > 46 (Pd !!!!); practically, a high energy barrier prevents the lighter elements from fission" (each point between semicolons is on a different line in the original). Double sharp (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

2. Outdated information: The links I provided, as well as simple article searches and this great repository, reveal that many isotopes have been discovered with decay properties determined, and they are not listed at all (e.g. ^216-218Pb, [3]) or have partially theoretical values (e.g. ²³³Cm, [4] (abstract only)) when more accurate data is available. I already updated a few pages but it is simply too great and undertaking for one user. I can create a user subpage with various sources I found if that will help.

   If you have new information that can replace the old, then that's great! I don't know an easier way to add it in other than manually, but I recommend that you don't try to do it all at once, and just keep the information somewhere so you can update a few at a time. Don't stress yourself about fixing EVERYTHING. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

3. Possibly misleading information: After doing some research, I found that some isotopes listed in various tables are actually unknown, yet they are presented as if they were known. For example, ^220,241U are unknown but the range of known uranium isotopes is ^215-242U, yet those two isotopes are listed in the table. Even though they are marked as partially derived from trends, they are still shown. Even some isotopes that are not in gaps (e.g. ²⁵⁴Bk) are listed without a clear indication of discovery. No matter how reliable the prediction, I believe that these inclusions in the tables are misleading (by this logic, I could create isotope pages filled with sourced speculations up to element 130).

   I would say keep this actually. ^220,241U are included because they fall with the range of known isotopes, and just so happen to be unknown. Removing them would create an uneven scale, which could provide even more misleading information than marking the unknown isotopes as derived from trends. From there, you could make note of those instances by stating those isotopes are currently unknown, but I don't believe that is completely necessary. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

   I think it is not that misleading to miss out entries if they really are unknown. After all, anyone using our data for anything should be able to pass the low bar of reading the other columns. ^_^ Otherwise, as ComplexRational said, we could create isotopes of untrinilium already. Double sharp (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

4. Lead sections: These appear to be formatted differently across many articles and sometimes include very different descriptions of their topic. Should we perhaps try to impose a uniform standard for isotope lists as we have for regular element articles?

   The lead can differ between isotopes because of the importance of the isotope that you are covering. R8R was telling me how difficult it is to implement a uniform lead/article design for chemical elements, and doing the same but for isotopes (in which there is a far greater number of articles to fix) would be tedious and difficult to undertake. I would not recommend doing this. The importance of the isotope, as well as the available research and significant coverage of the isotope varies between, so I'd say leave most of them, but change any that are vastly different from the rest and don't provide substantial, necessary information. Once again, I'm not asking for you to change EVERYTHING, but you probably have a good idea about what a generally good lead is, and what a actually bad lead is. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

   We do not really have a standard format for element ledes either. I think it is plain that we shouldn't use the same lede format for isotopes of hydrogen, isotopes of argon, isotopes of uranium, and isotopes of copernicium. Double sharp (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

To fix all this myself would not only be a massive and tedious undertaking, but I do not want to make substantial (and possibly controversial) changes to 100+ pages without discussion. What does the community here think should be done? ComplexRational (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

And maybe make complete wrt medicals: V09 {{Radiopharmaceuticals}}, V10 {{Therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals}}. -DePiep (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll need some time to check isotopes of every element and make sure they're sourced. ComplexRational (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Problem is in some 50% of these do not have a regular drug article/description to link to. -DePiep (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@UtopianPoyzin, Double sharp, and YBG: Any ideas? ComplexRational (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• About ordering the isotopes in Isobox: heavier elements have them sorted by half-live time (Rg), lighter ones by mass number (Pb). I'd expect the same. (In element articles infobox element has them ordered by mass number). Also, we could add sorting option to both isotope tables (only works in desktop view). - DePiep (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I would instead expect consistently ordering by mass number for the isotope lists, as those are lists and we should use the ordering requiring the least thought or outside knowledge. If readers already know what proton number their desired nuclide has, they are probably searching for an isotope by its mass number, not by its half-life; and if they are not, they would probably not be looking at an "isotopes of X" list. (More likely they would find list of nuclides.) When we pick some out for the element infoboxes, the context is different, and then we can decide to do things differently. Double sharp (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  Order by mass number, is what I tried to suggest & support too. -DePiep (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  OK, I see; I misunderstood your "I'd expect the same" as meaning that you expected the "isotopes of X" articles to follow the changing formats of the isoboxes, not that the isoboxes should be consistent with each other. Double sharp (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  (Yes. I had rephrased my sentence, unclear it was. - DePiep (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC))

   Done: isoboxes now orderd by mass number. -DePiep (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Analogies between groups 2 and 12, and group 3

@Double sharp: I was re-reading Jensen’s article on the treatment of group 12, ref: [5]. Spectroscopically and chemically he observed that Be and Mg are more like Zn, as Mendeleev showed them, but they eventually ended up in group 2 on the grounds of their electron configs being similar to Ca etc. Is that how you understand it?

I presume this is the same reason (i.e. similarities in electron configurations) why La and Ac have so far remained below Y in group 3? [Sandbh]

I believe electron configuration is a valid reason, though periodic trends such as atomic radius and electronegativity in the alkaline earth group may also be important to consider when grouping elements. ComplexRational (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

ComplexRational's answer is closer to how I see it; there are many factors all playing a role here, but electron configurations are preeminent among them. Be and Mg are closer to Zn, but that is because they are small. We expect an increase in size if nothing intervenes, so Be-Mg-Ca is preferable. To show that nothing intervenes, you then have to show that the d-block hasn't started yet (as otherwise the d-block contraction is a good enough reason to put Al above Ga instead of Sc). The "pre-d" behaviour of Ca, Sr, and Ba is then something like the "pre-f" behaviour of La and Ac. So you then have to look at how active the 4f shell is in La vs Lu compounds (i.e., if you neglect the 4f contributions in the calculations of analogous La and Lu compounds, which one ends up looking closer to reality?). I recall we went through a lot of this with Droog Andrey early this year, though that discussion is paused and not quite finished. Double sharp (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Infobox element: oxidation states data set

I have centralised all oxidation state (OS) data used in the {{Infobox element}}s. Apart from some textual cleanups and ref name refinement, no changes were made (i.e., infobox shows the same OS information as before). Data set is in {{Infobox element/symbol-to-oxidation-state}}; see also there for a nivcce overview (all elements listed). -DePiep (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• This is the oxidation states data list: . This is where you can edit the content (individual element text; replacing old parameter input |oxidation state=).

Repeated references (eg Haire) best be exact copies in that page. However, a ref error message wrt this, usually only appears on that data page, not in article. -DePiep (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Check List of oxidation states

We can now easily check the infobox data with List of oxidation states of the elements. I have created page /tablecheck to compare the two lists. Please discuss here. -DePiep (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• 0 values: the List clearly mentions zero valence when it appears in a compound. Sounds like a good rule to me. Must we add those to the infobox? -DePiep (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The /tablecheck has many sources. Could be helpful. Expect the heavies (E100+) to be outdated (empty). -DePiep (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Format proposals

The overview in Template:Infobox element/symbol-to-oxidation-state shows that currently various formats are in use. The issues are:

1. Add or remove the "+" for positive values (consistently everywhere)
2. Order from low to high or from high to low? (negatives to the left or to the right?)

Here is a 2015 discussion about this: Archive_20#oxidation_states:_"+1"_notation.

• I propose to: 1. add a "+" for all positive values (more explicit), and 2. order by lowest first (natural order). -DePiep (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  I agree with DePiep; that will clear ambiguity. ComplexRational (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  I also will agree with this. Adding the "+" to the positive oxidation states is something that I've wanted to do for a while (to further contrast the "-1" charges from the "+1" charges instead of leaving it as "1"), but decided to leave it as it is in the past. The high-to-low/low-to-high fluctuation argument is something that I was never really bothered by, but if I really had to choose what should be standard, I'd pick low-to-high for logicality of order. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  Order direction: less important; same order everywhere: hugely important. I have prepared these proposed standards in the sandbox, line-by-line comparable with current (random) formatting. See /testcases. -DePiep (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  I agree with adding the + sign, and with consistent ordering; ambivalent about the direction, but agree that it should be the same throughout. I am wondering if there might be some benefit to using color or some other technique to highlight the most common states - or to de-emphasize the unusual states. My concern is that the consistent order might appear to emphasize a less common state by placing it first. But even if that were not the case, being able to emphasize more common states and/or de-emphasize less common states would be helpful. YBG (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  The main states are bolded right now, but that is not enough I understand? The data row is already crowded, especially when there are many states, refs and/or 'predicted'-note values (heavies). Adding more graphical effects could hinder not help. I have this thought (to be developed later): we can add to the top infobox section the simple data row "Main oxidation states: +2, +3, +6" (for Fe). The full, detailed & sourced list stays where it is. As you can see, these are already in the testcases ;-). Also available: the Mendelevian value (Roman group numbers, but not A/B). - DePiep (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  It might be nice to also change the font color or background color. But its not a super big deal, bold is great, just that sometimes it doesn't stand out as much as I would like. But I wouldn't want to make it more busy than it already is, so if a solution doesn't jump out right away, feel free to ignore this comment. YBG (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  Is it possible to create two infobox parameters - main oxidation states and other/less common oxidation states? If so, it may prevent the assumption of an obscure oxidation state as the main one when reading a left-to-right list, and the use of the word main may provide additional emphasis rather than a simple bolding in a list that could indeed crowd a row in infoboxes. ComplexRational (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  That may have some promise. It would cost an extra line in the infobox, but it might make the long lists appear less busy. It would require adding to the data template. We should, however, consider the edge cases: what would we want to display if there were only two oxidation states, a main one and an obscure one. In such a case, would we want to expend two lines, or would another technique work - like bolding the main one and parenthesizing the obscure one. Overall, having two one solution for elements with just a few states and a different solution for elements with lots of states might be a good thing. YBG (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  (ec) re ComplexRational These two 'parameters' already exist . In the /testcases you see an extra column "main", eg Fe has "+2, +3, +6". And the values are read from two lists ("main" and "complete"), no need to enter them! (technical follow later) When this new list is a stable & cleaned up in a few days, I will show new options here (eg extra data row "main: ..." indeed). Meanwhile, one can improve the data present; the data needs a thorough check and impovement (being put out in the open recently). This content quality for OSs I pointed out above in #Check List of oxidation states.

  So, by calendar: First I will clean up & order the current data (on my own, a few days). After that, we will discuss improvements suggested here. Also, I will ask for quality controls & improvement (more links like for C OS=0!). If you want to engage: start to discover & look & check the /testcases. -DePiep (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

•  Done [6] these two. See overview: use "+" in value "+2", and order low-to-high. Other changes (wrt prediction formatting, main indicators) are under discussion and not prejudiced. -DePiep (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Formatting question - predictions

• YBG, ComplexRational: OK, so here is a formatting question at hand: How to format a predicted oxstat? Today, these situations and forms appear (<ref>'s omitted):

B : 3, 2, 1, −1, −5 (a mildly acidic oxide)

Rf: 4, (3), (2) (parenthesized: prediction)

Og: −1, 0, +1, +2, +4, (predicted)

That is: B has no predictions, Rf has some not all, and Og has predictions only. Some prediction are "main" oxstats. Technically, the way it is written is OK (the info is there). My question is: I would like a more simple and clear way, reusable. Especially the diff between Rf and Og is too big. I can think of:

1. Use brackets per predicted oxstat always: (−1), (0), ... and/or
2. Use sharp commenting: always add " ( ) values are predictions"

I would be very pleased with some consistent, reusable and reader-easy clarifying form (reader does not need to think or research or look for legend). That's all I ask. -DePiep (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Side note: @DePiep and ComplexRational: Because this edit included {{U}} without a signature, the pings were not sent. As I understand it, for a ping to be sent, the user reference and the signature must be added in the same edit. Took me a long time to get that figured out. YBG (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Yes. OK. DePiep.

(ec) Thought of this, re refs & the examples:

3. When predicted, the refs should be at the end (they cover all) not after the last "+5" value. OTOH, when a ref pertains to an explicit value, it should be "+3<ref> 4, ..." of course. But an oxide type comment ("basic") goes after generic refs. -DePiep (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

4. Can be built in the infobox: when a ( ) prediction is present, the lefthand text can say like: "ox stats, ( ) = predicted". -DePiep (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd try something like this in the infobox (oxidation states parameter) with all the predicted oxidation states in a parenthesized set (I think this is slightly cleaner than having (a), (b), (c), ... or the legend at the end):

main: +3 (predicted: +4)
others: +2 (predicted: +6)

If there are no predicted oxidation states, there simply will be nothing in parentheses, and should there only be one in a category (e.g. for the alkali metals), it is still clear which is dominant without looking for boldface or notes. In cases like F where there only is one oxidation state, we can do away with the main and others labels. I hope this format can clearly distinguishes everything; if not, feel free to suggest alterations. ComplexRational (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks very nice. May I suggest: 1. only italicise the word predicted (or prediction) + its brackets, nothing else. Is what we do elsewhere in the infobox (Nh), and prevents suggesting that these values mean something different from upright (roman font) values - they are not. 2. Also, we can add the oxide type to the main set. And 3. maintain bolding if it still is a crowded view (then do so with all elements); 4. rm brackets oxide type?

main: +3 (predicted: +4) (a mildly acidic oxide)
others: +1, +2 (predicted: +6)

-DePiep (talk) 10:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Time to call in Double sharp, who works extensively with these predictions. -DePiep (talk) 10:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer to have the oxidation states going in numerical order all the time from lowest to highest. The main ones would be bolded, and the predicted ones would be parenthesised even if everything is predicted. So the three examples you give would look like:

• B: −5, −1, +1, +2, +3
• Rf: (+2), (+3), +4
• Og: (−1), (0), (+1), (+2), (+4)

To be very clear, I'd also like a note to appear saying that everything in parentheses is only predicted. Double sharp (talk) 10:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Earlier proposals now done. You are all invited to edit individual entries ("parameter" values), see link in section top. When this talk about main & predictins has fleshed out, I will take care (in the sandbox). -DePiep (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)

• Note on the bolding the main values looks good in regular text, see e.g. the examples in this subthread. However, in an infobox the font is reduced by 85% 88%. That severly reduces the visibility of the marking (as YBG pointed to before). Maybe we can stress them typographically more (enlarge? double bold?), OTOH I am not happy with adding graphics (like colors) for this, because that's too much circus, and we're supposed to explain any such graphic effect. -DePiep (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Iron, ₂₆Fe

Atomic properties (current Fe)
Oxidation states	−4, −2, −1, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5, +6, +7 (an amphoteric oxide)
Electronegativity	Pauling scale: 1.83
Atomic properties (b)
Oxidation states	−4, −2, −1, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5, +6, +7 (an amphoteric oxide)
Electronegativity	Pauling scale: 1.83
Atomic properties (c)
Oxidation states	−4, −2, −1, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5, +6, +7 (an amphoteric oxide)
Electronegativity	Pauling scale: 1.83
Atomic properties (d)
Oxidation states	+2, +3, +6
(less commonly)	−4, −2, −1, +1, +4, +5, +7 (an amphoteric oxide)
Electronegativity	Pauling scale: 1.83
Atomic properties (current Sg)
Oxidation states	0, (+3), (+4), (+5), +6 (parenthesized: prediction)
Ionization energy	1st: 757 kJ/mol
Atomic properties (d2) Sg
Oxidation states	(+4), +6
less common	0
predicted ( )	(+3), (+4), (+5)
Ionization energy	1st: 757 kJ/mol
List, all elements

Here a mockup infobo x with three options (if we kee pthe bold-in-order arrangemetn): current, 100% (b) and 112% (c) font size. (Don't forget to check the effect on mobile). -DePiep (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd say the second (100%) as it provides enough emphasis without making the others too difficult to read, though for some reason, even 100% seems larger on mobile relative to the normal text than on a computer screen. ComplexRational (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I second on the second. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 04:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

On mobile, but using the desktop view, the slight enlargement on (b) is hardly noticeable, but the bigger one on (c) seems too noticeable. I favour just (a) as we basically have now (just using bolding), with (b) as a second choice. Double sharp (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

With me, on desktop the 100% version is significantly better (it actuually does stress those). Cold it be that you are too familiar, iow you doen't need the stressing that much? I'm with YBG, who stated that (on desktop) they do not jump out too much.

Mobile browsers do different things with font size (like, ignore settings), but on my mobile (iPhone) is see: well stressed in live version @88%, same @ 100%, so no harm there when going to 100%.

I find 100% best for both screens. -DePiep (talk) 07:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I've added an option (d) that uses separate lines to distinguish common and less common states. With 7 less common states, two of which have individual refs, it seems just barely passable. I would envision common, less common, and predicted states to each be on separate lines. If all were predicted, they would be on the first line, followed by a comment saying "(all predicted)" or the like. Thoughts? YBG (talk) 07:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I still prefer having the common ones together with the not-so-common ones. In an article, I would normally not split discussion of compounds by common and less common oxidation states, but by classes (e.g. oxides, halides, hydrides, organometallics, etc.). Indeed, the oxidation state in question would have to be very singular and exotic, and go against almost all the rest of the chemistry of the element (which would mean something as exotic as Hg^IV, if we were sure that existed; the alkalides might come close), for it to be a good idea to do that. Even in the places where I would normally split by oxidation states (coordination compounds), I would do it in numerical order instead just like Greenwood & Earnshaw, as the magnitude of the oxidation state has greater predictive value on the chemistry than its commonness. For instance, Fe^VI is common like Fe^II and Fe^III, but it acts more like Fe^IV and Fe^V (see high-valent iron). Double sharp (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Good idea to add (d), indeed we have multiple choices to make. I have added Sg as it tests example (d) more extremely; Hs is even more extreme. re YBG, I would keep the ( )-notation, and keep "predicted" in the LH label consistently. This is structured not free text data. To be solved with option d: where to write the oxide type? (today does not occur i.c.w. preditions). And where a ref that covers all values?

re Double sharp: OK if the article describes them by orther ordering like halides, but the infobox is a summary without that detail and so that detail does not need to be shown at all, not even indirectly as a secret ordering principle. Minor advantage of the multi-row notation is that the label (lefthand text) is cclarifying. (Although infobox size should be kept minimal, as this all is in the lede, I'd accept more oxidation state rows and remove lesser stuff like vapor pressure at any time). I would go with single-line order, as it is higly and simply structured and so very clear to the reader even at first sight. More so if we use bold&big font (100%). -DePiep (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done in live infoboxes: all predicted values have brackets (see meitnerium) [7].

ref dump

(demo references are here)

References

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Single-use templates

There is a discussion over at WT:Template namespace § Single use template that may be of interest to editors in this project. YBG (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

"On the discovery of new elements (IUPAC/IUPAP Provisional Report)"

Interesting new provisional report from the 2017 Joint Working Group of IUPAC and IUPAP! Double sharp (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

2012, 2014, 2016 and so ... 2018

Here it is again.

-DePiep (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll be sure to expect it for 2020. ^_^ Perhaps we could add a note on the template pages linking to all the previous discussions to alert people who are confused by our setup? I know the talk pages already link to the previous TfD's, but perhaps having a noincluded warning on the template might help further. Double sharp (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)