Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Noticeboard
(edit · watch · refresh · history · Old notices · RC for main articles · Article alerts)

  • Should we replace the IUPAC systematic names (e.g. ununtrium) with descriptive names like element 113?

Comment at WT:ELEM.

WikiProject Elements (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.
 
Table of contents Article alerts

Today's featured articles
Featured article candidates
Requested moves

Featured article FA  A-Class article A   GA  Bplus-Class article Bplus  B-Class article B  C-Class article C  Start-Class article Start  Stub-Class article Stub  Featured list FL   List  Wikipedia Book Book  Category page Category  Disambiguation page Disambig   Draft   File   Portal   Project  Redirect page Redirect   Template   NA   ???  Total
23 8 70 5 32 92 83 31 1 179 132 262 5 0 118 1 17 3,373 232 0 3 4,667


oxidation states: "+1" notation[edit]

In the astatine infobox, the oxidation states are noted this way: "−1, +1, +3, +5, +7": the "+" plus-sign is added. Shall we make that standard for all infoboxes? (I like it for stressing the essence, but is it best practice?) -DePiep (talk) 07:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I like it too for clarity. What's the downside? All I can see it that it consumes more space. Is it significant that −1, +1 are bold but the others are not? YBG (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Only downside I can think of is it being non-standard or confusing. Is why I ask this. There is a reason for the bolding, but being Good Encyclopedic means we should describe/note/clarify that. Maybe legend or footnote or labeltext. Suggestions? -DePiep (talk) 07:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
It's pretty standard to write cationic charges with the sign in many contexts (of direct relevance for the infobox field, that's how oxidation state does it). The bold ones are the most common values. I agree that if we retain that sort of detail, we should somehow have a note about it (maybe an on-hover popup would be less intrusive than an actual footnote or other symbol/word that takes up space). DMacks (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I think its standard too. Just checked, Zumdahl and Greenwood/Earnshaw does it too. (When G&E counts d electrons they doesnt add the + e.g. oxidation state: 4 (d1), but otherwise they do.) Christian75 (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that fits my generic understanding in numbers: no when it's a counting total, yes (allowed) when a value. -DePiep (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The bold size is for the "main" oxidation state. I prefer this too and for all the infoboxes. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Quick conclusion: 1. yes we can add the + in "oxidation states +1" &tc., (so, all elements then); 2. bolding stays (none asked otherwise), but still unclear if & how to clarify that. -DePiep (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
About bold/normal (main oxidation states)
"The main oxidation state: it is simple: we can use it from the literature, like Greenwood/Earnshaw, Holleman/Wiberg etc. ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
This is not about sourcing the bolding, it is about explaining the bolding. As it is now, the Reader is left with the question: "Why is this number bolded?". -DePiep (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
How about "−1, +1, +3, +5, +7"? {{H:title}} is documented as not being WP:ACCESSIBLE, but it's a start...better than no explanation for anyone (I don't see an alternative that is similar to this result). Alternative would be a <ref> in the label that says "bold ones are most common". List of oxidation states of the elements uses the same convention for formatting the most common one(s) for each element. DMacks (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
We can add the bold ones are the most common ones in a small font size next to the very name of that row of the infobox, smth. like "oxidation states <br> (the most common ones are in bold)".--R8R (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Re R8R, along that line yes. Then (because infobox font already is reduced), bold/normal like: Oxidation states (most common ones are in bold). Q: Is "most common" the crispiest we can be? It's a bit open ended imo. -DePiep (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC):
"Most stable" is more like it, closer to what we want to emphasize. I don't think I could do better than that.--R8R (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Why not use {{abbr}}, as it is docuented as being accessible? I know that't not what abbr is intended for, but it's worth considering. YBG (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
{{abbr}} uses <abbr>, a w3c defined HTML option (that is: high level of definition). Its /doc says: only use this for abbreviations and acronyms, not to add a title (mousehover) text. So we must confirm. DePiep (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I dont think they necessary have to be the most stable to be in bold, and if it changed to most stable a lot of oxidation states needs new references. Christian75 (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
If you mean to say that the data (content & meaning) should change, please expand on that. -DePiep (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
A side note: Why do we reverse the numbers, e.g. 3, 2, 1, -2 ... (I just checked hydrogen, cobalt and iron - all reversed), and theese elements doesnt have oxidation state 0 in the inforbox. Christian75 (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I think we can agree & decide here that the numbers should be ascending (I propose). I don't understand what you mean to say with the zero. -DePiep (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Made the three elements mentioned ascending. Not for me being that bold, but for it being obvious imo. -DePiep (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────One more approach. Can we split the small list, bolds first:

Am: mainly +3, also +7, +6, +5, +4, +2 ​(an amphoteric oxide)
C: mainly +4, −4, also +3,[1] +2, +1,[2] 0, −1, −2, −3 (a mildly acidic oxide)
or
C: mainly −4, +4, also −3, −2, −1, 0, +1,[1] +2, +3[2] (a mildly acidic oxide)
At: mainly −1, +1, also +3, +5, +7
At: most common: −1, +1, also +3, +5, +7 [use existing parlance]
At: −1, +1 (less common: +3, +5, +7) [another option]

-DePiep (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC) -DePiep (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I like it, since it doesn't necessarily rely on bonding to show which are the mainly encountered states. Can we show C as ascending? Sandbh (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
We can reorder for C, it's free. Below, earlier, we noted that we'd better mention the bolds first in a single list (so that would decide the ascend/descend order in most cases). But done this way, that rule does not work any more. We're back to the question: do we asc or desc in all infoboxes? I'd like to have a guideline however faint, to get similar presentation in boxes. -DePiep (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC) added that variant.
I like the proposal. We could do it.
Regarding the order to list the states in, it doesn't really matter. Both the ascending (which makes sense in its own way) and alternating for metals and nonmetals (which makes sense in its own way) are fine. It is a matter of taste, really, especially if we show the main states before the other ones, as proposed. Especially in that case, I would use the ascending ordering for all elements, but I would not really oppose if others disagree. --R8R (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I added some alternative wordings to the short demo list. Ideas? -DePiep (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
About ordering
I'm not sure about the ordering. A lot of infoboxes are descending, which indicates a habit (in science). I'd like to hear from Sandbh, R8R Gtrs, Double sharp about this ascend-or-descend At ordering:
"−1, +1, +3, +5, +7"
"+7, +5, +3, +1, −1"
-DePiep (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there's a real difference between the two. It could be done either way. None will get hurt.
Or we may say both versions may be defended with arguments of kinda the same level: Numbers should decrease, because they show an increase of electrons we have (IOW, more electrons = lower oxidation state, since electrons are negatively charged) and that looks cool, or we can show them increase because, you know, they increase and that looks cool. (In both cases, "that looks cool" is a simplification, but is actually the very essence of what it stands for.) But I can't really figure out reasons any more sophisticated than these, and since both mean little, and it's a question of personal preference. If others know better reasons for either version, I'd be pleased to listen.
Since they're both basically the same, I'd go with the ascending order if we decide we should standardize this. (I raise my doubts on if the effort will be worth it, though. However, standardization is a thing... I just don't want to do it myself, because it seems mostly pointless to me to spend time on this, but I am fine with any decision as long as I am not in.) Just a personal preference, no actual scientific reason, since I can't think of a very good one (or maybe I'm underestimating those we have, who knows). Or you can say the ascending order is more intuitively correct, which I will go with.--R8R (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Another alternative would be to choose between ascending and descending based on which one puts a given element's most common states earlier in the list. YBG (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Something along the same lines, since I expect to see the most important information listed first: Hydrogen, metals and metalloids = positive to negative. Nonmetals = negative to positive. Thus:
Mn: 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, −1, −2, −3
Si: 4, 3, 2, 1, −1, −2, −3, −4
Cl: −1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Sandbh (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Makes most sense. When situation is doubtful (eg, symmetry in boldings), existing edit order should stay. -DePiep (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding oxidation state 0[edit]

Split off topic
I think the oxidations states for all the elements are based on Greenwood and Earnshaw including the bolding (page 28, 2nd edt.)? And Carbon is not correct in an organic perspective - I think all the oxidations states from -4 to +4 are common in organic chemistry? And all the infoboxes should have added 0 as an oxidation state too (C has oxidation states 0, but a link to formaldehyde - the free element are more common than formaldehyde). Christian75 (talk) 09:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
This subtopic is not about correctness or sourcing of the ox states. It is about how we present them: use bold, order (ascending/descending?), describe the meaning of bold. If there are improvements to make in specific elements (like C), pls take it to its talkpage or open a separate thread here. -DePiep (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Off course its relavant before changing all the ordering. We do not source the bolding, and we are missing oxidation state +0 in nearly all a lot of infoboxes. Christian75 (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I think we should not use the OS zero if an element is found in this OS only in its free form. Because zeros in free state are obvious; but it is not just a matter of taste, I, at least initially, would think there may be a known, say, Na(0) compound. If we must add zeros, I suggest we change the line name to "Oxidation states (as found in compounds)" or smth. like that, just not to do it anyway. It would confuse me and surely some other people. Let's not do it.--R8R (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe its obvious, but so is the oxidation state equal main group number :-). But if its confusing to list OS 0, maybe it should be added to some kind of description to the entry. (and btw: the +0 are a matter of style - just checked Google and some other people do it too. I think its like writing +1, +2,... which could be written 1,2,... (as math people normally do)... Christian75 (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Christian75 Are you seriously going off-topic again, reversed direction this time, right after I have organised your flea jumpings? You really want to show off that you have not read this thread? Bye. -DePiep (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
DePiep No, Im talking about the plus in +0, not about the ordering. Please reread my post again. Christian75 (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
q.e.d. -DePiep (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it off topic, not when I removed the "+" before the zero at {{Infobox astatine}}. I've seen sources doing it without the + for the zero (although in that particular case they also removed the + for all the positive oxidation states). But to me it is a bit odd, because it makes me wonder if −0 would mean something different from +0. It's not really natural and obvious to me to put a sign in front of zero, because zero is neither positive nor negative.
About oxidation state = main group number: even that is not always obvious. Po(VI) and At(VII) spring to mind as cases when the group oxidation state is known only in a few compounds, and most known compounds are in some lower oxidation state. Rn(VIII) is not even known. (Granted, these are rare radioactives, but even a small exception forces readers to take note and not assume it's always the same – to me, a possibly dangerously effective source of misreadings.) Double sharp (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
(Interesting). -DePiep (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Conclusions[edit]

To be gathered. Topic is worth to be kept open. -DePiep (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

At last[edit]

A long time desired improvement I have added: the ubiquitous category background color we use now has its legend connection in the {{infobox element}}.

Sodium in the periodic table
Element category   alkali metal

-DePiep (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to show the point: it's about the section-header background color, now having the key (legend) accessible/in-sight. -DePiep (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

More marking options for micro PT[edit]

Resolved
Hydrogen (diatomic nonmetal)
Helium (noble gas)
Lithium (alkali metal)
Beryllium (alkaline earth metal)
Boron (metalloid)
Carbon (polyatomic nonmetal)
Nitrogen (diatomic nonmetal)
Oxygen (diatomic nonmetal)
Fluorine (diatomic nonmetal)
Neon (noble gas)
Sodium (alkali metal)
Magnesium (alkaline earth metal)
Aluminium (post-transition metal)
Silicon (metalloid)
Phosphorus (polyatomic nonmetal)
Sulfur (polyatomic nonmetal)
Chlorine (diatomic nonmetal)
Argon (noble gas)
Potassium (alkali metal)
Calcium (alkaline earth metal)
Scandium (transition metal)
Titanium (transition metal)
Vanadium (transition metal)
Chromium (transition metal)
Manganese (transition metal)
Iron (transition metal)
Cobalt (transition metal)
Nickel (transition metal)
Copper (transition metal)
Zinc (transition metal)
Gallium (post-transition metal)
Germanium (metalloid)
Arsenic (metalloid)
Selenium (polyatomic nonmetal)
Bromine (diatomic nonmetal)
Krypton (noble gas)
Rubidium (alkali metal)
Strontium (alkaline earth metal)
Yttrium (transition metal)
Zirconium (transition metal)
Niobium (transition metal)
Molybdenum (transition metal)
Technetium (transition metal)
Ruthenium (transition metal)
Rhodium (transition metal)
Palladium (transition metal)
Silver (transition metal)
Cadmium (transition metal)
Indium (post-transition metal)
Tin (post-transition metal)
Antimony (metalloid)
Tellurium (metalloid)
Iodine (diatomic nonmetal)
Xenon (noble gas)
Caesium (alkali metal)
Barium (alkaline earth metal)
Lanthanum (lanthanide)
Cerium (lanthanide)
Praseodymium (lanthanide)
Neodymium (lanthanide)
Promethium (lanthanide)
Samarium (lanthanide)
Europium (lanthanide)
Gadolinium (lanthanide)
Terbium (lanthanide)
Dysprosium (lanthanide)
Holmium (lanthanide)
Erbium (lanthanide)
Thulium (lanthanide)
Ytterbium (lanthanide)
Lutetium (lanthanide)
Hafnium (transition metal)
Tantalum (transition metal)
Tungsten (transition metal)
Rhenium (transition metal)
Osmium (transition metal)
Iridium (transition metal)
Platinum (transition metal)
Gold (transition metal)
Mercury (transition metal)
Thallium (post-transition metal)
Lead (post-transition metal)
Bismuth (post-transition metal)
Polonium (post-transition metal)
Astatine (metalloid)
Radon (noble gas)
Francium (alkali metal)
Radium (alkaline earth metal)
Actinium (actinide)
Thorium (actinide)
Protactinium (actinide)
Uranium (actinide)
Neptunium (actinide)
Plutonium (actinide)
Americium (actinide)
Curium (actinide)
Berkelium (actinide)
Californium (actinide)
Einsteinium (actinide)
Fermium (actinide)
Mendelevium (actinide)
Nobelium (actinide)
Lawrencium (actinide)
Rutherfordium (transition metal)
Dubnium (transition metal)
Seaborgium (transition metal)
Bohrium (transition metal)
Hassium (transition metal)
Meitnerium (unknown chemical properties)
Darmstadtium (unknown chemical properties)
Roentgenium (unknown chemical properties)
Copernicium (transition metal)
Ununtrium (unknown chemical properties)
Flerovium (post-transition metal)
Ununpentium (unknown chemical properties)
Livermorium (unknown chemical properties)
Ununseptium (unknown chemical properties)
Ununoctium (unknown chemical properties)
mark=metalloid
Hydrogen (diatomic nonmetal)
Helium (noble gas)
Lithium (alkali metal)
Beryllium (alkaline earth metal)
Boron (metalloid)
Carbon (polyatomic nonmetal)
Nitrogen (diatomic nonmetal)
Oxygen (diatomic nonmetal)
Fluorine (diatomic nonmetal)
Neon (noble gas)
Sodium (alkali metal)
Magnesium (alkaline earth metal)
Aluminium (post-transition metal)
Silicon (metalloid)
Phosphorus (polyatomic nonmetal)
Sulfur (polyatomic nonmetal)
Chlorine (diatomic nonmetal)
Argon (noble gas)
Potassium (alkali metal)
Calcium (alkaline earth metal)
Scandium (transition metal)
Titanium (transition metal)
Vanadium (transition metal)
Chromium (transition metal)
Manganese (transition metal)
Iron (transition metal)
Cobalt (transition metal)
Nickel (transition metal)
Copper (transition metal)
Zinc (transition metal)
Gallium (post-transition metal)
Germanium (metalloid)
Arsenic (metalloid)
Selenium (polyatomic nonmetal)
Bromine (diatomic nonmetal)
Krypton (noble gas)
Rubidium (alkali metal)
Strontium (alkaline earth metal)
Yttrium (transition metal)
Zirconium (transition metal)
Niobium (transition metal)
Molybdenum (transition metal)
Technetium (transition metal)
Ruthenium (transition metal)
Rhodium (transition metal)
Palladium (transition metal)
Silver (transition metal)
Cadmium (transition metal)
Indium (post-transition metal)
Tin (post-transition metal)
Antimony (metalloid)
Tellurium (metalloid)
Iodine (diatomic nonmetal)
Xenon (noble gas)
Caesium (alkali metal)
Barium (alkaline earth metal)
Lanthanum (lanthanide)
Cerium (lanthanide)
Praseodymium (lanthanide)
Neodymium (lanthanide)
Promethium (lanthanide)
Samarium (lanthanide)
Europium (lanthanide)
Gadolinium (lanthanide)
Terbium (lanthanide)
Dysprosium (lanthanide)
Holmium (lanthanide)
Erbium (lanthanide)
Thulium (lanthanide)
Ytterbium (lanthanide)
Lutetium (lanthanide)
Hafnium (transition metal)
Tantalum (transition metal)
Tungsten (transition metal)
Rhenium (transition metal)
Osmium (transition metal)
Iridium (transition metal)
Platinum (transition metal)
Gold (transition metal)
Mercury (transition metal)
Thallium (post-transition metal)
Lead (post-transition metal)
Bismuth (post-transition metal)
Polonium (post-transition metal)
Astatine (metalloid)
Radon (noble gas)
Francium (alkali metal)
Radium (alkaline earth metal)
Actinium (actinide)
Thorium (actinide)
Protactinium (actinide)
Uranium (actinide)
Neptunium (actinide)
Plutonium (actinide)
Americium (actinide)
Curium (actinide)
Berkelium (actinide)
Californium (actinide)
Einsteinium (actinide)
Fermium (actinide)
Mendelevium (actinide)
Nobelium (actinide)
Lawrencium (actinide)
Rutherfordium (transition metal)
Dubnium (transition metal)
Seaborgium (transition metal)
Bohrium (transition metal)
Hassium (transition metal)
Meitnerium (unknown chemical properties)
Darmstadtium (unknown chemical properties)
Roentgenium (unknown chemical properties)
Copernicium (transition metal)
Ununtrium (unknown chemical properties)
Flerovium (post-transition metal)
Ununpentium (unknown chemical properties)
Livermorium (unknown chemical properties)
Ununseptium (unknown chemical properties)
Ununoctium (unknown chemical properties)
mark=6

In {{periodic table (micro)}}, you can highlight groups of elements by seting |mark= to any group number or major category name, e.g., |mark=6 or |mark=metalloid. Furthermore, the micro PT senses when it appears on an element page (or its infobox page) and highlights the single cell for that element; see, for example, hydrogen and {{infobox hydrogen}}. I think it would be very helpful if this template could be set up to highlight a particular element's cell in a more general context. I propose that |mark=1, |mark=H, or |mark=hydrogen -- or maybe any one of them -- be used to mark the hydrogen cell. Ideally, you could highlight multiple elements by using forms like |mark=11,19,37,55,56,78,79 or |mark=Fe,Co,Ni,Gd,Dy or |mark=boron,antimony. This would provide a very nice way to illustrate the bullets at Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals § Anomalous properties. I think that all that would be necessary would be to change the code to conditionally draw the border in {{Periodic table (32 columns, micro)/elementcell}}, but I'm not completely sure. Can anyone (e.g., DePiep) verify that at least the single-element version is a relatively easy thing to do and either do it themselves or perhaps point me in the right direction? Thanks! YBG (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this option is needed, very useful. I'm brewing on it. -DePiep (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
YBG, I plan to use an atomic number list (not symbols), because that's easier for the unnamed superheavies. Would that be OK? Or better use symbols? -DePiep (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Symbols it will be: |mark=Fe,Co,Ni,Gd,Dy. Free list. -DePiep (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Hydrogen (diatomic nonmetal)
Helium (noble gas)
Lithium (alkali metal)
Beryllium (alkaline earth metal)
Boron (metalloid)
Carbon (polyatomic nonmetal)
Nitrogen (diatomic nonmetal)
Oxygen (diatomic nonmetal)
Fluorine (diatomic nonmetal)
Neon (noble gas)
Sodium (alkali metal)
Magnesium (alkaline earth metal)
Aluminium (post-transition metal)
Silicon (metalloid)
Phosphorus (polyatomic nonmetal)
Sulfur (polyatomic nonmetal)
Chlorine (diatomic nonmetal)
Argon (noble gas)
Potassium (alkali metal)
Calcium (alkaline earth metal)
Scandium (transition metal)
Titanium (transition metal)
Vanadium (transition metal)
Chromium (transition metal)
Manganese (transition metal)
Iron (transition metal)
Cobalt (transition metal)
Nickel (transition metal)
Copper (transition metal)
Zinc (transition metal)
Gallium (post-transition metal)
Germanium (metalloid)
Arsenic (metalloid)
Selenium (polyatomic nonmetal)
Bromine (diatomic nonmetal)
Krypton (noble gas)
Rubidium (alkali metal)
Strontium (alkaline earth metal)
Yttrium (transition metal)
Zirconium (transition metal)
Niobium (transition metal)
Molybdenum (transition metal)
Technetium (transition metal)
Ruthenium (transition metal)
Rhodium (transition metal)
Palladium (transition metal)
Silver (transition metal)
Cadmium (transition metal)
Indium (post-transition metal)
Tin (post-transition metal)
Antimony (metalloid)
Tellurium (metalloid)
Iodine (diatomic nonmetal)
Xenon (noble gas)
Caesium (alkali metal)
Barium (alkaline earth metal)
Lanthanum (lanthanide)
Cerium (lanthanide)
Praseodymium (lanthanide)
Neodymium (lanthanide)
Promethium (lanthanide)
Samarium (lanthanide)
Europium (lanthanide)
Gadolinium (lanthanide)
Terbium (lanthanide)
Dysprosium (lanthanide)
Holmium (lanthanide)
Erbium (lanthanide)
Thulium (lanthanide)
Ytterbium (lanthanide)
Lutetium (lanthanide)
Hafnium (transition metal)
Tantalum (transition metal)
Tungsten (transition metal)
Rhenium (transition metal)
Osmium (transition metal)
Iridium (transition metal)
Platinum (transition metal)
Gold (transition metal)
Mercury (transition metal)
Thallium (post-transition metal)
Lead (post-transition metal)
Bismuth (post-transition metal)
Polonium (post-transition metal)
Astatine (metalloid)
Radon (noble gas)
Francium (alkali metal)
Radium (alkaline earth metal)
Actinium (actinide)
Thorium (actinide)
Protactinium (actinide)
Uranium (actinide)
Neptunium (actinide)
Plutonium (actinide)
Americium (actinide)
Curium (actinide)
Berkelium (actinide)
Californium (actinide)
Einsteinium (actinide)
Fermium (actinide)
Mendelevium (actinide)
Nobelium (actinide)
Lawrencium (actinide)
Rutherfordium (transition metal)
Dubnium (transition metal)
Seaborgium (transition metal)
Bohrium (transition metal)
Hassium (transition metal)
Meitnerium (unknown chemical properties)
Darmstadtium (unknown chemical properties)
Roentgenium (unknown chemical properties)
Copernicium (transition metal)
Ununtrium (unknown chemical properties)
Flerovium (post-transition metal)
Ununpentium (unknown chemical properties)
Livermorium (unknown chemical properties)
Ununseptium (unknown chemical properties)
Ununoctium (unknown chemical properties)
  • Yes check.svg Done. Use like |mark=Au, Fe. -DePiep (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    • WOW, DePiep Rocks! thank you so much. By the way, numbers or symbols doesn't really matter to me. YBG (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
      • @DePiep:: I see you have also removed the special pagename logic. Excellent work! By the way, is there a some common property amongst the apparently random list of elements? One that survives being shaved by Occam? YBG (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
        • So it's symbols only now, so |mark=9 keeps working for the group; list order can be random and writing "AU" does not produce an error here. Yes I removed that "mark Au when page is gold or infobox gold" logic because that was too fragile and unneeded elaborate (done 118 times/page). Infobox element now uses this |mark={{{symbol|}}} too. If one sees any issues please report. Yeah of course my newly discovered class of elements has a common property; I'll leave it for you to puzzle for a while. (Really, I had a collegue once who in such a list did find a number pattern - spoiled the joke). Once again, I fell like Mendeleev must have felt. -DePiep (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I note: entering |mark=AU will not produce an error or maintenance categorising. Of course it won't show as intended either. Do a count in the preview, I suggest. -DePiep (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

More on issues & features with the micro PT[edit]

Hmmm. Today they show OK. Struck but left here for archival reasons. -DePiep (talk) 07:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • We could add a mark2= option that marks elements dotted or red line bordered, to be explained "Only sometimes considered part of ...".
  • We could make a similar template for the three metal-nonmetal colors (now using an image). Any use & need for this?
  • Other articles that could use this free list: Rare earth element, transuranium elements (& current pre-merge trans-X elements, see above #Pix in Trans-X articles).
More in here: Category:Sets of chemical elements.
-DePiep (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
A period can be entered by this |mark= list. Adding this extra would only be a shortcut (for the editor). On the other hand: the cell formatting is processed 118 times per micro PT. Adding this redundant feature would add to the pageload time. So I advise against it. -DePiep (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I add re Parcly Taxel, as this topic developed (below): I also think that the list-by-symbol is the most editor-friendly way. It does not require you going to search the documentation page for parameter details &tc. Just typing the symbol list: what can go wrong? Very editor-friendly, this makes me a good template-editor and happy. -DePiep (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Does this mean we should eliminate group and category marking like |mark=3 and |mark=metalloid? YBG (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
No, let's keep those. Works fine, nothing to fix. I'm not that sharp on load speed. But I think the mark-by-symbol-list is easiest for every editor & every situation passing by. No need to add extra shortcuts that expand the /documentation. (Today I would not add group option for the same reasoning. The category is needed anyway b/c of the colors. Note that the cat naming is precise, "metalloids" (plural) will fail -- unlike the very more forgiving {{element color}}. All b/c that of bit of speed.) -DePiep (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
What about using separate parameters |markgroup=3, |markcategory=metalloid, |markelement=H, |markelementlist=H,He, |markfrom=19|markto=36? While these could all be parsed as part of |mark=, if they were separate, it seems to me that the complex processing time would be expended only when it is actually used. I may be overthinking all of this, but if the template gets executed 118 times, every little bit might help. YBG (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Not needed, I don't mind load speed. Current number (group) and cat name (for cat) do not interfere, so no mistakes. It's just, I see no need to add options that require an editor (you and me included) to go to the documentation page for parameter spelling & meaning & options. I am very happy with the symbol-list option we now have, it's editor friendliest. (now go spend your time asking for the other suggestions I listed above ;-) ). -DePiep (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks for all you've done. YBG (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I only get a hyperlink when hovering over the bottom quarter or so of the cell. Any way to make it work in the entire cell? YBG (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Not good. Will take a look. -DePiep (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Should be OK now. Or ping me. -DePiep (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Much appreciated. 16:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Quantum fold periodic table[edit]

Here. Check the key folds tab, too. (Added by Sandbh at 23:25, 22 April 2015 UTC (YBG (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)))

Very cool! Is there a connection between this table and Eric Scerri? YBG (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Not that I know of; they may have asked if they could have a page with his books on it. I looked at it and thought it was superb; wondered if it would work with ScYLaAc (boo! hiss!!) but couldn't vizualise it in my head; and wanted to know when we could have a Wikipedia version :) Sandbh (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why it shouldn't work with Sc/Y/La/Ac; it's just that the fold then has to cut through the d-block.
I must admit though that I'm not so keen on their colouring Ag (for example) as an s-block element because its differentiating electron happens to be a 5s one. Isn't block assignment based on available valence electrons, in which case Ag is clearly in the d-block? (Not sure where this leaves group 12, though.) After all, electron configuration isn't everything when predicting the chemistry of the elements: Fe and Ru behave rather differently, but Ni and Pd are much more similar to each other, even though the electron configuration tallies in the former case but not the latter! Double sharp (talk) 08:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
PS note erroneous config for Lr; needs to show p rather than d electron.
PPS they're updating it now. Sandbh (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
PPPS note that they've swapped Fl and Lv. Double sharp (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Eh, ADOMAH anyone? -DePiep (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how that would work: ADOMAH doesn't really have obvious places to fold as the blocks are disconnected. Double sharp (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────(outdent) More facts in our element cells: yesss. (First candidate: our bold ie common valences). Folding the PT (by vertical folds): go. As the Video PT prof did before. (cannot do that graphically today on wiki). Major refinement I'd like to know: what facts, or dimensions, are those bubbles saying? Does their size mean anything? Why is the gold core yellow? Where is the key (legend) at all? OK. From here: I get that we can improve presentation. What facts from that link, per cell, should we add/improve? (Personally: it does not add any info to me. I only do recognize the folding lines). -DePiep (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
To me, something is not OK or clear. The circular balls showing the incomplete shell? The free electron shown bigger? Some half-ball on top? What's that with the d-colors appearing halfway d-bock? Me, the half-layman, does not understand QM any better from these images. (The idea of folding is OK, but that's just the blocks, right?). -DePiep (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────(outdent)
OK, I really need more time to study this. This I understand, so far, in the PT and its legend:
  • The grey core circle represents the closed (completed) subshells, and with it the core increases in size over the periods. See for example group 1. This core also can have the marker for radioactivity, but I guess that is unrelated info for the topic. Comment: Unexplained is why the core of Au -only- is yellowish not grey.
  • All colors refer to the four 'blocks' (so there are four basic s-p-d-f colors; these are used in shades. I guess block is not exactly the right word here). I think the folding option for the hardcopy is (mostly) just supporting the block structure & colors, not an extra information.
  • The pearl collar of colored circles represent incomplete subshells (colored by their block). Per block there are these maximum number of pearls: s=1, p=3, d=5, f=7. E.g. The Au example shows an incomplete s-pair (half an orange pearl), and all five d-pearls.
  • Empty pearls too have a place marker (transparent = bg block color with a white outline; for example Sc). This too supports the graphic structure to show a 'filling sequence in a subshell', saying 'there is a maximum'. Great. I think that the pearl string being circular is not essential.
  • The bigger pearl or half-pearl, in a lighter shade of block-color, marks the differentiating electron. I guess the "difference" is with the previous element (first lower atomic number), like "the electron just added when walking the Z's". The whole cell bg take this block color! This illustrates the jumpy filling sequence in the f-block like when going Eu-Gd-Tb. Not directly showing is the repositioning of the previous (now jumping) electron, e.g. the 'disappearing' d-electron when going from Cm to Bk; this must be deducted. Comment: I think only half a pearl should be light-colored always, because only one electron is added. The Au example suggests the two electrons are differentiating (the full pearl is lighter). Also, graphically I find it confusing that this pearl is drawn bigger. What is exploding in there? I'd choose a different way to mark it (just an asterisk in it for starters). Also the shading being lighter put me wrongfooted. To stress an graphic point, one would darken it. My association is: lighter=lesser.
The graph nicely pulls attention to the block-spoiling diff electrons: (d in f-block, s in d-block. Comment: first time I see this clearly (here it's written not drawn: correct but not illustrating).
All in all, it is a great way to show graphically the incomplete subshells for an element individually, and in the table structure (walking through the PT by group and/or by period) showing the filling sequence, and its jumps. It beats any textual description.
Would be great if we could have such graphs in a (big cell) PT. The folding option would be an extra, but without it the show is OK already. -DePiep (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Template:Periodic table (f-block) is the example to compare, I was looking for: is has the open shells in the f-block (OK) written (good). The irregular filling pattern is present, using red color (OK) and can be deducted (not ideal). The graph beats this one. Note to ELEM editors: this template is not used in an article any more. Should that be corrected? At the moment, we do not have anything showing the f-block shell filling. -DePiep (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Chem template[edit]

Can someone explain this?

Using {{chem}} adds extra obnoxious space before the line
O
2
: {{chem|O|2}}
But using the html subscript does not.
O2: O<sub>2</sub>
I'm not sure why this is.

If someone can explain it, I will be most appreciative. If someone can fix {{chem}} so it does not have this problem, I will be even more appreciative. YBG (talk) 03:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I see that {{chem}} has provisions for including superscripts, and if there were happen to be superscripts, then the extra leading before the line would be understandable. My question is, if the template is rendered without superscripts, shouldn't it be possible to render it in a way that avoids the extra leading? YBG (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the issue, I'd like to have better examples (with graphic spaces, i.e. showing). But hey, why not at Template talk:Chem directly? -DePiep (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I mean to say (the underscore is the preceding text):
_O
2
_O2
So? -DePiep (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the extra space that was meant is the space between lines, not within lines. So:
TCO pointed this problem to me when we were writing fluorine.--R8R (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I see, it is adding vertical whitespace. {{chem|O|2}} produces:
<span class="chemf" style="white-space:nowrap;">O
<span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:85%;text-align:left"><br />2
</span>
</span>
So the styler is introducing inline boxes with shifted areas (vertically). I don't think is needed. -DePiep (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
(And a break inline?) -DePiep (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

There are six Pt group metals, right[edit]

I hesitate to ask because these questions can get folk aggitated: could we agree that there are six platinum group metals? For casual readers and those working in the area, that would be my advice. In my 40 years working with PGMs, I have never seen the radioactive heavy threesome included, and I worry about giiving undue weight to a pretty esoteric perspective with no ramifications for the real world, IMHO.

Platinum group metals (PGM) in the periodic table
H   He
Li Be   B C N O F Ne
Na Mg   Al Si P S Cl Ar
K Ca Sc Ti V Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Ga Ge As Se Br Kr
Rb Sr Y Zr Nb Mo Tc Ru Rh Pd Ag Cd In Sn Sb Te I Xe
Cs Ba * Hf Ta W Re Os Ir Pt Au Hg Tl Pb Bi Po At Rn
Fr Ra ** Rf Db Sg Bh Hs Mt Ds Rg Cn Uut Fl Uup Lv Uus Uuo
 * La Ce Pr Nd Pm Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb
** Ac Th Pa U Np Pu Am Cm Bk Cf Es Fm Md No
   Platinum group metals

--Smokefoot (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's the only journal article I've seen that even discusses Hs, Mt, Ds alongside the PGMs. Even so, it only calls them "congeners" of the PGMs. OTOH, it's a more common extrapolation among "PT fans" (one, two, three), which sometimes don't even bother to distinguish Hs, Mt, and Ds from the standard (and much more useful) PGMs. Is that where this addition to WP came from? I've un-highlighted Hs, Mt, and Ds in the table (they weren't even mentioned elsewhere in the article, which is usually a bad sign): hopefully that will prove uncontroversial. Double sharp (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

template:authority control[edit]

Oh dear. The bots are taking control by doing bot added Authority control in barium [1]. What a commanding name (aggressive twice, note). It gives control to wikidata.

Dear wikicommander. Can you explain why I should care to edit? KasparBot -DePiep (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

First look up authority control (I think the words sounds more aggressive for a non-native english reader), and second I agree that its really strange to add to barium. It added two links - one to some Japanese text, and one link to a German text - both links just to confirm that barium is an element. I removed it again. Christian75 (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I know what Authority control means, it's a name. It is aggressive in English still, irrespective of native language. It may be useful for princess Diana, but not for chemical elements. I think wikidata is overstretched in this one. -DePiep (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
You wanna request an exception for such scientific articles? Parcly Taxel 13:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Exception to what? Phosphorus is not Diana? -DePiep (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Molar mass for molecules: which atomic mass (source)?[edit]

Here at {{Drugbox}}, there is a talk to get the automated calculation of molar mass by atomic mass (from input like H=2|O=1). Together with {{Chembox}}, there are 15,000 potential articles.

My question is: for the atomic mass of an element, which source numbers should we use? (and knowing that IUPAC uses ranges like [1.234, 1.345], which number to use at all?). Issues like rounding and uncertainty can be addressed later. Practical laboratory rounding says "2 decimals is OK". -DePiep (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Found CIAAW for source. More here. DePiep (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Why not use the figures at list of elements, including the conventional single-number atomic-weight values for elements like H with the ranges? Double sharp (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
List of elements uses CIAAW or unsourced numbers.
In the documentation for {{Chem molar mass}} I have explained four different types of value, and the source I use: 1. CIAAW straight, 2. CIAAW conventional (a second list in their spreadsheet, for H etc.), 3. Four existing radioactive elements, 4. Nonexistant radioactive elements. For #4 CIAAW does not give any value, I have used the value we publish already: longest living isotope (could be called OR).
I have not found any other source. If an other source exists, we should sort out why their value should trump CIAAW's. -DePiep (talk) 11:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Neat[edit]

Nergaal (talk) 06:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Ununseptium for FAC[edit]

In general, I think the article is ready for FAC, but I'd like anyone to give it a last-minute look before the procedure starts. I checked the previous FAC, and it seems prose quality was the only major obstacle; now that the article has been copyedited, I would still love you to give it some final check.--R8R (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The show is on; feel free to add a comment.--R8R (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project[edit]

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Archive and redirect Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Isotopes to here?[edit]

The brunt of the isotope work has been done a few years ago. How would you all feel about "closing" Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Isotopes and redirect (soft or hard) the discussions of isotopes to the main element page? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

OK with me. Is stable long time indeed. Does this require any other action (like formal closing of a WP:task?). I mean, lets do it right in one time. -DePiep (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this requires any 'formal' action. I don't want to close the taskforce itself, just centralize discussions related to isotopes on this page rather than on the isotope taskforce page, given its low activity and the majority of the issues dealing with our approach to isotopes resolved. I just want to gauge the mood before doing anything (e.g. prefer the isotopes discussions to remain on the isotopes subpage). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
With this, I'm less supportive (but do go ahead). My headache is that WikiProjects and subs are getting mixed up. Even now I still get confused (into improductively) mixing up WP:CHEMISTRY and WP:CHEMICALS. Can you see the problem? Overlapping WikiProject issues appear on different WP pages. This is why I request: then merge all of it. -DePiep (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The issue with WP:CHEMISTRY and WP:CHEMICALS is most likely that WP:CHEM is ambiguous (as an abbreviation), and that people might not know that WP:CHEMICALS even exists. That, and for most chemicals, they should just be tagged by {{WP Chemicals}} and not both {{WP Chemistry}} and {{WP Chemicals}}. Whereas WP:ISOTOPES clearly is a taskforce of WP:ELEMENTS (used to be its own WikiProject in the past however, but it has been merged with it eons ago), and you tag it with {{WP Elements|isotope=yes}}. This is really about closing down a discussion page and redirecting the traffic to this one.
I'll wait for others to comment on this before proceeding. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I get it that WP:isotopes is not that confusing. Go ahead as you think best. -DePiep (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I understand your point, and I agree as well.--R8R (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree, go ahead. But what to do with the existing discussions on the page? I suggest that it be moved lock, stock, and barrel to an archive of this page, and then a redirect created to this page. That way, there would only be one set of archives to examine. YBG (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)