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)
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.
 
Article alerts

Featured article candidates
Good article nominees
Peer reviews
Requested moves

Featured article FA  A-Class article A   GA  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
25 0 91 35 98 84 32 1 176 131 265 5 0 115 1 16 3,374 229 0 1 4,679

IUPAC on group 3[edit]

For future reference, I note the IUPAC project here. Methinks this is worth a top mentioning.

Notes:
  • Chair of the project is Eric Scerri.
  • Apparently IUPAC has abandoned the Sc/Y/*/** option altogether. Group 3 does not consist of Sc, Y, all lanthanides and actinides (would be 32 elements in total).
  • It states that the presentation form (in 18- or 32 columns) is not related to the content (especially not the group 3 constitution).
  • It nicely uses the descriptive "32-column" wording, not the ambiguously defined "long form" wording. -DePiep (talk) 08:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

General notes, added later:

  • The outcome will possibly imply a change of the periodic table structure, away from the 1945 Seaborg version (that puts all lanthanides and actinides in group 3). That would be huge in PT history. -DePiep (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  • When announcing the four new element names and symbols, IUPAC has published this this version, dated 28 November, 2016. It is still showing the Seaborg Group 3 constitution (Sc/Y/*/**). -DePiep (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The RfC on group 3 has closed. -DePiep (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you DePiep, for posting this here. On a slow day, I happened upon this "news item(?)" discussing the placement of Lr in the periodic table. It isn't very good but is interesting in that it mentions Jensen's, Lavelle's and Scerri's views on the placement question (but see also here, for a different opinion by Jensen), and quotes Jan Reedijk, president of IUPAC's inorganic chemistry division, on how long it might take IUPAC to make up their mind, once Scerri's project team makes their recommendation:

Reedijk, of IUPAC, looks forward to Scerri's report. But he cautions that IUPAC's deliberations will probably be slow. When IUPAC proposed modifying the periodic table's column numbering in 1985, it took about five years to decide and another 10 to 15 years for chemists to adopt the changes, Reedijk says.

Joy. Sandbh (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Interesting link indeed (from May 2015, so when the Lr ionization energy was first published. Scerri's project team had not even started then).
Wrt the "5+15 years" remark, I can say this. Back when the group numbers changed, there was an alternative valid set (two even: US and European style). These sets are still valid. Current group numbering was just an improvement/change, that took a long time to replace because there was no urgent need to do so. However. In the case of Group 3 constitution, the current form will be declared invalid. Today no source can be found to claim that group 3 has those 32 Sc/Y/*/** elements. So it must be replaced into one form or another. Now, even the latest IUPAC PT (28 November 2016, adding the four new names) says old style Sc/Y/*/** because the Scerri-project has not published yet. Unless the Scerri-project has some surprise up their sleeve, when they publish the Sc/Y/*/** graphic will be illegal. Publishing it will be a scientific fraud. IUPAC will have to publish a new version, or two.
We at Wikipedia can easily adopt the new version(s). For reasons we know, we are free to pick a preferred version etc. Enwiki will publish a correct new version. When, over 15 years, the scientists finally have agreed on the obvious, all young scholars (under 25 y) already will have learned the correct, legal version(s) by heart—from us. -DePiep (talk) 08:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
About IUPAC writing 'itselve'
<rant>Has no one else cringed at "The task group will only concern itselve [sic] ..."? I checked, and it is actually on the IUPAC website. By my en-us ear, it should be "The task group will only concern itself ..." but it may be that en-uk would prefer "The task group will only concern themselves ..." but unless I'm missing something, "itselve" would )be equally unacceptable in any ENGVAR. Does someone have a contact who could suggest they fix this? It certainly makes the IUPAC look to be a bit illiterate. </rant> YBG (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Send an email to the task group Chair, Eric Scerri. Sandbh (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Why didn't I think of such an obvious thing? (Probably 'cause I was wrapped up in my rant.) I'll e-mail him in a day or two. YBG (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I am beginning to get why such a process can take 15 year. -DePiep (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I checked, and it is actually on the IUPAC website. [YBG]. Y'know YBG, I do can copy/paste. -DePiep (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC).
👍 Like I generally can also, but then my cursor goes all weird on my and I wind up typing someplace I don't expect, which is fine when I notice it but when I don't, I've been known to unintentionally edit other folks contributions to talk pages. Not facebook not like thumbs down.pngDislike . YBG (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Allow me to make this singular winning point. On average, 45% of my 1000 edits are spelling fixes. -DePiep (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Do you have a WP:RS for that factoid? Or is it WP:OR? Oh, wait a minute. It doesn't meet WP:N. All I can say is I'm glad no one is keeping a running count of the spelling errors I create. Cheers! YBG (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Does someone know a good source (wiki article) for that "Glenn T. Seaborg" (1945) table I keep mentioning? The one when Seaborg first puts the LN and AN over there, that way? -DePiep (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a good (non-wiki) source here (p. 128). He appears to treat the lanthanides as Ce–Lu and the actinides analogously (Th onwards). Sandbh (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. -DePiep (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

New element names are approved[edit]

Periodic Table by Quality

See This

Please move Ununtrium to Nihonium, Ununpentium to Moscovium, Ununseptium to Tennessine, and Ununoctium to Oganesson.--Abelium (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  • To edit:
  1. move articles
Done by User:Anthony Appleyard. Should we unprotect these articles now? DMacks (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think it should be fine now; the only reason why they were protected is that, back when the names weren't official yet, you'd get people who hadn't read the IUPAC website carefully enough "updating" the names in advance. Now that that is no longer an issue, there are no longer grounds for protection. Double sharp (talk) 09:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  1. Move infoboxes, rm 'proposed name' 4×
  2. Search texts for the abandoned names (But: do not change them in quotes)
  3. Search What lnks here on old names
  4. Change templates periodic tables
  5. Change images with periodic table & individual elements
-DePiep (talk) 09:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I've updated the periodic table by quality first! (Element symbols only; can't get the names in with very lame MS Paint.) Double sharp (talk) 09:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of the PTQ, should we probably finally move from the current pic to a vectorized one? Stone once set it up, and it's far easier to support.--R8R (talk) 10:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea, except that I have absolutely no idea how to update such an image... Double sharp (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Install InkScape. It's free and easy to use.--R8R (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
SVG are even editable as plain-text files. You can download File:Periodic_Table_by_Quality.SVG carefully replace the string "Uut" with "Nh", etc, save, and you're all set. DMacks (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, except that there are so many differences between the two files (the SVG hasn't been updated for a long while) and I can't figure out how to change the colours... Double sharp (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
The "fill:#______" values. Look for the "FA article" and similar strings about a quarter of the way down the file for the different values. Which is silly...that should be at the top, or use a template to make it easier to change without screwing it up. Will do it tomorrow if nobody gets it done before then. DMacks (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Done. Sandbh (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
OK. Good idea to change that filename too. -DePiep (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@Sandbh: Thank you! But why does group 2 have the transition-metal colour? Double sharp (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Don't know but it should be fixed now. Sandbh (talk) 11:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Now In The News on the Main page. I have asked to change the names into lowercase ;-) -DePiep (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Todo[edit]

-DePiep (talk) 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Note: While this PT (bottom-right) is interestingly complete wrt information, the category colors are deviant from our standard set (e.g., no category halogens), member elements (At, Po), and their key colors.
Maybe other info (like atomic mass) may be outdated too. -DePiep (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

General notes[edit]

  • This creates a very interesting situation that has never happened before. For the first time in history, the periodic table is complete: every element takes its place in every row, without gaps, from hydrogen as the "queen of elements" to oganesson, the heaviest known noble gas and current full stop to the table. Every known element is named and confirmed and there are none that have been synthesised but still await confirmation. So for the first time in history, there are no IUPAC systematic names appearing on the table! (We still have elements 119 and 120 as articles, but they haven't been discovered yet.) Double sharp (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Wonderful. Shall we ask them to stop research, and declare the periodic table finished? Sure I'll print this final version from our wiki and illuminate my wall.
There is a second time one too: an element is named after a living person. Yuri Oganessian (Russian: Юрий Цолакович Оганесян, Armenian: Յուրի Ցոլակի Հովհաննիսյան) will have to get used to seeing his name starting with lowercase. OTOH, he is now legally allowed to abbreviate it to "Og". There is this job in science: someone at IUPAC had to write that letter to congratulate him. -DePiep (talk) 07:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Double sharp, your material is worth noting in mainspace. For sourcing, I remember Scerri wrote this (without the element names of course) earlier. -DePiep (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
We can get it from IUPAC themselves: "Finally, as serious claims associated with elements having Z = 119 or above have not yet been made, we note that, for the first time, the Periodic Table exists with all elements named and no proposed or pending new additions. This, however, does not mean that the Periodic Table is complete, and a new JWP is being planned already by IUPAC and IUPAP." (I like how they wrote "serious", very gracefully brushing aside Marinov's usual nonsense on Z = 122.) Onward to new shores indeed! Now, where do you think we should put this? Double sharp (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
element pageviews Tue 29 Nov Wed 30 Nov Sat 3 Dec
Main page: In the News[1]
113 Nh [1] 250 4.000 14.000
115 Mc [2] 250 2.000 10.000
117 Ts [3] 35 4.000 12.000
118 Og [4] 2000 6.000 16.000
In other words: when new Nh, Mc, Ts, and Og were on main page, they got 10k++ hits. For a non-visible element. -DePiep (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Today, Og shows spectacularly. [5]. -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Infoboxes: split table Isotopes into new infobox[edit]

This is about our 120 element infoboxes (for example infobox U). Below I propose to split the isotopes table into a separate, new infobox. It would remove the very detailed and not-in-articlebody data from the top infobox. The new infobox can go into the ==Isotopes== section, and also as a regular infobox in page "Isotopes of <element>". I've arranged the proposal/discussion into: 1. Changes in infoboxes and articles, 2. What would the new infobox be like?

My hat tip for this brilliant information approach goes to YBG. Thinking out of the box—into another one.

TL;DR
  • For all 120 {{Infobox element}}s, copy/paste table section "Most stable isotopes" into new {{Infobox <element> isotopes}}. Then put this new infobox in article section ==Isotopes==, and remove this table from the top infobox. Also add it as top infobox in [[Isotopes of <element>]]. No other changes in Infobox element. Demo for U: Uranium/sandbox (article), isotopes of U, new isobox U. Discussed in two talk subsections: #Moving data, #The new infobox.

Please do not discuss in this intro section. Use subsections instead. -DePiep (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Moving data[edit]

This section is about proposed information changes between infoboxes and articles. The new infobox itself is discussed #below

Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE (the paragraph is worth reading), the infobox should summarize information that is already in the article body. There is some leeway for this (we want the melting point in there, even if it is not described in the article body text). But there is a treshold for less relevant data.

Step Create. I propose to create a new infobox for the 'most stable isotopes' table ('Isobox' for short; × 120 elements). This step is a preparation (no content changes happen). This infobox is described in #The new Infobox <element> isotopes.

Step Remove. Now I do claim that the isotopes table does not belong in the infobox. For starters, they are not mentioned (that specific) in the article, so why should the infobox 'summarize' them? Then, the table adds too much detail, both in number of isotopes and in data columns. Also, the total list of infobox parameters is very, very long (which is too long to be an effective summary of the article). And compared to the other data present, I see few or little information that could be removed instead of this table (info with lower rights to be there). Other data can be up for discussion too, at some other time and place. Concluding, I propose to remove the isotopes table section from the element infoboxes.

Step Add. The new Isobox is added to the element's ==Isotopes== section. For any element the steps Remove and Add are performed at the same moment, so there will always be exactly one table in the article. Also, the Isobox is to be added to the article "Isotopes of <element>" (120 P), as a regular top infobox.

What will not change. Apart from the disappearing isotopes section, {{Infobox element}} will not change per this proposal. Also, the mentioning of isotopes in the lede is unchallenged (a good lede should not/will not require rewriting for this removal). The isotopes table itself will not change, because the Isobox is first of all a cut-and-paste copy. To keep this complex data move (and its discussion) manageable, content/structural changes in the 'most stable isotopes' table are not considered. Such improvements can be initiated once the new 120 Isoboxes are alive & well.

-DePiep (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments on Moving data[edit]

Looks like a good approach - and thanks for the hat tip. One idea that might remove a bit of the dependencies: Initially, create an empty isobox and add it to the ===Isotopes=== section. This should make zero difference in the appearance of the article itself. This could be done to all of the elements before anything else is done. Then element by element all that is required is to simultaneously remove stuff from the element infobox and add it to the already-created isotope infobox, without needing to do anything to the article itself. YBG (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

tangential discussion of process
That assumes we can make that Isobox right in one edit... I prefer some harmless tweaking time for these boxes, both individually and federal (master template). Then change the article in two simple edits.
More important is that we must be sure that each article can receive that new box. Both by content and by layout (eg, FA's have nicely spread images, adding this table could disturb that. eg, some articles have no ===Isotopes=== section at all, they need rewording?). It must be ok for all 120. -DePiep (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Yea, I can see that. But what about using template sandboxes as follows
  • 1. Create empty isoboxes for all elements
  • 2. Copy empty isobox to its respective sandbox for all element (depends on 1)
  • 3. Copy all element infoboxes to their respective sandboxes
  • 4. Add transclusion of isobox in every element article (adding ===ISOTOPES=== as needed) (depends on 1).
  • 5. Move data from element infobox sandboxes to element isobox sandboxes (depends on 2,3)
  • 6. Validate that a given element (depends on 4,5)
    • 6a. Edit element isobox and copy from sandbox but do not save. Preview element article and modify ===Isotopes=== if needed for formatting.
    • 6b. Edit element infobox and copy from sandbox but do not save. Preview element article and modify lede if needed for formatting.
  • 7. Implement for a given element by copying infobox and isobox from their sandboxes (depends on 6)
Steps 1-4 can be done for all elements and in any order except that for a given element, 1 must be done before either 2 or 4.
Steps 5-6 can be done iteratively as a part of the isobox design. If you need to go back to the drawing board, just redo steps 2 and 3.
Step 7 should probably wait until 6 is completed for all elements.
Not trying to tell you what to do, but thought these might help you formulate your own ideas. YBG (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Will read this in detail later on. Edit sequence not major, and no bottleneck (because it's just editing, not content). Way more important is whether we can be sure that this change can happen positively for all 120. A big concern is whether the new box will land nicely in all pages (so checking the 20 FA's is key). Last thing we want is having to revert or skip after 115/120 have changed. -DePiep (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Step 6 will allow you to do the necessary checking before implementing anything. Doing steps 5-6 for the FAs first will take make sure you do the most important first. YBG (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Why create sandboxes for 120 new Isoboxes? Right now {{infobox uranium isotopes}} is the sandbox.
Why work through sandboxes for 120 infoboxes? Their only edit needed is: when the Isobox-U is added to the article, remove |isotopes=, |isotopes comment= input from {{Infobox uranium}}. That's all (×120).
Please don't spend too much time on this process. What we need is consensus that we can push this into all 120 elements. Todo: refine the federal and individual Isobox template (no big issue, also possible after publication), and assure beforehand that no articles (FA, GA) are spoiled by this extra table/infobox. That is what I am asking for. If this talk says "OK", someone will enforce an Isobox into 120+120 articles. -DePiep (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
No worries. I just laid out how I would go about doing this, but it is only one way to do it. I detailed it out so that it could be understood, but the responsibility for determining what the process is lies with the person who does the heavy lifting. As it won't be me, my comments are only suggestions, to be used or ignored at will, with no heard feelings. I'm very glad you've taken the initiative on this and look forward to the result. YBG (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Is how I understood it :-). I'd like to have feedback on the resulting article from all of you, like on Talk:Uranium/sandbox. Y'know, putting an infobox halfway an article is borderline stuff, so we need a tough base (aka consensus) to do that. BTW I noticed that Double sharp has updated all the Isotope lists in the infoboxes. -DePiep (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • New issue: maybe we should keep mentioning important isotopes in the top infobox. Say, those that are mentioned in the lede, or the top 3 by relative abundance. Now the U example is extreme (~6 notable isotopes; I'd say 4 is the max), but the oxygen infobox could mention just oxygen-16, or all three. Add the percentage?, described how? New parameter could be in "Atomic properties"? YBG -DePiep (talk) 10:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    I have no objection per se. But I don't think that the mention of isotopes in the lede necessitates their mention in the infobx; there is no requirement that the infobox include all the details found in the lede. So I guess I'd generally lean toward not including any isotopes in the infobox, but I don't have a very strong opinion and will present no objection if you decide otherwise. YBG (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
    No, not because they are in the lede. But for the same reason that they are in the lede: they are important. (I am also looking for a treshold, reducing the number of them we would mention in the infobox). -DePiep (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    Thank you, that is an important distinction. Although I'm generally an inclusionist, I would in this case tend to be a deletionist, but as I said before, I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other. But it seems to me that you have a similar sentiment that there be some sort of a threshold test for inclusion. I guess my biggest concern would be that inclusion of some important isotopes in the main infobox not undermine the case for having a separate isobox. That result would be a great loss. Thanks for your thoughtful consideration of this proposal from many different angles! All the best! YBG (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The new Infobox <element> isotopes[edit]

This section discusses the new infobox. Pilot is {{Infobox uranium isotopes}} for U (FA)
  • The Isobox. For each element, a new template {{Infobox <element> isotopes}} will be created ('Isobox' for short parlance, 120 P). By intention it has the look and feel of the {{Infobox element}} family.

It is an infobox with parameters:

{{Infobox element/isotopes
| name=
| isotopes=
| isotopes table footnote=
| relative atomic mass=
| relative atomic mass ref=
}}

The existing table 'Most stable isotopes of <element>' will be copy/pasted into the new infobox (that is, the existing |isotopes= input from {{infobox <element>}}).

Most stable isotopes of uranium
iso NA half-life DM DE (MeV) DP
232U syn 68.9 y SF
α 5.414 228Th
233U trace 1.592×105 y SF 197.93[2]
α 4.909 229Th
234U 0.005% 2.455×105 y SF 197.78
α 4.859 230Th
235U 0.720% 7.04×108 y SF 202.48
α 4.679 231Th
236U trace 2.342×107 y SF 201.82
α 4.572 232Th
238U 99.274% 4.468×109 y α 4.270 234Th
SF 205.87
ββ 238Pu
Some footnote here
Relative atomic mass (Ar) 238.02891(3)[3]
{{Infobox element/isotopes
| name=uranium
| isotopes=
 {{infobox element/isotopes decay2 | link=uranium-232 | mn=232 | sym=U
  ... }}<!-- one isotope, table row -->
 {{infobox element/isotopes decay3 | link=uranium-238 | mn=238 | sym=U
 | na=99.274% | hl=[[1 E17 s|4.468×10<sup>9</sup> y]]
  ... }}<!-- another isotope, table row -->
}}
|isotopes table footnote=Some footnote here
|relative atomic mass=238.02891(3)
|relative atomic mass ref=<ref>[http://www.ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm Standard Atomic Weights 2013].</ref>
}}
  • Parameters
|name= Element name.
|isotopes= Parameter that has the table rows (the subtemplates). Same as in {{Infobox element}}
|isotopes table footnote= Footnote tied to the table. Replaces |isotopes comment=. (Used in Li, Ba, Na)
|relative atomic mass=, |relative atomic mass ref= (Ar) Added here because the "Isotopes of ..." articles add this to their lede. Can have a reference, preferably CIAAW. This value is labeled "Standard atomic weight (±) (Ar)" in the main infobox. Something needs a change?

Omitting:

Template name: the descriptive name would be like "Template:Infobox most stable isotopes of uranium". But we don't have to.
No category-colored header bars. The category is not relevant for isotopes.
No 'References' link in the bottom bar. No standard references available. References should first be in article body.
No QID (Wikidata link). There exist d:Q1369686 (isotope of uranium) and d:Q8556554 (Category:Isotopes of uranium) in wikidata, but these offer no help to the enwiki editor.

-DePiep (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Changes in the proposal

Comments on the new Isobox[edit]

  • Just wondering whether the new template name ought to be "infobox isotope <element>" or "infobox <element> isotopes". With the former, typing "template:infobox isotope" in the search box would bring up a list of isotope infoboxes. With the latter, typing "template:infobox uranium" in the search box would bring up a list that included only {{infobox uranium}} and {{infobox uranium isotopes}} and their various subpages. Also, the latter seems IMO to be a more natural-language approach. Just a thought, I'd be fine either way. And thank you for putting the thought required to turn my ramblings into a full-blown, well-thought-out proposal. Great work! YBG (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Probably better. btw, I always name things 'isotopes' b/c I don't want to have to remember that. -DePiep (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
YesY Yes, name pattern better be {{infobox <element> isotopes}}. Will change this in a few days. -DePiep (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, "infobox isotopes <element>". Name pattern now is {{infobox <element> isotopes}}. (I've boldly edited the proposal, to root out the old name). -DePiep (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Any good reason that the new infobox needs to be in a template (and not just in the article)? Christian75 (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
#1. As with the element infoboxes (each of which is transcluded only once), such a set of templates is hugely easy to maintain. By WP:AWB or manually, edits are easy to check. For example, adding the wikidata link (adding |wdQID=) was a piece of cake. Problem with in-article edits using WP:REGEX is that the body text can give undesired hit-and-edits to be handled.
#2. These isotopes infoboxes are transcluded twice (in this proposal): first time the in article uranium section ==Isotopes==, second time in top of article Isotopes of uranium as a plain infobox. -DePiep (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • A few other ideas
  1. Have you given any thought to making some of the sections of the infobox collapsible? This would be one way of reducing the bulk of what is (even after splitting out the isobox) still a very large infobox.
  2. Alternately, we could break out additional sections of the infobox, for example, physical properties, chemical properties. Even without isotopes, the infobox will be very very large
  3. What about adding links to facilitate navigation between the infobox and the isobox? Probably not really necessary with just the isobox, but it would be very helpful if additional sections were to be broken out.

None of these is particularly pressing, but I thought I'd mention them while I was thinking about this. By the way, in order to establish a consensus, it would help to have a section for !Voting. YBG (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

re 1: (Is a separate topic, not an argument in this discussion. That said, I'll reply). We could collapse parts of the top infobox. However, in mobile view, no collapsing exists. In mobile view, any collapsible table or block is always uncollapsed. (Check the infobox aspirine, bottom data SMILES and InChI: collapsed in desktop, uncollapsed in mobile view). So we must design always an uncollapsed infobox. Collapsing is an extra, only available for some.
re 2: (Separate topic too, should not play role in this proposal). Sure, other sections could break out. Isotopes box is the lowest hanging fruit. If this works out well, more proposals could follow. But only then, after this. Another option is that we really can discuss to remove certain data rows. Say: which 10% of the rows should we remove? This is a difficult discussion, because no one wants it.
re 3: Like adding a link that leads to the Isotopes section(-infobox). I don't think that's a good idea. With other data we don't do that either. While, remember, the Infobox should present the main data that is below in the article. IOW, this way almost every data point in the infobox could have a link to a place in the article! Also, the TOC is the primary navigation place, that´s its job. BTW, the Isobox does not link to Isotopes of uranium any more. Because 1. no links allowed in an infobox title, and 2. the Isobox will be right next to the Main article: Isotopes of uranium section hatnote. DePiep (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
What an interesting topic this is. (And please don't archive it, botty!) -DePiep (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Group 3 into -La-Ac[edit]

Implementing -La-Ac in our Periodic table article[edit]

Further to RFC consensus to use the -La-Ac table, there is an updated version of our periodic table article in my sandbox.

I could go ahead and post the thing but thought I'd list the changes here first in case there were any comments. You can also view the history of my sandbox and compare the current article (03:04 17 Jan) with the proposed article (03:05 17 Jan). (diff current versions).

Whole article
Replaced the note tags with a version that supports the citation template within the notes.

Section: Lead
Table updated (as a jpg, not an svg)

Section: Overview
Table updated (as code, not yet the template)

Section: Grouping methods
Groups subsection
Table updated (as code, not yet the template)

Section: Periodic trends
Name change to "Periodic trend and patterns" -- Sandbh (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Electron configuration subsection

Have asked the graphics lab to updated the periodic trends table

Done (by me). Sandbh (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

New subsection added
"Linking or bridging groups" -- Sandbh (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Section: Different periodic tables
Paragraph 5: Added new note 12 that goes "But for the existence..."

Paragraph 6: Copy edited to explain that the -La-Ac table is chosen as the most popular table. Old note 15 re gas phase and solid phase electron configurations has been removed and replaced with a simplified mention of electron configurations in the "Open questions and controversies section", "Group 3 and its elements in periods 6 and 7" subsection, paragraphs 3 and 5.

Periodic tables by different structure subsection
32-column table updated

Section: Open questions and controversies
Group 3 and its elements in periods 6 and 7 subsection
Paragraph 1: Small copy edits. The order of the Group 3 options images has been swapped.

Paragraph 2: Sentence referring to further spectroscopic work as to the electron configuration of Yb relocated here from the old paragraph 3. I removed reference to Matthias describing the placement of La under Y as a mistake. I removed reference to Lavelle's support from La under Y. I added a sentence about lanthanum's incumbency advantage.

Paragraphs 3 and 5: These are new and briefly discuss the chemical behaviour of group 3, vertical trends, and the electron configurations of the f-block, for -La-Ac and -Lu-Lr.

Paragraph 4: Added new note 19 re the expected chemical behaviour of Lr.

Footer
Updated the Periodic table (as code, not yet the template)

Pending items
Ask for an svg version of the lead jpg table

Have asked De Piep to updated the table in the "Grouping methods" section, "Metals, metalloids and nonmetals" subsection

Will ask the graphics lab to update the discovery of the elements periodic table, in the History section, First systemisation attempts subsection

Will ask Double sharp to update the eight-column table in the History section, Second version and further development table

The 32-column 8-row table in the Open questions and controversies section, Further periodic table extensions subsection, needs to be updated.

-- Sandbh (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Also -La -Ac in Janet's Left Step? Shows the issue of the gap (no need to hide that). -DePiep (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    It remains -Lu-Lr in Janet's table. The idea is that it's -La-Ac may break the rectangular block patterns, but in idealized rectangular table, rectangles remain rectangular. For comparison, we display He above Ne in a regular table (because that's what chemistry dictates), but still display it above Be in Janet's (because that's what electron configs dictate). Same applies here: display Sc and Y above La in a regular table, but above Lu in Janet's.--R8R (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • About User:Sandbh/sandbox#Group_3_constitution_variants:
These constitution variants do not belong here. This should be addressed in #Group 3 and its elements in periods 6 and 7 only (similar to issue of H and He positioning, for example). Nobody is helped at all by mixing presentation form with scientific statements. -DePiep (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
That is something I feel we should revisit once IUPAC has made a decision on Group 3. For now, the periodic table article captures the situation as it currently is. Once IUPAC make a decision, either Sc-Y-La-Ac or Sc-Y-Lu-Lr, and Sc-Y-*-** can be consigned to historical status. User:Double sharp has previously commented along the same lines. Sandbh (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Is not about what I meant.
1. I'm not talking about 'send to history', nor 'describe as historical'. (Indeed this would be in view after IUPAC/Scerri concludes. Their 28 November, 2016 version with the new names & symbols, still uses the /*/** graphic ;-) ). I do say: describe this as three different scientific statements for group 3 composition. And so: put & keep this in the "Open questions" section. Will also have the note on what the preferred, popular option is.
2. I am talking about: do not mix up presentation form (18- or 32-column) and scientific statement. There is no argument relation between from and statement. This is what the #IUPAC on group 3 project remit explicitly says: group 3 is not does not depend on presentation form (not in both ways). So, of three-for-3 variants are not structural PT variants as is the list Left Step, ADOMAH, Benfey, ... Just as, for example, the H, He positioning does not create a new PT structure.(wrong place) So, group 3 composition should not be discussed in the '18- and 32-column' section.
3. In overview, the article should have different sections for different topics (not per se this order or ==-level):
a. PT with different structure (Left Step, ...)
b. "Group 3 and its elements in periods 6 and 7" (sub of "Open questions and controversies")
c. "Presentation forms (18- or 32-column)" (topic=title suggestion)
To be removed from a: paragraph "... 32-column form by reinstating the footnoted f-block elements into their natural position between the s- and d-blocks. Unlike the 18-column ...".
To describe this for the Reader, and in general in science, keep independent (unrelated) issues separated (unrelated). -DePiep (talk) 08:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Struck and new phrase to make my point. -DePiep (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Done. Content re group 3 constitution moved into Open questions section. Sandbh (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Let me think some more about what to do with the 32 column form. Sandbh (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, that one's Done too. How does it all look now? Sandbh (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Great! The TOC now says it all. Hope other ELEM regulars can agree. (Thanks Sandbh for trawling once again through my hammering remarks). -DePiep (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Made two minor textual suggestions [6] [7]. Revert if you want to. -DePiep (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
This is all good! The 1945 thing could be worked in with a little ce and a ref. I'll be busy for the next 1½ days or so. Any volunteers? Then feel free to copy and paste my sandbox into the live article. Sandbh (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
On sourcing the Seaborg PT (~1945). Some weeks ago, you gave source here (p. 128); I can not open this page. Scerri's PT-S&S (2007) says: "[Mendeleev labeled U=240 in 1870!, and put it in group VI = Chromium]. Eventually Seaborg's discovery of the actinide series prompted a major readjustment of the PT, which included the repositioning of uranium" +footnote saying '1946' ('Uranium', p. 129). -DePiep (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Try here http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/35_pt/pt_database.php?PT_id=522 Sandbh (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Contrary to expectations, I find myself with some available time. I adjusted the sentence you added, and added a citation. (Seaborg's role is discussed in the previous section so I feel we don't need to go into more detail). Sandbh (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Sandbh, I see you have hardcoded the new PT tables into the sandbox. Shall we use like {{periodic table/sandbox}} instead, or even change the live templates right away? (I did some already...). -DePiep (talk) 09:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I feel we should use templates and change the live ones. The footer one looks sweet. Sandbh (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Unrelated to the group 3 change, but since we are sandboxing: how about reordering section #6 into
6 Open questions and controversies
   6.1 Placement of hydrogen and helium
   6.2 Group 3 and its elements in periods 6 and 7
       6.2.1 Lanthanum and actinium
       6.2.2 Lutetium and lawrencium
       6.2.3 Lanthanides and actinides
   6.3 Groups included in the transition metals
   6.4 Elements with unknown chemical properties
   6.5 Further periodic table extensions
   6.6 Element with the highest possible atomic number
   6.7 Optimal form [or up? 6.1? DP]

Unless I am missing something, current order is random. This proposal has some logic to it (low to high; simple to complicated). -DePiep (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the logic of the current order goes like this:
6.1 Elements with unknown chemical properties -- because we have categorised some elements like this in our table
6.2 Further periodic table extensions -- because once we address the 6.1 question people usually ask this next
6.3 Element with the highest possible atomic number --- and then they want to know where it might stop
6.4 Placement of hydrogen and helium --- once the big questions have been answered, we get down to the fine details and the H question might be the most common of these kinds of question
6.5 Groups included in the transition metals --- sort of goes here because the transition metals are in the main body of the table
6.6 Group 3 and its elements in periods 6 and 7 --- sort of goes here because after the main group elements and the transition metals, you are left with the Ln and An
6.7 Optimal form --- kind of the ultimate question about the periodic table
-- Sandbh (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Not convincing for me. 6-4,-5,-6 still disflow. I prefer (my own) principles: low to high; simple to complicated. Opinion, anyone else? -DePiep (talk)
I've rearranged the section as per your suggestion. It looks quite good. Sandbh (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Outside of the PT article[edit]

  • Group 3 in the extended periodic table
See for example: Template:Extended periodic table (by Fricke, 32 columns, compact)/sandbox. Of course first we (mentally) replace the placeholder asterisk with the bottom row (turning the 32-column PT into a nice 53-column PT).
So far, the current change turns group 3: from Sc/Y/Lu/Lr/element-153 into Sc/Y/La/Ac/element-143. Does this fit within the extended PT theories? (Or element 121 be in group 3, with the gap between La-Ce, Ac-Th?) ping Double sharp. -DePiep (talk) 08:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The one source I know which gives a -La-Ac extended table (Fricke) has E121 below Ac in group 3. Double sharp (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Sandbox gone live[edit]

Need to replace some code with templates, and update a few more images as per list of changes in Implementing -La-Ac in our Periodic table article subsection above, but there you go. Sandbh (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Good. You want the top image to be svg again? It's the general advice ('svg when not a picture'). -DePiep (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, please go ahead Di Piep. Sandbh (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
This is why we do all this: PT has 15k hits per day. -DePiep (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Translated to a year, the metrics suggest over 5,000,000 views year! Sandbh (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Details say: low on sat/sundays, and during Christmas holyday weeks (Western world). That points to overly professional & scholarly searches. -DePiep (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
It had 5,772,939 views in 2016.... (The 233. most viewed article in 2016) - (see User:West.andrew.g/2016 Popular pages) Christian75 (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Lanthanum and actinium infoboxes[edit]

Is there a way to get them to show their group as "3" instead of "n/a"? Even editing the field doesn't quite work. Double sharp (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Done in {{Infobox element/group}}, which handles the exceptions (a bit an indirect construct I agree). Is the block name still correct for the four changes La, Ac, Lu, Lr? -DePiep (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    • You're even sharper than I am! I've corrected the block names. Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Nucleosynthesis[edit]

No article on an element or its isotopes is complete without information on its nucleosynthesis—whether primordial, stellar, explosive stellar, spallation, or radioactive decay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.231.248 (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion[edit]

WikiJournal of Science logo.svg

The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.[1][2]. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia.

Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas:

Editors

  • See submissions through external academic peer review
  • Format accepted articles
  • Promote the journal

Authors

  • Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
  • Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review)
  • Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram

If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

  1. ^ Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M. "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001. 
  2. ^ "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15. 

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

+X and +Y in Isotopes of a element articles[edit]

What is meant by "+X" or "+Y" in a excitation energy column? Please see Isotopes_of_rhenium. There are also some other confusing values - without a explanation - in this article, including "non-exists" for 168mRe and "0(100)# kev" for 172mRe. 89.166.13.36 (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

"+X" or "+Y" probably mean that the excitation energy is not well-known, so the figure is probably a lower bound. "0(100)" probably means a notional "000 ± 100": since the "#" means it is extrapolated from trends somehow, I assume the source's extrapolation gives a silly figure of 0, but the uncertainty would make half of its possible values fall in a sensible range. I have no clue why that is listed for 168mRe, since it certainly does exist (the link is to the paper describing its first identification). Or is the idea that no data was available in the source? I'll need to go hunt through some nuclear databases...in the meantime, here is a level scheme for 168Re. Double sharp (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
And the plot thickens: 168mRe is not in NUBASE 2012 at all! Double sharp (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, the Lutetium has some exciting (pun intended) meta states: 153m1,153m2,153m3Lu can be converted to 153Yb without β+ decay. I cannot find any sources to these daughters and if I understand correctly, the IT decay should only emit some high energy gamma rays and daughter should be same nucleus at lower state. I made some edits to Isotopes_of_lutetium table. 89.166.13.36 (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Shortcuts,_revisited[edit]

There is currently and RFC on what do do with the shortcuts used for the chemistry-related projects. Please comment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating is an FA[edit]

I have added to our Trophy list Radiocarbon dating (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch. It was promoted as FA in March 2015. Please take a look. -DePiep (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Allow me: "Q: How did yo discover this?" — "A: I was dating!". (I got more of these. Just ask). -DePiep (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
"Did you have your Periodic Vegetables today?" (Hmm) -DePiep (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Lighter notes on lead[edit]

  • Let me note that I enjoyed the edit gulf on lead. For me, I can only count the spaces: [8], [9].
  • Did you see the DAB page Lead (disambiguation)? It really says: 'If you pronounce it this way, it means ABC', etc.
When pronounced /ˈlɛd/ (rhymes with "bed")
When pronounced /ˈliːd/ (rhymes with "need")

-DePiep (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it's smart. Just as the visual looks of the letters, pronunciation of what you're reading/writing is also important in reading or writing. Adding pronunciation is helpful.--R8R (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree. But I'd say better not make that the main dab-page structure. Better would be like, sections: "When derived from the metal 'lead': section 1 (btw, pron is ...). When derived from the verb 'to lead': section 2 (btw pron is ..)". -DePiep (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the average native-English speaker is unlikely to know about word origins, but is quite likely to know about pronunciation. I'm not sure I like this organization, but I'm not sure what else to use. Is there anything about this at WP:DAB or WP:WikiProject Disambiguation? YBG (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
To continue over there. -DePiep (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)