Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Template change - Elementbox_isotopes_decay 1.1 Elementbox_isotopes_decay linking 2 Spectral lines! 3 Section heading: "Uses" rather than "Applications" 4 Chemical Properties 5 Abundances 6 Periodic Table 7 Request 8 Proposal: article structure guidelines headings needs re-order 9 List of elements by atomic number 10 Article Names

Template change - Elementbox_isotopes_decay

I've changed the template:

template:Elementbox_isotopes_decay .

It now has a variable for the small m indicating a metastable nuclear isomer. This allows the isotope name to link without error on all element pages. The variable is called "ms" for "metastable", and its default is blank (so that it doesn't affect elements that are not nuclear isomers). If it is declared, for right now it is only declared as "ms=m". If it is declared, it automatically links to nuclear isomer. Fresheneesz 18:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[1] etc reverted, this broke the ms parameter introduced above, causing mislabeled isomers. While the point about excessive linking may be valid, the template can't be reduced again until all instances of this parameter are removed too. Femto 11:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Elementbox_isotopes_decay linking

This item, Template:Elementbox isotopes decay, used in the infobox links the name of the isotope (e.g.: "⁵⁷Co" to "Co 57"). Aside from this being an inappropriate link, it is not normal for most isotopes to have articles of their own, and common that anything notable about them—usually minor or not found at all on WP—is put in the main article about the element. Therefore, the isotope name should not be linked as part of the template, but in trying to unlink it I apparently broke it. Please help. —Centrx→talk 03:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The rather awkward linking might be fixed, though there has been little benefit from the additional ms parameter, so I'm going to remove it altogether from where it's used and restore the template to its earlier form. A separate isomer entry row could be created later, or the whole infobox could be redesigned with the new parser functions, but until then, we might as well avoid adding additional coding complexity. Femto 12:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Done, I think; I hate working on live templates. If this left any loose code ends dangling around, let me know or fix them. Femto 13:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Spectral lines!

I've been looking for years for a single good source to create images for spectral lines. And here it is: Spectra of Gas Discharges. Only those elements from the solar spectrum are included so far, but it looks like the source code of the applet that created them could be used to create the spectra for any element; so long as you feed the correct data (see previous discussion for good sources of the raw data). Copyright issues need to be explored, but what can be more in the public domain than spectral lines of the elements and the order of colors in the full light spectrum? What part of even the already-created element spectra images could be considered to protected by copyright? The only thing I see that would fall under copyright protection would be the source code of the applet. But the source is at least left open. I would like to experiment with putting the spectra below the table image and have that be the full width of each image. That may or may not be too small; if it is, then some code changes to the applet will be needed to make the lines more prominent so they can be distinguished in the smaller images. Any Java programmers around? This is way cool. --mav 14:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I still think that images which only show some colored lines convey too little information. The applet uses intensity summing, that's good, but also only simple RGB interpolation, which doesn't reproduce anything meaningful, even if you just want to compare the positions. We shouldn't go for any less than properly labeled two-dimensional graphs, with a spectrum only to illustrate the colors, not to define them. When it comes to creating those, that's more or less back to square one. Femto 16:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Creating a proper graph with tics in the correct place should be fairly easy for somebody who can manipulate the Java code of the applet. However, a proper graph scaled down to 300px would be unreadable and thus not appropriate for inclusion in the table. The raw image still does convey visual information that is distinct enough even at 300px wide to tell different elements apart and get a general feel for what parts of the spectrum the element absorbs vs emits. Therefore the images can still be useful as is. --mav 18:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Even something that lists the 5 or 10 strongest emission lines (wavelengths in nm, and a generally accepted color) would be wonderful in most cases for ametur use (ie, college students and the like)... That's the one thing I can see that's really missing from the physics box. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MyOwnLittlWorld (talk • contribs) 00:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Section heading: "Uses" rather than "Applications"

What is the reason for using the word "applications" for that section when the more direct, more accessible word "uses" is more appropriate to the meaning used here. —Centrx→Talk 19:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Both are equivalent terms. I simply picked one and stuck with it through the 70 or so element articles I expanded and converted to the WikiProject Elements format. It has since become part of the WikiProject standards. I am not opposed to changing the standard but do not think it is something that is worth the effort to change. All that I really care about is that we have a consistent yet flexible standard across all element articles. -- mav 20:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If "Uses" is more accurate than "Applications", then it should be changed. —Centrx→talk 06:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made a general suggestion that "uses and applications" section be moved toward the end of the articles. Having "applications" first is sort of like starting a general article on the Colorado River with a discussion of major dams and recreational spots. It rankles. Hydrogen was here in the universe long before people were, and long before we found any uses for it. And will probably be here long after we're gone, too :). Can we show some respect for nature in these articles on the building blocks of nature? I've proposed putting some "applications" into the intro topical section (so we orient ourselves), but leaving MOST of this stuff till near the end.SBHarris 18:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Chemical Properties

I think we should add to every chemical atleast their maxumium amount of chemical bonds. But also a list of energy the bonds can have, with as many other elements as possible. And also alot of other chemical information such as electron affinity, ionization energies for more than 1 atom basacly i think it would be good to have all the element data this site has http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/F/effn.html about flourine that amount of data with more data abouit chemical bonds more than diatomic structures would be awesome.

-Zelos

Remember that all the data needs references and has to be integrated somehow into the context of an encyclopedic article. Supplementary data pages for each element would be nice perhaps, though primarily any data should be the basis for the article, not the other way around. Femto 12:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

HU? didnt understand that Zelos

I mean that eventually, Wikipedia should be able to replace a chemistry textbook with all its information, but including lots of data is the beginning of wisdom, not the end. Someone will have to do the work of 1. finding sources and 2. organizing it into an appropriate form. The focus should be less on expansion but to substantiate what is already there. Femto 12:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

the stuff we have now about elemental propeties is to limited. it need expansion. and also alot of the pages is A rated, doesnt that mean its good enough as it is already? - zelos

ive found a great list for chemical bonds wich id be ready to add- zelos

Specifically, what information, from where, would you like to add at which place in the articles? Femto 13:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Average chemical bond energy with other chemicals, Inorganic chemistry, principles oof structure and reactivity by james e huheey, allen a keiter and richard l keiter. where in the article you tell me were it would fit - Zelos

Abundances

Abundances of the elements (data page) created. Here's some referenced raw data for where abundances get mentioned. Check or update the articles (or expand the references) where appropriate. Note that there are quite some variations between sources; data of this kind is necessarily more or less estimated, based on various assumptions. Femto 13:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

nice, couldnt u also add universal aswell? how abounded it is in the entire universe --Zelos

Sorry, I don't know any recent hard references for this offhand. My main purpose was to provide cites for the crustal abundance (maybe to be added as an infobox entry row, some time in the future). Femto 13:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

how about http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/E/elcosmic.html ? - Zelos

It doesn't cite where the information is from and is not a proper source itself. (Some websites out there cite data from the 1920s—we shouldn't settle for less than a recent textbook which also gives conditions and assumptions of the estimates.) Femto 13:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Periodic Table

From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals

I think that we should add the periodic table to the bottom of all element pages. What does everyone think? It would be as follows:

Group →	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
↓ Period
1	1 H																	2 He
2	3 Li	4 Be											5 B	6 C	7 N	8 O	9 F	10 Ne
3	11 Na	12 Mg											13 Al	14 Si	15 P	16 S	17 Cl	18 Ar
4	19 K	20 Ca	21 Sc	22 Ti	23 V	24 Cr	25 Mn	26 Fe	27 Co	28 Ni	29 Cu	30 Zn	31 Ga	32 Ge	33 As	34 Se	35 Br	36 Kr
5	37 Rb	38 Sr	39 Y	40 Zr	41 Nb	42 Mo	43 Tc	44 Ru	45 Rh	46 Pd	47 Ag	48 Cd	49 In	50 Sn	51 Sb	52 Te	53 I	54 Xe
6	55 Cs	56 Ba	*	72 Hf	73 Ta	74 W	75 Re	76 Os	77 Ir	78 Pt	79 Au	80 Hg	81 Tl	82 Pb	83 Bi	84 Po	85 At	86 Rn
7	87 Fr	88 Ra	**	104 Rf	105 Db	106 Sg	107 Bh	108 Hs	109 Mt	110 Ds	111 Rg	112 Uub	113 Uut	114 Uuq	115 Uup	116 Uuh	117 Uus	118 Uuo
* Lanthanides				57 La	58 Ce	59 Pr	60 Nd	61 Pm	62 Sm	63 Eu	64 Gd	65 Tb	66 Dy	67 Ho	68 Er	69 Tm	70 Yb	71 Lu
** Actinides				89 Ac	90 Th	91 Pa	92 U	93 Np	94 Pu	95 Am	96 Cm	97 Bk	98 Cf	99 Es	100 Fm	101 Md	102 No	103 Lr

—Mets501 (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think the full table would be a bit unwieldy - taking up too much space for the amount of relevant information it adds. There is already a small table in the infobox so that the reader can see where the element is located. There isn't much detail in that periodic table, but I don't think all that much is needed. And there is a link to the full table right there if the reader wishes more info. --Ed (Edgar181) 01:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Waaay too big as a footer. Generally, I think that link-collection footers should be kept to a minimum. While we're at it, what about the recently added E numbers footers? Helium doesn't need quicklinks to thickeners, stabilisers & emulsifiers etc., same as neon (I think) didn't need the full lamps-and-lighting-link treatment. It would suffice to mention the E-number in the body text, any objections to removing it? Femto 11:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the footer at the bottom of helium is harmless enough, it serves as a reminder of the real-world uses, and is not worth the hassle it would cause to keep it off the page. Physchim62 (talk) 11:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Request

Could a user with access to the relevant information add the values of the standard enthalpy change of atomisation to that article? A suitable table is available at standard enthalpy change of vaporisation. I would do it myself, but I am far from the data needed. Physchim62 (talk) 10:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: article structure guidelines headings needs re-order

First, an apology. I've been doing this for a few elements and of course realized that most of them follow the same odd structure which I didn't like. I knew it had come from somewhere, but didn't realize it was an active an ongoing coordinated project. Finally some helpful person pointed out this place as a coordination site. Wups.

I propose that in most cases the headings for elements need some re-ordering. One basic reason is that "applications" now comes right up front, which I think is unnatural. Consider: suppose we were writing an article on (say) honeybees. We might have a topical introduction/summary of notable facts and characteristics about honeybees, to start off (notable facts in elements). That summary paragraph or section says: "This is what it is, and these the main cool things about it." That's okay. But THEN (pretend no subarticles exist) you're going to want a full description and *natural* history of the insect before you get into beekeeping. The same if you had a write a single article on Mt. Everest. Intro paragraph or two about its place in consciousness and culture is fine, but after that, you want to know about the mountain geologically before you get into Everest climbing and Mallory and Hillary.

What I propose for the elements is like I've already done for hydrogen and nitrogen. See if it puts you off. In this scheme, "isotopes" comes after "abundance and natural occurance" which is the right place for it, instead of widely separated. And these come before roles of the elements in biology. Which comes before human industrial uses for them, which is close to last. Note that all these can't be the same for each element. "Nitrogen in biology" deserves a few paragraphs on the nitrogen-cycle (which is a huge topic, and nitrogen in biology is maybe too large to even attempt), whereas hydrogen in biology (like carbon in biology) is so broad a topic it cannot even be addressed except with one sentence (there might be a subtopic of elemental hydrogen = dihydrogen in biology, and that's been started). For other elements the interaction is worth a subarticle (magnesium in biology exists). For others, biology mostly goes down into the "human use" sections like lithium pharmacology, or toxicology (as with lead). Again, all of this won't be perfectly the same for every element-- the electronic structure of hydrogen for simplicity and history reasons will naturally get more attention than that for (say) argon. So I also propose that not only that the headings be generally reordered, but that this be viewed as only a guideline. I'd hate to cram each element into the same set of topical boxes: they just don't fit.

VERY GENERAL PROPOSAL

In any case, again please read the hydrogen and nitrogen articles which heading-wise are QUITE a lot different from the template, but I think shaping up into naturally organized peices, and let me know what you think. A look at the shorter article on magnesium also. SBHarris 17:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

First off, people seem to have been quite happy with the basic structure for a long time—which however also means it has gotten rather old by now. There sure wasn't much of recent discussion on it. I won't stand in your way, a complete reorganization looks like a lot of work though. Excuse me trying to keep a safe distance from that danger. :) Some thoughts in no particular order (be gentle, haven't had much caffeine yet):

• There's a conflict between purely logical sequence and practical significance. You're giving rather some weight to the occurrence. The cosmic history or the mineral distribution are largely of theoretical value. We usually encounter an element in its practical applications. The average reader may be mainly interested in them first, more than the lead section can provide with a summary.
• There's a lot to say about isotope geology, cosmic creation, nuclear uses, fractionation, atmospheric variations, biological distribution, etc. For common uses and chemistry, however, the exact number of known isotopes, or even the natural isotopic composition, isn't really relevant. I think the articles initially simply included the info because it was there. But aside from the basics and a few particularly important isotopes used in atomic power and medicine, the rest is rather specific information. It could be offloaded to the isotope pages which so far only contain tabular data (see isotopes of hydrogen or isotopes of lithium for an exception). The remainder of the Isotopes section could be reduced to a short summary with a seealso in Occurrence, placed more in the direction of natural history. This leaves the specific uses to the applications.
• Try to keep abundance, production, and market together. Usually the mining and commercial exploitation follows directly the occurrences, for some elements this can be mentioned in one breath. Then come the uses of particular compounds and the chemistry.
• Maybe we could altogether dispose of the separate Notable characteristics which has become more or less redundant with the general purpose of the lead section.
• Except for a few important elements, the Biological role is very similar in topic to Precautions, they should be kept close together. Some basics on azides and their dangers can be mentioned here without overloading a separate precautions section.

Femto 12:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In no particular order,

I don't want to dispose of the "Notable characteristics" because it's basically the 2-3 paragraph lead-in for the article which all Wikis are supposed to have, see WP:LEAD, and I think properly.

It certainly makes sense to keep the earth abundance and production together for some elements, but abundances are also in places other than the Earth for some, and also (except for a few odd difficult to get minerals) it doesn't make that much difference to separate them (the amount of redundancy by referring to a previous section on veins of ore is small).

The rest of what you say basically has to do with the fact that the articles are written by chemists, who look at elements as engineers look at trees--- to be used for wood for construction. But there's a whole natural history of trees and it's not "irrelevant" to an encyclopedia even if the average person just doesn't care about forests except as sources of raw material. The average person doesn't care about spiders except for the poisonous ones, which he wants to identify for squashing. But this is no defense for leaving out the natural history of all but a few spiders, and putting what you do have in, as human-use stuff.

You write: There's a conflict between purely logical sequence and practical significance. You're giving rather some weight to the occurrence. The cosmic history or the mineral distribution are largely of theoretical value. We usually encounter an element in its practical applications. The average reader may be mainly interested in them first, more than the lead section can provide with a summary. Are we really writing an encylopedia with a million articles based on what the "average reader" wants to see about each topic, first? I can tell you the answer to that: the average reader doesn't want to see ANY of most of these articles, and if they do, don't want to read past the WP:LEAD section. MOST of what's in Wikipedia is only of "theoretical value" to the man on the street. SBHarris 19:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

List of elements by atomic number

Discussion continued from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of elements by atomic number

I found this list while bumping through the encyclopedia. It has references, notes, and meets the criteria. It should be featured. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The references cover only the information I added to the article. Information such as boiling point, melting point, year of discovery and discoverer were all added later and are not referenced within this article. This would need to be fixed before this could be featured. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 21:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't notice that. I'll see wha I can do to find references for those. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Spangineer. The additional info was dumped from an unknown source and is partly contradictory to chemical elements data references. Femto 12:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: There is a lot of data on that page. Could you specify what you have found divergent? Rmhermen 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've only done a few spot checks, but there are many differences, some more subtle, some less. The freezing point of silver 961.9 °C vs 961.78 °C, which is a fixed point on the temperature scale since 1990, so this data apparently wasn't updated for at least that long. Same for gold 1064.4 °C vs 1064.18 °C. The precision of the carbon boiling point is unrealistic, and the melting point is given as 3550 °C. It doesn't have a melting point at normal pressure. Recent boiling point measurements for sodium are all given 880..883 °C, here 892 °C.

In the best case, these numbers come from an outdated textbook, in the worst case they've simply been taken from one of the many periodic table websites which all copy some unsourced numbers from each other. Except for the atomic masses it's far from being featured material. Femto 19:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There are separate lists for melting point, boiling point and density (see the template at the end of the list) so I have no idea what are these data doing in this list anyway. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you want me to remove the melting and boiling points from this list since they are, strictly speaking, not necessary? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 15:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the atomic masses aren't necessary either, in a list by atomic number. This depends on the intended purpose of the pages; I too am not quite clear about that. The whole set could need a redefinition of thematical scope, and might get featured later as a bundle. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements would be the central place for discussion. Femto 17:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Re Femto and Rune.welsh: When I started on my chemical tables kick, I decided to create tables by name, atomic number, atomic mass, and symbol. I compiled those four things, and once I had it, it didn't make sense not to include all of it in each of the tables. The group/number thing was added later, as it is easily verifiable and not subject to any debate whatsoever. The extra information on List_of_elements_by_symbol was painstakingly added by going through a few websites.
• I have no problem with reverting to the way the thing was originally. Physical characteristics were intentionally left out because I considered them outside the scope of the list. Historical information I don't think is of much use to the average student who would use this, and it would remain on the element's article anyway. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 12:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"Not subject to any debate whatsoever". Ho hum. Talk:Group 3 element, group number of lanthanides and actinides :)

It basically boils down to whether the pages should represent minimalistic lists (superfluous info removed), or be the same extensive collection in different orderings (data cleaned up and kept in line between them). I have not much of an opinion on how the pages should be organized, but any cleanup either way gets my moral support. Femto 15:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I say keep the same info in all of them, but then have different criteria for sorting, as a way to increase their usefulness. Also this way readers won't have to jump all over the place to get all the available information about an element. At the end it all boils down to clearly defining the scope of the list on the lead section. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Article Names

Why don't we just call the article on the elements their letter(s) and then (element) that way we won't have the problem sulfur/sulphur and aluminum/aluminium?Cameron Nedland 18:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The same reason we don't call the United States article "US (country)" —Mets501 (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The article names are OK, everybody can find the article, there are just a few words which use a bit different spelling, but that is also no problem on other articles (is it?). By the way, there is a question/suggestion posed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#IUPAC recommends .22Sulphuric acid.22 or .22Sulfuric acid.22.3F about this subject. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry.Cameron Nedland 16:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize for anything. Femto 11:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Okey, thanks.Cameron Nedland 23:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)