Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Noticeboard  · watch · refresh · edit · history · Track changes to project articles
Add notice of active disputes or incidents here

Periodic table by the quality of the articles on each chemical element. (dark blue for FA, green for GA, light blue for A, yellow for B and orange for Start)
Periodic table by the quality of the articles on each chemical element. (dark blue for FA, green for GA, light blue for A, yellow for B and orange for Start)

Announcements  · watch · refresh · edit · history
Current and successful FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs, PRs, milestones or similar activities

Archive

Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6
Archive 7 Archive 8


Contents

[edit] Goals

watch · refresh · history

Short term
  1. Bring the vital article Carbon to GA then FA standard.
  2. Fix the issues that resulted in the WP:VITAL articles Copper and Aluminium delisting as GA
Mid term
  1. Bring all B-class vital articles (Gold, Iron, Nitrogen, Silicon, Silver) to A-class or above
  2. Bring all the remaining d-block elements (yttrium, hafnium, tantalum, rhenium, osmium, and iridium) and astatine from start to a B-class level.
  3. Bring Discoveries of the chemical elements and Periodic table to GA standard (or above).
  4. Bring the rest of the Noble gases (Neon, Argon, Krypton and Radon) to FA-class and then make noble gas a featured topic
Longer term
  1. Bring the rest of the articles marked as WP:VITAL on the Articles subpage (Aluminum, Sulfur, Copper, Gold, Iron, Nitrogen, Silicon, Silver) to FA standard (4/13 = 31% as of 6 Feb 2008)
  2. Bring all articles marked as Top Importance on the article subpage to GA standard or above.
  3. Bring all articles marked as High Importance on the article subpage to A-class (or above).
Ultimate goal Featured article
  1. Bring all element and supporting articles to FA standard (turn the Periodic Table by Quality blue)

[edit] Element info boxes and atomic mass/atomic weight

I noticed in the chem info boxes the listing of the "atomic mass" rather than the "atomic weight". This at first appears to be a progressive move away from the now somewhat deprecated "atomic weight"; however atomic weight has been replaced by "relative atomic mass" not "atomic mass". Atomic mass means something different I am not even aware of widespread misuse of the term atomic mass in this manner, although I could imagine it given the shorter term being the less frequently intended. As long as there isn't a long and widespread precedent of misuse and confusion I strongly suggest that we stick to using the terms according to their IUPAC definitions.

Please see the following if you are unaware of the meanings of these terms:

To summarize: "Atomic weight" was replaced by "relative atomic mass" and "atomic mass" was reserved for individual atoms or nuclides (i.e. not isotopically weighted).

Just trying to make wikipedia more accurate. --Nick Y. 23:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


It should definitely be "Relative Atomic Mass". The units are given as g/mol. Any scientist should cringe at the sight of a weight in grammes. Mister pink2 (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it should be "Atomic weight" (which is dimentionless) or "Molar mass" (which has the units g/mol). Any physicist would cringe at the sight of a force being expressed in volts, but see electromotive force. Physchim62 (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead sentence consistency in element articles

I recently read a few pages on some elements and made some edits to lead sentences when they read: "<Name> (<entomology>), is a chemical element in the periodic table with the symbol <symbol> and atomic number <number>". I removed the phrase "in the periodic table", feeling it was unnecessary, as the main context of the article would be the element itself, its occurrence, use, etc in the physical world. The context for the symbol and number might be the table, but that seemed like a poor perspective to take in the lead sentence.

However, as I navigated around to other element pages, I noticed that that phrase was pretty much in every lead (that I read). This made me worry that there had been some consensus reached regarding such lead sentences, and I was (in good faith) violating that consensus.

However (again), I now see that on the main Project page, there is the recommendation to not use the phrase, unless dealing with a purely synthetic element (i.e., the physical world context is currently nearly irrelevant). To me, this seems very reasonable.

So, by my reading it seems my edits have been constructive. But to make sure, I would like to know if someone could point me to discussions as to how lead sentences should read, and a fuller elucidation of the consensus from these discussions. I still stand by my edits, but wish to work with the blessings of the Project if I continue to make similar edits to other element pages.

Thanks, Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That is an artifact from 2002 before I added the NavBox to the template. I felt it was necessary to have a link back the periodic table at the top of the article instead of at the end. But that is no longer needed due to the link in the NavBox. However, I still think it is appropriate to have a mention and link to periodic table when the article talks about the element's position in the table ("Examplium is a chemical element that heads Group X in the periodic table." is fine, IMO while "Examplium is a chemical element in the periodic table." should be changed to something more informative) --mav 01:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I take from that that my edits as I described are acceptable as they occured when the lead sentence read like your latter illustration. I'll sit on my hands for a few days and let others chime in, but I feel better about what I have already done. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IRC

Hi, for all those chemists who are active on IRC, Rifleman_82 and I have set up a channel on IRC for chemistry on wikipedia. You can find us here: the wikichem channel. To be able to talk with other online chemists there, you need an IRC program, like mIRC, the Chatzilla plugin for firefox, Opera (built in), and there will probably be more programs out there. At the moment User:Rifleman_82 and I are the 'keepers/moderators' of the channel, but anyone can enter and talk! Hope to see you there! --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sweet! I'll add this to the project page. --mav (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carbon

The Carbon article has been nominated for the Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive. — RJH (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody happen to know if the original version of Francis William Aston's 1922 book, Isotopes, mentions carbon-13? His earlier work seemed to indicate that his measurement (by Mass Spectroscopy) of carbon-12 was "pure", perhaps indicating that he wasn't aware of carbon-13 at that time. But later works indicated he found well over 200 isotopes, so I think it likely he discovered carbon-13 in the meantime. I just haven't been able to pin down a date. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(Herbert Budzikiewicz and Ronald D. Grigsby (2005). "Mass spectrometry and isotopes: A century of research and discussion". Mass Spectrometry Reviews 25: 146-157. doi:10.1002/mas.20061. ) states that (Jenkins and Omstein (1933). "{{{title}}}". Proc. Acad. Sci. Amsferdam, 86: 1212. ) is the publication for the first non mass spec hint for C13! (Aston FW (1934). "Constitution of carbon, nickel and cadmium". Nature 134: 178. ) is the proof by Aston with mass spec.--Stone (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh crud: I don't have access to any of those. Thanks for trying. — RJH (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I have access to the first one! This might be enough to add the references.-- Stone (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Series" to "Element category"

Consensus at Talk:Periodic table (standard)#Chemical series was that Wikipedia has been using the term "Chemical series" incorrectly when referring to categories of elements. Right now "Series" and "Group" in the (really great) Elementbox templates both link to Group (periodic table) to reflect this confusing state of things even though "Group" should always mean a vertical column. Element categories (currently called "Series") should link to the new Collective names of groups of like elements article through the term Category or Element category in the box. Ideally, the "variable name" in the template and all the infoboxes would be changed. Hopefully there is a bot that can do these things fairly quickly 108 times for us, but I'm not familiar enough with this template or with bots to ask a bot or a bot-maker for help. Could someone who knows what they're doing implement the change? Flying Jazz 00:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Nod. I agree and am keeping this in mind, but the change will take some time. --mav (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abundance of the chemical elements

The Abundance of the chemical elements în the Universe is a statment which I found nowhere in literature, only the solar system or our own galaxy is measured, because the large distances in the universe also mean long time periodes for the light we meassure and therefore we only see the old abundance. The oxygen article also suffers from a abundace list in the universe which nobody can cite. Anders & Grevesse, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta , vol. 53, Jan. 1989, p. 197-214. is the best what we have and therefor we also should cite it wih its numbers on the abundace in the solars system-Stone (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have problems using the templates for boinling and melting points

I am trying to add multiple melting and boiling points for carbon, for various allotropes, and I cannot make it display in IE7. Anyone knows how to solve this problem? Nergaal (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specific Activity

Is it worth adding the specific activity of radioactive isotopes to the element infoboxes? I've found one reference at [1], not sure on how accurate it is. 81.96.162.238 (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

There is a proposal to merge several element lists into one, now that there is a sortable feature. Please comment here. Walkerma (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Super duper heavy element articles

We have a lot of articles on elements that haven't been discovered yet. I would classify these articles into three types.

1. Ununseptium, Ununennium, Unbinilium, Unbibium, Unbihexium. Elements that haven't been recognized yet, but at least there are either claims of specific attempts to make these elements (according to the Wikipedia articles, which are often lacking reliable sources).

2. Untriseptium, Untrioctium, Untriennium - Elements that are supposedly notable because the inner electrons would go nearly as fast or faster than light when one neglects relativity. However, there are no reliable sources to back up these claims of notability.

3. Unbiunium, Unbitrium, Unbiquadium, Unbipentium, Unbiseptium, Unbioctium, Unbiennium, Untrinilium, Untriunium, Untribium, Untrihexium. Elements with absolutely no claim of notability and no information except speculation taken from apsidium.com or webelements.com or from who knows where, and the occasional "in popular culture" mention.

IMO all the elements of type 3 should be deleted or perhaps simply redirected to systematic element name. The same goes for articles of type 2 unless some reliable sources can be found. Articles of type 1 can probably be kept. I was planning to bring this to AfD, but since redirecting is a good alternative and doesn't require admin intervention, I decided to bring it here instead. --Itub (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I think we should make your recommendation a project guideline. --mav (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I've checked them and you are right, the articles are pretty much useless. But instead of the systematic element name redirect, I think it would be more appropiate to use the "Period 8 element". Also, even though it is popular culture, rather than just deleting them, I think it is better to put that info into the period 8 element page. Nergaal (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
That is an even better idea. Make it so! :) --mav (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Periodic table (large version) under Featured list review

None of the contributors have commented, so I wanted to make sure some project members were aware of this. I think it's a great list and I don't want to see it delisted, but it does need some touching up. The review page can be found here. -- Scorpion0422 15:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Since passed review. --mav (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured topic?

I noticed that one of the midterm goals is to have all of the Noble Gases brought to FA level. Why not expand this goal slightly to making Noble Gases a Featured Topic? Assuming we were able to featurize all of the Noble Gases, a featured topic would only require a GA/FA lead article (Noble Gases) and a template for all of the articles. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a great idea and will add that to the goals. --mav (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. --mav (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
In fact, WP:FT? criterion 3.a) says only three of the articles have to be FA-class for topics of nine articles or less, so all that needs to be done is to make noble gas a GA. 142.151.169.129 (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, there's also the matter of the lead article, Noble Gas. That also needs to be GA / FA. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 12:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Groups

I updated the Periodic Table by Quality to include the quality of each Group article. The colored bar at the bottom of each group indicates the quality of the article for that group.

In doing this, I found two problems with the group articles. Most don't have ratings. Some didn't have Wikiproject Elements templates. Some didn't even have talk pages! I added templates where needed, but I didn't rate any of them.

The other problem I saw was the inconsistency in the article names. Of the 18 groups:

  • 5 had unique names: alkali metal, noble gases, etc.
  • 3 had family names: boron group, nitrogen group, etc.
  • 10 had numerical names: group 12 element, group 4 element, etc.

Jeepers. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep - A great many supporting articles to this project need to have project templates on their talk pages and most of those need ratings. Thank you for starting that process. :) As for the groups... well, some of them have names and some don't so the ones that don't get systematic names. An yes, there is some overlap in groups and families. We just need to make sure we are talking about the same set of elements. I'm not sure how to handle this better... --mav (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I might be wrong, but this is the usual practice in most textbooks I've seen. The main groups (the old ones ending in A) had special names except for boron, carbon & nitrogen. The problem with these 3 was probably that the emements vary greatly in their chemical reactivity to recieve a term that covers their reactivity consistently (while the other 5 are clearly either metal or nonmetal/mettaloids). Since all these 8 were main groups, they probably deserved a bit more attention in naming them. On the other hand, the transitional metal groups have truly only 3 elements that are actually usable and therefore people probably didn't realy bother naming them (also, from a very superficial point of view, transitional elements have similar rather reactivities). Nergaal (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a name for the nitrogen group: pnictogens. Other than that, you are right, only a few groups have proper names, while all the others are referred to either by number or by the name of the lightest element. We already have plenty of redirects to account for the various possible names, but perhaps there are still some missing redirects. --Itub (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to remove undiscovered elements from the periodic table

(Continuing discussion from the Talkpage of Periodic table_(standard), "Element 117")

I suggest to only include elements already discovered (at the present state of knowledge) in the Periodic table image. This would mean to either


a) remove element 117 (Uus) from the table since there is currently no claim (nor even acknowledgement) of it being discovered,

or even

b) remove all elements above roentgenium (112-118) since neither of these claimed discoveries is yet acknowledged by the IUPAC.

(Of course, the articles on the individual undiscovered element(s) should remain, and may be linked to from the periodic table article instead.)

Reason: IMO, the periodic table should only show discovered elements. I acknowledge that Uus is already marked as "undiscovered" in the legend, but it would be much clearer for the casual reader to remove it altogether. Moreover, there are many other undiscovered elements in period 8 and further. So why should only those in period 7 be included? Some of the higher elements (119, 120) may be discovered before 117. There have also already been attempts at creating the higher elements Ununennium, Unbinilium, Unbihexium, for example (according to their resp. element pages).

Whether to adopt the official IUPAC table or keep all elements reported to be discovered (112-116, 118) may be open to debate. On the one hand, the IUPAC seems to be very slow at acknowledging new discoveries. On the other hand, it is the "official" instance. E.g. Uuo had already once been claimed to be discovered, later the claim was withdrawn.

--129.70.14.128 (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Quixy

This has been discussed many times allready. This is an encyclopaedia, not an official database or IUPAC. By the same thought process we should delete the article on Kosovo because it is not a recgnized country yet. But wouldn't that be really retarded? Nergaal (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, please go read Talk:Ununseptium to see the overwhelming support against your arguments. Nergaal (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstood me, as Itub pointed out. By my thought process, Kosovo only shouldn't have been included in a List of independent countries at the time of your comment - as indeed it wasn't (it is not even in it now). IMO, an encyclopedia should only contain verified facts, and (as far as I know) the discoveries of elements 113-116 and 118 have not yet been verified by an institution other than the respective "discoverers" themselves (I admit 112 has been verified independently recently). And I don't see any reason for including Uus in the table, neither from you nor from Talk:Ununseptium.--129.70.14.128 (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
129.70.14.128 is not saying that the article should be deleted, but just that it shouldn't be included in the figure of the periodic table. I disagree with 129.70.14.128 anyway; I think that labeling it as undiscovered is enough. --Itub (talk) 07:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to Itub for clarifying this to Nergaal; however, could you give a reason for your opinion? As I said, I consider it misleading and inconsequent to include it, as we do not include the undiscovered elements from period 8 .--129.70.14.128 (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Consider this from a statistics standpoint:
  • Ho: Undiscovered elements should be on the periodic table.
  • Ha: Undiscovered elements should not be on the periodic table.
Unless there is a preponderance of evidence supporting Ha, we maintain the status quo, Ho. As I see it, there is significant evidence for both hypotheses. As such, we fail to reject Ho. In other words, don't try to fix that which isn't broken. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that I don't see the evidence for H0. However, may I suggest the following "compromise": not to remove Uus but at least change its background color to white or light yellow (as in Periodic table (wide)) to make it clearer that it has not been discovered yet. After all, it is pure speculation if Uus will turn out to be a halogen.--129.70.14.128 (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
No objections? Then I'll do it.--129.70.14.128 (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Structure of metallic elements

I have been looking for an article that covers metal crystal structures- but I can't find one. It could well be something that is already being worked on by someone. If necessary I am happy to collaborate or even write a first version- the sort of thing that I have in mind is a periodic table showing the (normal) structures of metallic elements with a low level explanation of why bcc etc (so impinges on metallic bonding, trends in strength with VEC and something on the odd ball elements like mercury, gallium tin etc. Any comments/ ideas ? --Axiosaurus (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Some days ago I searched for articles relating to metallic bonds and I have had a hard time finding much myself. Nergaal (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tables with "number of neutrons" for each element

Presently, elements are shown as a box, with number of protons (fine) and numbers of neutrons. The last is problematic, as what do we do for elements which have more than one stable isotope, as (by my count) 80-16 = 64 of them do? And what about those with no stable isotopes? So far as I can see, the most abundant isotope has been used for elements that have more than one stable isotope, and the isotope with longest half-life, for those that have no stable ones. However, it's a bit misleading to stick one number up, unless explained. Tin has 10 stable isotopes. The table should say what's being done. Better still, the (single) neutron number should probably just be left out of the table. The isotopes box gives the info better and more clearly. SBHarris 05:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

My bad. I think the best option is to not include the neutrons at all. I might get to that during the next long weekend. --mav (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
On second thought, we should wait to figure out how to make the nav images actual image maps. --mav (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A / GA

Several of our A-level articles are delisted GA-level articles. This implies that GA is higher than A. We should either:

  • Change the order of quality on the Periodic Table by Quality
  • Make A-level standards more rigorous

At any rate, we whould definitely re-evaluate the articles listed as A-Level. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, since there is no actual review process for A-class, then they should not be listed as above GA. Also, there is a huge gap between B and GA and I think the high quality B that sitll lack some parts (citations or say full compounds section) could be listed as something else. And since A is fairly useless otherwise, A could take care of these articles. So I am in for 1. Nergaal (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
More generally, I understand the motivation for having A class above GA, but in practice GA standards have increased enough that it really is the other way around for all projects except maybe the largest and most active. So yes, I support promoting GA to be just under FA for our purposes here. We can then agree that an A-class is an article that is getting close to at least GA standards by our reckoning but has not formally passed any community-wide process. In either case, being a GA or FA trumps anything we have here. --mav (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The way the system is supposed to work ideally is as follows, for delisted GAs or FAs:
  1. The delisted article is reassessed at B-Class
  2. If the article is essentially complete in content, but it was delisted for technicalities, then it should be nominated for A-Class.
  3. If the project agrees that the article is pretty much complete, and it just needs some cleanup to go for FA, then it should be assessed as A.
  4. Then, if someone wants to take on the cleanup and then to take on the scrutiny of FAC or GAN, then they can do that.
A isn't so much above or below GA - we've seen both - it's just different. An A should be comprehensive in content, with less emphasis on the style aspects, whereas a GA won't necessarily be comprehensive in content (though most are) but it should meet all the style criteria.
Of course, for this "ideal" process to work there has to be a formal promotion process for B -> A. Walkerma (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and switched A and GA with the last quality update. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To Do list box

Would anybody object to me deleting the project to do list because it is duplicative with the, IMO much more useful, short term part of our goals page. --mav (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No objections = done. --mav (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remove animated flags from elements?

If no one objects, I want to remove the animated flags from the chemical elements which have them. First, only a minority of the elements have these flags which takes away from standardization, one of the basic platforms of Wikipedia entries. Second, the fact that they are animated takes away from the "professional" aspect of this encyclopedia. There are no other flags over other discoveries--much less wavy, cartoonish, and unprofessional looking ones. (I wasn't going to write this in every entry that used a flag so I wrote it here instead. If anyone has a better place for me to write this please tell me.) --Mbenzdabest (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Plus, it seems these flags have been added recently by only one user and they are suspiciously mostly German and Russian flags. Not to mention, in one entry there is one Soviet flag (which is not animated), next to a Russian one (that is animated). And although I understand both flags were placed because of the historical time line of the element, it still appears nonsensical. --Mbenzdabest (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't have the slightest clue what you're referring to. Could you link to an example element page with these mysterious offending flags? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete all distractional and fractional flags on sight, from Wikipedia! Except for articles on flags. Even the U.N. article contains no little flags, last I looked. Thank god. And it has more reason to have them than THIS. Science is supposed to be trans-national. No point making it more competetive than necessary. SBHarris 03:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
In regards to a link for examples, just take a look at elements 104-116. There are others as well. Rutherfordium is one example of one flag animated and the other not. --Mbenzdabest (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please remove. type of thing is so annoying. --mav (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. --Mbenzdabest (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hydrogen

Hydrogen has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.—RJH (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New templates

I had previously created a compact periodic table template, but I have now substantially revised it to be in accordance with the one on all of the German Elements pages. {{Compact periodic table}}

I have also created a full periodic table template that can easily be added to anything {{Full periodic table}}

v • d • e
Periodic Table
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
Period 2 3
Li		 4
Be
5
B		 6
C		 7
N		 8
O		 9
F		 10
Ne
Period 3 11
Na		 12
Mg
13
Al		 14
Si		 15
P		 16
S		 17
Cl		 18
Ar
Period 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
Period 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
Period 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
Period 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
** Actinoids 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
Atomic number colors show state at standard temperature and pressure (0 °C and 1 atm)
Solids Liquids Gases Unknown
Borders show natural occurrence
Primordial From decay Synthetic Undiscovered

Let me know what you think. Remember (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks nice, but I think it is more widely accepted to insert the f block before the d block rather than between groups 3 and 4. I mean as done in Periodic table (wide). --Itub (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean moving Scandium and Yttrium to appear above Lutetium? I can change that if that is the more accepted format. Remember (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. Remember (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Colors should be changed accordingly to what has been decided allready on this project. Nergaal (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll revise them, but which ones do you want changed? Remember (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, is it possible to make the table even smaller in height? Otherwise is much better than the previous version. Nergaal (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Which one are you talking about?Remember (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Careful with element 117 since it is not known yet. Nergaal (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So what should I do?Remember (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Either remove element 117 altogether or give it a white background colour as in Periodic table. Other than this, is there a difference between your "Full periodic table" and the one already existing under periodic table (standard)? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
White background given. And there is no difference with the full periodic table and the one already existing. I just put it into a template that could be collapsed in case someone wanted to add the full periodic table to a page. Remember (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Short Term Goal completed

I have brought Zirconium to B-class. It was informally and independently evaluated by Bibliomaniac15. I suggest the goal be replaced by the following:

This could be a small step toward making alkali metal a Featured topic.--Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If Zirconium is a GA then we should list half of the periodic table as GA. Nergaal (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
That's not exactly a short-term goal... --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
What I meant is that Zr should definately not be rated as a GA. Last time I checked it didn't even have a compounds section. Nergaal (talk) 07:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I would say over 50% of the B-rated elements are more comprehensive. Rating it as a GA just because it is kind of well written when in reality is not comprehensive enough is something that WP:elements whould not strive for. Nergaal (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Technetium and francium are both lacking compounds sections, and they're featured. Should we delist them because they don't contain information that can already be accessed by a single link? When the only value of a section is to point out another article about the same topic, it's much smarter to just put the wikilink in the See Also section. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that FA articles on chemical elements should have compounds sections; but at least these two elements are radioactive so the list of known compoun ds is rather short. On the other hand, there are tons of known compounds of Zr. Nergaal (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Technetium's ability to form compounds is not inhibited by its radioactivity - some of its isotopes have half-lives of millions of years. The article has no compounds section because such a section would have added nothing to the article. Hydrogen and oxygen have great compounds sections. They provide interesting information about the element's intricate role in chemistry.
It's not that I'm against compounds sections altogether - that would just be silly. I just think an article only really needs one if there is something to be written besides a list. "Tons of compounds" doesn't warrant inclusion when the information is already available in another article. We're not hiding the information by only having a link. So far, I haven't found any information on zirconium compounds to suggest that there would be anything substantial to write about them. Should either of us come upon such information, by all means, we'll add a useable compounds section. Until then, I'll just add a "See also" link. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Approaching this as a chemist, I think a topic like zirconium should definitely have a compounds section. Francium is very different - no one has been able to make macroscopic quantities of it to into make useful compounds. Zirconium compounds are plentiful and significant. In my advanced organic chem course my students learn quite a bit about organozirconium chemistry, such as Kaminsky catalysts and Schwartz's reagent (we study hydrozirconation). I think also that some inorganic compounds are important like zirconium dioxide, particularly in the form of cubic zirconia, and some of its salts such as lead zirconate titanate. Zirconium tetrachloride is probably worth a mention, too. If I had a bit more time I'd write it myself.... Walkerma (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Organozirconium chemistry, eh? That sounds like compelling evidence to me. I'll pull some info/sources from those articles and whip together a compounds section. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mid-term goal also partially completed

Thanks to the edits of user:Drjezza there are over 10 less start-class articles about elements in group 7. Nergaal (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

ps: there are 99 articles of B-class or better for the first 118 elements. Nergaal (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures of colorless gasas

Concerns: Helium, Neon, Argon, Krypton, Xenon, Nitrogen The pictures of empty vials in the infoboxes are IMHO not only useless but may lead to a false impression that these gases form a kind of bubbles in the vials. And they look beige rather than colorless in the pictures. Not everything can be photographed. In my opinion these pictures should be removed ASAP. Regards, Michał Sobkowski (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biunoctium

Please give your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biunoctium. Warut (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speculative colourings of transactinides in the Periodic Table

According to the individual articles (and other information I could find):

-- for the elements > 103 the state of matter is not known (http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Lr/heat.html)

-- the "Element categories" (metal/non-metal etc) are only known for the elements up to 108 and 112 (the transactinides among them all being metals)

Thus I intend to remove the misleading colourings for the corresponding element boxes in the periodic table unless someone provides evidence for them. Any objections?--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes! If you look at period 7 you barely have one metalloid and a noble gas. Therefore unless something huge is not known yet, all the elements in period 8 should be metals except perhaps for elements 117 and 118. As for the phase, if you read the FA on element 118 you will see that it is debatable weather this noble gas will be a gas under normal conditions. In conclusion, IMHO, all elements until 117 are generally expected to be metals/solids. Also, erbelements in not a reliable source. It is run by very few people and they mighnt not be actually very well qualified for all the statements they leave on the website. Nergaal (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

My claims aren't only based on the given web source, but also on the individual elements pages. Anyway, do you have a better reference that "all elements until 117 are generally expected to be metals/solids"???--Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Instead of removing the colorings because they are speculative, why not just insert a little note stating that they are speculative? The way I see it, there is no harm in making reasonable predictions so long as they are not taken to be facts. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Our melting points for francium and astatine are speculative as well: no one has ever had enough of either element to measure them. Physchim62 (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that as it stands now, these speculations are given as if they were facts. Also, an encyclopedia is not the place to include unreferenced(!) predictions. Therefore unless someone provides references at least for these "predictions" I see no reason to keep the colourings.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Also note that, according to http://lch.web.psi.ch/pdf/TexasA&M/TexasA&M.pdf, element 114 seems to show noble gas-like behaviour, rather than being a metal. Thus it's not reasonable to assume that the period 7 elements all show the same behaviour as their period 6 homologues.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Since no-one gave more references for the data in question, I'll remove the speculations from the table then.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 08:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Only 80 elements have stable isotopes. It would be interesting and also useful as a reference (for being likely to be used applications) to have a page with the longest-lived known nucleii of the other ~37 reported elements. Nergaal (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That's right. Do it! ;-) Even more interesting might be a list of how much of these elements has ever been created (for the synthetic elements) resp. isolated (for the natural ones). E.g. several grams of californium have been produced, 3 mg of einsteinium, only "trace amounts" for the next few. I suppose for most of the heavier elements the amount ever produced can already be counted in atoms. By the way, which might be the heaviest element that is constantly present on Earth since the time of its first creation? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vanadium

The 1867 for metalic vanadium by Roscoe looks wrong to be, because in the first publication in 1867 [2] he does not claim metalic vanadium. The second [3] article describes the process and does not cite a earlier publication.--Stone (talk) 10:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirection of Group number of lanthanides and actinides to Group 3 element

Please contribute your opinions to this edit dispute. The discussion is at Talk:Group number of lanthanides and actinides. Flying Jazz (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Isotopes of tantalum

Tantalum-180, in an excited state, last for a million billion years. Is this true?

Thanks, Marasama (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

180m2Ta is listed as having a half-life of 1.2E+15 a. That's 1,200,000,000,000,000 years, or 1.2 million billion. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Oh. What does the letter "a" stand for in 1.2E+15 a? Thanks, Marasama (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"a" is from the Latin? word for year. Nergaal (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nergaal. Maybe there is a need for a similar page to List of common astronomy symbols, but for the elements. I am not too familiar, so I am uncertain if there are a lot of symbols used like it is in Astrophysic. Like in the orbits of electrons, the decay, half-life, weight, energy, etc. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Discoveries of the chemical elements

I have been working on this list and I was wondering weather anyone has more suggestions for it. thanks. Nergaal (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to remove the background colourings according to the chemical series. I think it would be much more readable if the background was just white. Othewise it's very nice.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I was going to suggest the same. Also, maybe it would be better to combine everything in one table? That way the column widths would look consistent. Perhaps the table could be made sortable by atomic number, name, and year. However, there is a problem in that not all the years are really sortable because some begin with text, especially for the early elements. --Itub (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above comments about the background colours, although an alternative would be to confine them to the "atomic number" column so that they don't interfere with reading the rest of the text. On the whole, a very useful tool, even if I don't agree with all the entries: indeed, that is one of its useful points! The date for the discovery of antimony is at least a thousand years out, and probably more than three thousand years out! All the same, this should not be taken as a criticism of the work which has gone into this page, merely that each and every Wikipedia article (or list) can be improved! Physchim62 (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to make some edits too. Nergaal (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Noble gas has been listed at WP:GAN

Could someone please review the article for WP:GAN, if anyone has time? Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] We need a ""Lists of list of elements"" article

Or a template at least where to put all of the ""List of elements by..."" articles (e.g.: discoveries, etymology, most stable isotope, etc...). Nergaal (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

How about the See Also section of Periodic table? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
If you refer to what is there now, that is way too incomplete to what I was thinking of. Nergaal (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I found {{PeriodicTablesFooter}} Nergaal (talk) 08:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)