Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements

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

I understrand we can pin a more exact date to it: March 6th 1869 Mendeleev send his Table to RSC, later that month published in the first volume(!) of the RSC journal.^[1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• As it happens, THE UNITED NATIONS PROCLAIMS [2019] THE INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF THE PERIODIC TABLE OF CHEMICAL ELEMENTS. Official website. -DePiep (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
• We should ask & get an exception: FA Periodic table be TFA in March 2019. That is what an encyclopedia is for. -DePiep (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • I think we ought to have had the rerun of periodic table wait till 2019 instead of having had it this year, to be honest. Two years in a row is a bit much. If we can't get history of the periodic table ready, I'd favour germanium as one of Mendeleev's predicted elements that is already an FA. Nonetheless I think gallium would be better for an emergency FA push, as it was the first one of those to be discovered. Double sharp (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Asking R8R, I think you can read Russian/Cyrillic: is there a more precise date for the first publication? -DePiep (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Mendeleev finalized his manuscript and sent it to press on February 17, 1869, a date he put on the manuscript. (At the time, Russia was still following the Julian calendar; in the Gregorian calendar used today both in the West and Russia, that would be March 1, 1869). This date is often considered the birthday of the periodic table (although he used the word "periodic" only two years later and the table changed in those years significantly, but the main principles remained in place). On March 6 (March 18), his work was announced by the secretary of the Russian Chemical Society Nikolai Menshutkin at the March meeting of the Society. It is often said instead the the announcement was made on February 22 (March 6), but it appears this date is false.--R8R (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Germanium would be the go. The TFA blurb could be written in such a way as to highlight the fact that its properties were successfully predicted by Mendeleev, fifteen years before it was discovered in nature. The history of the periodic table would be a superb choice but I strongly doubt there would be enough time to bring it up to scratch, and get it through the FA process. Even our germanium article needs some polishing: it attained FA status on March 28, 2009! (And that scares me, given how high the FA bar is set these days). Sandbh (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Germanium indeed a great option. Was also thinking about Picture of the day being a PT. How do we achieve a cleanup of Ge? -DePiep (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Nice. I like the picture in the lead of our History of the periodic table article. I'll see if I can scan Ge, and gauge what needs to be done. Sandbh (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

You like that picture? Are you joking? I'm working to obliviate it. Featured pictures are in this category, I will check it for PTs. -DePiep (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Having re-read WP:PLURAL, I now propose to move the article to MAX phase alloys. It seems more a class than a list. YBG (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

Add up the following points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is an equivalent manner of expressing the same criteria:

Add up the following points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will have to do some research myself; there may be some promise, especially for 126 (which has a history of predictions and searches in nature) and maybe also 124. The others will be a bit more difficult; the only sources I found for those are not devoted entirely to those elements. But we'll see what comes up. ComplexRational (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Here's a compilation of what I found so far:

Element	Information	Refs
123	Decay properties	[r 1]
123	Electronic structure (I'm not sure about this one, it looks fine but is unpublished)	[r 2]
124	Synthesis reaction	[r 3]
123, 124	Generic predictions of SHE isotopes; reactions	[r 4][r 5]
126	Chemical properties	[r 6][r 7]
126	Island of stability, synthesis attempts	[r 8]
124, 126	Chemistry, natural occurrence	[r 9]
124, 126, 127	Claimed natural occurrence	[r 10]
124, 126, 127	Unsuccessful synthesis attempts	[r 11]
124, 126, 128	Decay properties	[r 12]
	Electron configurations; chemical properties	[r 13][r 14]

There are a few other abstracts I found for 124 and 126, though they don't seem to contain a whole lot. If these refs are sufficient to create articles, I can start work on them right away. In my opinion, there is promise for 124, 126, and possibly 123 or 127 (but least likely 125). Thoughts? ComplexRational (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@ComplexRational: If 123, 124, 126, 127, and 128 all have something to say about them, then I'm willing to give 125 a pass even if there's not much to say about it. It is the first one that finally has a g-electron, after all. ^_^ All these new papers (postdating the redirection of these articles) and newly found old ones make me think that it's high time we expanded our range to element 128, with ten undiscovered elements at the end, six of them new articles. If you start working on them, I'll drop in and speed things along too. ^_^ BTW, I think the thesis is fine as a source for 123. Double sharp (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Double sharp: Sounds good – though I may need to wait until tomorrow to start work. Should I start work in main article space or userspace? ComplexRational (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@ComplexRational: If you're starting tomorrow, I could create some half-finished user subpages as sandboxes to work in.

P.S. I insist that E123 through E126 are eka-protactinium through eka-plutonium, at least. ^_^ After that I can't find anyone calling E127 and E128 eka-americium and eka-curium; I think this is where things may start to diverge, as Cm is so unhappy to be in the VI state. Double sharp (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Double sharp: Nor have I (for 127 and 128). If you would like to create those sandboxes, let me know when I can start; we can then build up those articles. ComplexRational (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@ComplexRational: I've created all six at their systematic names, User:Double sharp/Unbitrium through User:Double sharp/Unbioctium. You can start whenever you feel like it. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Double sharp and ComplexRational: I believe I made a loose suggestion to propose an Unbitrium article at the conclusion of the Unbibium GA, but I never expected that all of the past articles would be on the table. I personally am against the inclusion of a Unbioctium article (really, there isn't enough there at that point), but could say that I am in support of a Unbitrium, unbiquadium, and an unbihexium article. Unbipentium would then probably enter my field of vision with it being the only element discluded from 1 to 126, and 127 is rather iffy with me. I know we had articles on them at first, but then we went ahead and made them all redirects. Maybe it was unbibium coming to light, maybe it wasn't, but I'm still kind of curious what caused people to change their mind on the articles. Element 128 has been untouched by the English Wikipedia; do we need to go there?

Edit: It also might be useful to note that the German Wikipedia has kept its articles all the way to Element 132. I advise that we leave these pages on our sister wiki untouched, but for the English Wikipedia, we could probably go up to 126 or 127. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@UtopianPoyzin and ComplexRational: Well, we can draft all of them, and if some of them still don't have enough, they'll simply stay as drafts until they do. As for what brought this on, it was ComplexRational's list of sources, five of which didn't yet exist at the time the articles beyond E120 were redirected. Double sharp (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh wow, I did not realize those were Complex's sources. That's actually very helpful ComplexRational, thank you. I still am against having articles for E127 and E128, but if you are able to find more predictions that truly show its uniqueness and other important information, then I might change my mind. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, I agree that 128 will likely turn out to be the weakest of the lot. But like I said, I only plan to have published the ones that turn out to have enough; the rest can stay as drafts until more things come up. And when more things do come up, we'll have somewhere to start. Double sharp (talk) 03:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

P.S. This makes me think that I should return to E121 and change one or two things. When it was the last, it made sense to discuss the entire "extreme vanguard" past 120 there; now it makes less sense. Double sharp (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I like the idea of having a holding pen for elements don't yet have enough information. That gives us a place to start sub-stubs and add to them until project members reach a consensus that the article is ready for prime time. YBG (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

PS, I hereby withdraw my proposal that began this thread. YBG (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. If we are going to have a holding pen, I think we ought to have it in the WP:ELEM subpages, rather than my userspace, since articles would presumably be there for a while. So I guess that could be the place we move the not-so-satisfactory ones at the same time the satisfactory ones get shipped off to mainspace. Double sharp (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

If that's the case, then unbitrium could possibly be restored for now. I can agree with keeping the rest in the WP:ELEM subpages, but I would also say that having the first one on the list in the mainspace, even as a stub, wouldn't be too bad of an idea. At the very least, I would say now would be a good time to unprotect the page. It doesn't bother me, I could edit it if I wanted to. The protection was put on in (I would like to say) 2012, and it could probably go if the goals we are making will eventually come to fruition. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think that 124 and 126 at least will have more to say than 123. ^_^ And I think we'd like to put in some of the new sources to really justify the article before mainspacing it. Double sharp (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, so far, work on 123 and 124 is progressing well; we haven't gone past that yet. 124 is also where WebElements stops, BTW. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Could someone please explain to me the point of having articles in a general encyclopedia about elements that none has tried to synthesize yet? I genuinely don't get it. They don't exist yet; they don't have any particular cultural value (like the Year 2000 problem was famous long before January 1, 2000), research value outside of the far wider topic of "superheavy elements" is negligible (for comparison: hydrogen is a chemical element, but not just one of many, but a thing of its own). So there is no history, no cultural value, even no particular scientific interest. Just some general predictions of no special interest (like element 137 was once thought to be the last; that's interesting but even then it seems more appropriate not to have a separate article on that but rather mention that elsewhere, and it so happens that's what we actually do). How does element 123, for instance, meet Wikipedia:Notability?--R8R (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@R8R: I would think myself that a synthesis attempt is just one of the many things that, combined together, can demonstrate notability. After all, look at unbiunium: I think that, given how many predictions there have been on its chemical and nuclear properties, the fact that there was an attempt to synthesise it is actually one of the less important things arguing for its notability. In fact, when I recreated that article, I wasn't actually aware that it had had a synthesis attempt at all. On the flip side, elements 124, 126, and 127 have all had synthesis attempts. So I think we should evaluate things on a case-by-case basis: we can build up those drafts and then later decide which have turned out to be notable. Double sharp (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

It seems a little irrational to delay the decision on notability to after the articles have been written. I'm confident that some of these at least won't pass (or at least there's a chance of that), so it would be a waste to make the work and then not publish it because the thing turned out not to be good enough. I'd get it if this article publishing were somehow dependent on writing and you'd get more involved once you get to actually write, but this depends on meeting the notability criteria; it's an simple yes-or-no test: if it passes the criteria, you just have to find enough evidence, that's it.

The general guideline is, to quote WP:Notability:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

Sources, by the way, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.

I only mentioned those elements that nobody tried to synthesize and not more solely because we need start with something to get the discussion going. I clearly see why there are articles on elements 119 and 120; somewhat sympathetic towards the article on element 121; unsure about the article on element 122; doubtful at best about the rest.

I've read your draft on 123. Despite what it looks like before you get to read, the element has no history. It even says, "No attempts to synthesize unbitrium have yet been made,[10] and there will most likely be none in the near future." This one is not particularly important in nuclear research or anything; how does it get to have a history? Naming is trivial, either, and not particularly related to this element. That leaves us with one more section: Nuclear stability and isotopes. That section is composed of two subsections. The first one doesn't even say anything specific about this element; so far, the article has been entirely a filler and it doesn't look like there's some substantial content to be added (feel free to prove me wrong). That leaves us with two medium-sized paragraphs of text. The first one boils down to "unbitrium is predicted to be [Og] 6f¹7d¹8s²8p¹," the rest of the para is trivial. The second para is more dense with information, but that's just four lines of text (on my laptop, screen resolution 1600x900). Is this (electron configuration and four more lines of text) really enough to make up an article? Also remember that the guideline tells us multiple secondary sources are expected? I checked it and it looks like there is one secondary source for those two paragraphs, and since I happen to have that source, I know it doesn't devote even a paragraph, even a sentence to element 123; it just mentions its electron configuration in a table. Is this really enough coverage by secondary sources to truly think this element has particular encyclopedic value? My answer is, based on the draft you've written so far, no to both questions. If there is something that may change that, it will be more efficient to show it before you write the information down; what if that's still useless? Similarly, it will spare the energy to write a draft on element, say, 125 if we decide beforehand we don't need it.--R8R (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

After doing some side-by-side comparisons, I find that parts of the articles on 119-122 also give a more generic synopsis on SHEs rather than focusing exactly on the elements; there may be some inconsistency here. While I agree that not many sources (at most 2 or 3 that I found) are devoted entirely to 123, the others do make useful mentions of most elements up to around 126, and some trends (e.g. stability or lack thereof at N = 184) are explicitly described to consistently apply to different elements and nevertheless provide important context. This context may also be given in the broader extended periodic table, but I'm pretty sure our readers will not understand the finer points of relativistic effects or why some half-lives are predicted as they are without such context. Maybe, then, we should dump all the context into one place and remove it from 119-122 (and use Template:Further or Template:Main to not entirely omit background information)?

About 123, I agree that there isn't as much history as 122, 124, and 126, as no claims of natural occurrence or synthesis attempts have been made. This should not, however, preclude the inclusion of future work (e.g. talk of Bk + Fe, difficulties moving past 121), although the section could perhaps be shortened. Naming is the same across 119-122; does this mean it should not be included there either if it is a simple derivation from IUPAC rules? The predicted isotopes, however, do come from a devoted paper, and other papers with broader coverage show the same pattern. If there is not much more to say here, need there be more to say about the other elements? Finally, for chemistry, the inclusion of those values only in tables is very superficial, though the thesis (ref 1) may contain additional information explaining the determination of 123's electron configuration (though, as you stated, it may be too generic to merit inclusion). I do agree that these are only snippets here and there, but I believe that the amalgamation of all the information we have about 123 may be just enough for an article (or if not, a draft that is spared later work when more sources get published).

Per WP:Notability: I understand your arguments and feel inclined to search for more sources, but I feel everything combined plus the context may just be sufficient so as to not violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE and merit inclusion. If it's not ready, at least we'll have something to start from when it is.

I am not entirely sure where to draw the line in this case of undiscovered elements, though 124 and 126 definitely have something to say about them and I would give 123 and 127 a low pass. Even if they are WP:PERMASTUBS, the information would be gathered in one article rather than spread across extended periodic table, island of stability, magic number, etc. By this line of reasoning, 125 and 128 probably still will not pass, so I will save them for last or make only a list rather than developing an article. ComplexRational (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I also found this source which briefly mentions something non-trivial about 123: [1]

BTW, R8R, I'm not against your line of reasoning, it just appears to me that there is something. Any other thoughts? ComplexRational (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

One more interesting find: In ref 9 (Lodhi, available on Google Books), I found a table listing "nuclear reactions that have been tried for the synthesis of superheavy elements" for 110-126, but I cannot find any other source describing them, except possibly a brief mention in this one in French (calling Double sharp) - I will not include them until this is confirmed. ComplexRational (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that French article mentions that the reactions ²³⁸U+^66,68Zn and ²⁴³Am+^66,68Zn were attempted at Dubna; the latter is interesting, as then Z_target + Z_projectile = 125. It appears that E125 has attracted some interest too, as I would have expected for the first element after the 5g collapse: here is a 1988 calculation on E125F₆, and here are 2017 calculations on MF₆ hexafluorides (M = E125, E126, E127, E128, E129). It appears that superactinide hexafluorides do not use their 5g electrons much in bonding; the bonding is mostly between the highest 8p subshell on the superactinide and the 2p subshell of fluorine, unlike how uranium uses its 5f and 6d orbitals for bonding in UF₆. In this sense we might consider them to be "eka-uranides" as the chemically available electrons are 6f²8s²8p² (approximately) outside an [Og]5gⁿ core; we might also consider them to be far more like superlanthanides than like superactinides. For the isoelectronic 119-electron series, the configuration is [Og]8s¹ for E119 through E122, [Og]6f¹ for E123 and E124, and then [Og]5g¹ from E125 onwards. E125F₆ and E126F₆ are "weakly bonded complexes with a low dissociation energy"; however, the dissociation energy jumps upwards significantly at E127 and even more significantly at E129. The E125–F bond is mostly ionic, but the E129–F bond has more covalent character.

I do think that most of this material is better covered in extended periodic table than at any specific element article; even the coverage on the different isotopes and their likely decay modes could be put there for the elements that were considered in a table. E124 and E126 are what started this one, really: they seem the most promising to be more than permastubs, because of the old speculation of their natural occurrence, which must have provoked studies on their theoretical chemistry, even if it is probably going to be just "eka-U and eka-Pu".

(BTW, most of the work on the drafts was done by ComplexRational, not me. They are in my userspace but I haven't had much time to do much on them so far.) Double sharp (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Then probably we will only make full articles for 124 and 126 for now, there is indeed much more to say about those. We can discuss the chemistry of 123-129 (and this information on 5g electrons and bonding properties) and isotopes of 123-128 in extended periodic table, though we may need to split nuclear properties into two sections: islands of stability / magic numbers and specific predictions for each element. For the reactions targeting 122 and 125 (and any others we haven't found yet), a brief mention in extended periodic table will suffice. ComplexRational (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

It has not occurred to me that drafts can be made in advance way before those drafts have enough material to be released into the mainspace. Probably it does appear that elements 124 and 126 are noteworthy enough to deserve their own articles, judging from the table above---though I'd still prefer to have a look at it before these are released if that's possible.--R8R (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good, go ahead and take a look (124) (126), and leave us any comments here. ComplexRational (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Have there been any predictions of E124 and E126 geochemistry dating from the time they were thought to be possibly primordial? Double sharp (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I found nothing for 124 but this [2] for 126 looks useful; the two-page preview is most of the article (it is only 3 pages). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ComplexRational (talk • contribs) 22:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Double sharp and R8R: What's your take on the 124 and 126 drafts - are they ready for release? ComplexRational (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm very sorry for making you wait, I saw the previous notification on the day you pinged me, thought I'd reply tomorrow, and forgot about it. Now I left the notification unchecked so it reminds me of the ping. I'll read the drafts by the Friday evening; is that okay with you?--R8R (talk) 11:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@R8R: That's fine. I may also make a few small changes before then. ComplexRational (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I have not had enough time to expand the lead section for 124 (I also do not want to copy-paste from another article and just change numbers). If you would like to do that, go right ahead. ComplexRational (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

ComplexRational, please accept my apologies. It looks like I won't be able to take a look at it today. I was really going to make it today but due to RL commitments I got no sleep this night and need some sleep now. I'm sorry for all this disturbance; if you're getting annoyed, I see why. I'll try my best to make it up to you tomorrow.--R8R (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

No worries, R8R. In fact, now I had time to write that lead section. ComplexRational (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm reading 124 now; I'll have left comments on the talk pages of the respective drafts by the end of today.--R8R (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I started this thread with the idea of having a WP:ELEM-specific notability standard; that idea seems to have been rejected in favor of "I know it when I see it", that is to say, that we would draft articles and as a project reach a consensus as to when a particular element became notable enough to deserve its own article. That's OK by me; that my original idea ended up on the cutting floor is not disappointing to me at all - I am rather encouraged by the vigorous discussion that resulted even though it went in a direction I did not expect.

So if we declare that to be a consensus (and I can see no reason why not), the question remains, whe,re should the holding pen be located? I can see at least three ideas

1. Draft space e.g., Draft:Unbitrium or Draft:Element 123 -- would probably involve non-project members in a promotion discussion
2. User space, e.g., User:Double sharp/Unbitrium -- what we're currently doing, but it has an aura of WP:OWN
3. Project space, e.g., WP:WikiProject_Elements/Unbitrium -- Identifies the work with our project
4. Main space section, e.g., Undiscovered chemical elements § Unbitrium -- Makes partial info available to encyclopedia readers sooner rather than later

There is probably no strong reason to choose among the first three options, but for elements that aren't likely to be deserve their own article just yet, the fourth option seems ideal. Similar information is currently located at Extended periodic table, but that really doesn't seem right to me, since it is about the elements, not the PT extension. Any thoughts?YBG (talk) 08:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I support option 4 (the purpose is to gather and make known information, right), though I am also unsure where to separate content in these drafts from similar information located in extended periodic table. If we do pass this option, a few other elements (such as 164) may also deserve devoted sections in mainspace separate from the mountain of predictions in extended PT. ComplexRational (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@R8R and YBG: After making edits to extended periodic table and trying to avoid dumping everything about isotopes from the drafts in there, I see an even stronger reason for option 4; partial info would be element-specific and not overly detailed while keeping it navigable (I still think 100k is a bit too large for extended PT, BTW) without stuffing everything into e.g. a table that has lots of abbreviations and difficult syntax that will not help our readers, to say the least. ComplexRational (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

That confirms my sentiment expressed above. Do others agree with me that the article extended periodic table would be improved by focusing more on the PT itself and different models for its extension, with information about specific elements included only to support the main topic? Of course, I wouldn't want to remove the information already there until it finds anew home. I proposed undiscovered chemical elements, but I suspect there may be an even better article title. YBG (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is an interesting question. It does make some sense to have information on particular elements apart from the information on the extended table (like we keep information on particular elements separate from the main periodic table article. However, there is an important question we need to answer before doing that: what constitutes the concept (not just definition; to a little oversimplify things, we have articles on concepts, not definitions) of an element apart from atomic number/its position in the periodic table? Say, with the stable elements it is actually pretty easy to see: they have their macro-scale properties, abundances, histories, industrial uses, etc. None of that is available for the undiscovered elements like 123. Then when we figure that out, we could estimate how much information we actually have for a possible article and whether it's worth to establish one in the main space.

If we make an article in the project space, then this question is not yet important, but I understand it is less rewarding.--R8R (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

I have no opinion on this question, but I did remove the ""-quotes from the word 'magic number' [3]. -DePiep (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

I'd say: this is not systematically consistent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Outdated information: The links I provided, as well as simple article searches and this great repository, reveal that many isotopes have been discovered with decay properties determined, and they are not listed at all (e.g. ^216-218Pb, [4]) or have partially theoretical values (e.g. ²³³Cm, [5] (abstract only)) when more accurate data is available. I already updated a few pages but it is simply too great and undertaking for one user. I can create a user subpage with various sources I found if that will help.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The lists of isotopes for SHEs include several undiscovered isotopes in the gaps between known isotopes. Various sources give different (and inconsistent) values, and based on our comparative sentences, the source used ([6]) is probably incorrect on this. (Example: ²⁷⁶Hs - the link earlier gives 1.11 h, NUBASE 2016 gives 100 ms, GSI gives 46 ms, CN14 (JAEA) gives 17.5 ns, etc. - spanning 12 orders of magnitude!) As such, I believe undiscovered isotopes should be removed, as choosing one source over the others violates WP:NPOV whereas own comparison and analysis violates WP:OR. ComplexRational (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I support this removal; only experimentally known isotopes should be included. Double sharp (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Double sharp: I was re-reading Jensen’s article on the treatment of group 12, ref: [7]. Spectroscopically and chemically he observed that Be and Mg are more like Zn, as Mendeleev showed them, but they eventually ended up in group 2 on the grounds of their electron configs being similar to Ca etc. Is that how you understand it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•   Done [8] these two. See overview: use "+" in value "+2", and order low-to-high. Other changes (wrt prediction formatting, main indicators) are under discussion and not prejudiced. -DePiep (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

Og: −1, 0, +1, +2, +4, (predicted)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Done in live infoboxes: all predicted values have brackets (see meitnerium) [9]. (late sign: [10]): DePiep, 16 November 2018

See also the Overview list

• Standardised ~along the lines Double sharp described, for all (order low-to-high, use "+", just bold main OSs, always parenthesise predicted ones and add a note for this).

• Kept: "(predicted)" when all are, "(parenthesized: predicted)" when some are.

• Not applied: split into major/minor data entries, split order by major/minor, enlarge or color major OSs.

• Todo: align the list with article List of OS (tablecheck compare page).

Todo: write "parenthesiSed" when engvar=en-GB.

I am under impression the word parenthesis and its derivatives are less commonly used in British English than just brackets. Can anyone confirm/contradict this?--R8R (talk) 10:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Indeed: [11]. So: |engvar=en-GB, en-OED to write "bracket/ed" here. Being en-GB/OED, we can omit the "round" here I pose. -DePiep (talk) 10:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'll add my confirmation that in British English, ( and ) are brackets. If you want to be precise, they are round brackets, but I think you can drop the "round" if there are no other types of brackets around. "Parentheses" will probably be understood as the American usage is widespread, but it is definitely less common. Double sharp (talk) 10:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK then. An Engvar setting applies to the whole article, so when set to British the context (other spelling variants) are British too. -DePiep (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Done, see documentation. Articles affected: 0 having en-GB/OED in this ;-). -DePiep (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

How come? Phosphorus uses BrE.--R8R (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

And also thorium. And these two are just the ones I know, maybe there are also a few other ones. Why is your count 0?--R8R (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Only those elements are affected that have mixed OS's (known and predicted). See Overview list: only E104 Rf and above. But none of these mixed lists are in en-GB/OED. (Fl is, but has an all-predicted list of OS, and so does not have the "bracket" explanation; as described in bullet 2 "Kept" in my OP). HTH. Category:WikiProject Elements pages using ENGVAR (12) -DePiep (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see. Do note, however, that not all oxidation state lists are extensive: radon's, for instance, does not mention the future possibility of +4 and +8.--R8R (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

In that Rn case: an editor adds these predictions to the data list; will parenthesize them with round brackets; and will correctly add |comment=parenthesized in there to describe the meaning of those brackets. From here everything is easy & automated: would radon have set |engvar=en-GB (quod non), the infobox template will show text as expected in en-GB. The point of this whole OS data set is, that it is centralised and standardised. Good for checking consistency over the elements (done for elements, todo for OS list as mentioned), and reusability (in other articles). Same for engvar variants in element infoboxes: centralised, maintained, checked. -DePiep (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

The engvar effects in our element infoboxes are listed here. -DePiep (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Test: setting seaborgium into en-GB [12]; effect = as intended 'brackets'. (However. Test originally failed because {{Infobox seaborgium}} was not prepared for engvar}} ... now is. Would be a problem if such an article would switch engvar). -DePiep (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Todo: check for link-able oxidation states (single article).

-DePiep (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Opinion: I am still not happy with the reduced size (infobox=font-size:88%). With this size, the bold (major) OSs do not stand out enough on desktop screens. This 'hides' this important info. I prefer enlargement (example (b)=font-size:100%), not coloring.  YBG, you think we can pursue this once more without being too -whatstheword-? -DePiep (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Not sure what you mean by "whatstheword", or why you directed it to me in particular. No matter, it prompted me to think about it.

I am sympathetic about the concern about bold is not distinctive enough, but I have not actually checked it myself. As far as parens go, I'd prefer this:

• All OS predicted: (predicted)
• No OS predicted:
• Some of each: ( ) values are predictions

This nicely avoids the ENGVAR issue, but IMO more importantly, it is briefer. YBG (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

re: I pinged you because you mentioned the bad visibility of bold values (less distinctive) in these OS lists. -whatstheword- is like pushy, demanding, boring, flogging a dead horse. IOW: question may be dead by now.

re predictions: I see no need to add boldness or attention grabbing as you do here (bolding a word that is in brackets is contradicting, even). Also, writing italics (predicted) is gently used elsewhere too. Latter option "( ) ..." puts the note outside of brackets, while I prefer brackets for all (consistency). Preventing engvar is no aim, we can & do handle it. - DePiep (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

(demo references are here)

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

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

On page 1, it introduces "trans-organesson" [sic]. -DePiep (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Back in 2009, Jeffery Leigh from IUPAC said there is no such thing as an IUPAC approved periodic table.

I’ve been upholding that line for quite a while.

What Leigh seems to have overlooked is that there is an IUPAC *agreed* form of periodic table. You can find it on the inside cover of the IUPAC Red Book. It makes reference to the status of this table at page vii: "(That on the inside front cover is the current IUPAC-agreed version.)", and at page 51: "The groups of elements in the periodic table (see inside front cover) are numbered from 1 to 18." It's the same as the one appearing on the IUPAC web site.

I presume I should write an article for Chemistry International noting this apparent discrepancy between Leigh’s 2009 article and what IUPAC has actually published (and copyrighted). Sandbh (talk) 06:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Then when you write, please consider this. The Leigh [2009] publication says two things to be criticised.

  Point one, about long/short PTs:

• Short form [1871] = Mendeleev's OP (note the horizontal Reihe and the Latin-numbered groups)
• Long form [early 1900] = rearranging Reihen into periods. Includes: repetition of Reihe numbers like 'III'. Two Rehenmake one period. => required some "A/B" distinction.
• Then Seaborg came along [1945]. He added the An's and broke the old "long PT" format. He said, like: "Forget about PT lengths: add an f-group. Don't matter how you do it". I (DePiep) blame scientists like Leigh that they still use the "long PT form" wording in 2009 (64 years after 'Seaborg').

Let me, DePiep, conclude/state: "short PT" and "long PT" are pre-1945 concepts. Seeing people (serious scientists) struggle with the "extra long PT" concept or whatever. To make a statement: after Seaborg [1945], the long/short issue is outdated. It does not clarify anything. Also, and not irrelevant: it does not change the concept of the PT.

  Point two, Leigh writes this (bolding added):

The periodic table was developed from considerations of chemical properties and atomic weights and even then the latter arrangement was not without inconsistencies. Once the significance of atomic electronic configurations was realized, the table was adapted to be almost completely consistent with them

— Leigh [2009]

Leigh, why did you miss M's crucial tellurium/iodine swap he made, years before we knew atomic numbers? That was M's brilliance!

And also: whenever was the Periodic Table defined by electonic configuration? The ordering is: by atomic number. -DePiep (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

The ordering is defined by atomic number, but ordering alone is insufficient: decisions must be made concerning the circumstances under which (1) a new row of the PT should be started and (2) a gap should be inserted for vertical alignment. Atomic number by itself will not help anyone select between group 3 alternatives, much less those for period 8+. YBG (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes that is what the current PT does, but no: that is not what Leigh says in [2009]. Leigh does not mention "atomic weight atomic number (Z) in 2009, while Mendeleev boldly assumed it. Leigh really missed major points here. This when Sandbh refers to it wrt PT structure. - DePiep (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

More specific: when swapping tellurium/iodine (into right then-unknown atomic number order, but against then-known atomic weight order), Mendeleev assumed a mistake in atomic weight, he did not 'overrule'. (Scerri, 2007) -DePiep (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I started a discussion on a near word for word copy of parts of our chromium article on the talk page. Please have a look. --Stone (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

re Stone. Discussion is here (I assume); results invisible. Or did I miss something? (I'm serious) -DePiep (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I just read in the news, "Russia at the international level strives for that the periodic system of chemical elements officially bears the name of its creator -- Dmitry Mendeleev, declared the premier [=prime minister] of the RF [=Russian Federation] Dmitry Medvedev." (Here is the news itself (in Russian but you can run Google Translate if you're interested).

Medvedev also said he had been surprised upon learning that not everybody in the world called the periodic table "Mendeleev's table" (note that this is, indeed, by far the most common name for the periodic table in Russian).

So if you find out your kids found a Mendeleev's table instead of a periodic table on a wall of their chemistry classroom in school, you'll know it was Russia who set this up :)

No action is to be done, I just thought you might find this interesting.--R8R (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

A wonderful discovery, very great story in history of science, at the time and in hindsight. Mendeleev should be honored for this -- and is. But I'd prefer the wording "Periodic Table of Elements" (sometimes like "Das Periodensystem der Elemente" (de) -- not bad either) which mentions the three mayor components: periodicity, table/systematical layout, concerning the elements. How many introductionary lessons are solved in there? See also: DNA & Watson/Crick. -DePiep (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add: Evolution & Darwin. -DePiep (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Over at Talk:Extended periodic table § Expert tag, December 2011 there is a discussion about removing {{expert needed}}. Project members might be interested in participating. YBG (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Here are some other instances of {{expert needed}} that project members might be able to clear up:

• hastemplate:"Expert needed" linksto:"Chemical element" (8 hits)
• hastemplate:"Expert needed" linksto:"Periodic table" (5 hits)

Articles needing expert attention that link to chemical element and periodic table:

•  YExtended periodic table
•  ?Relativistic quantum chemistry

Articles needing expert attention that link to chemical element only:

•  ?Chemical synthesis
•  ?Neutron capture
•  ?Environmental radioactivity
•  ?Glossary of classical physics
•  ?Chemical state
•  ?Universal force field

Articles needing expert attention that link to periodic table only:

•  ?Light-independent reactions
•  ?Polarizability
•  ?Detection limit

After we've seen if we can take care of these, we might try some other searches. YBG (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Good essence list. My advise: read {{expert needed}} documentation, top paragraph, first. -DePiep (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, the documentation explicitly states that the tag should only be used for a specific issue. We may also want to rummage the talk archives for these pages to see if anything specific is covered there. At least for extended periodic table, I haven't found anything. ComplexRational (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply