Talk:Discovery of chemical elements/Archive 2

Including atomic numbers in this table would make it more useful.

Last natural element discovered?
This article says Francium was the "last naturally occurring element discovered" (1939), then says Astatine was discovered in 1940. But the article on Astatine says it is naturally occurring (in the second sentence). Could this apparent contradiction be fixed please? McKay 01:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Fr was the last element discovered in nature. At is naturally occuring but was discovered synthetically, so doesn't count. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Beryllium
I don't know much about the history of the discoveries of elements, so I don't know why berylium is listed twice: 1798 and 1828. Just thought I'd point that out to anyone who is interested in the subject and would like to research it. --DangApricot 03:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I just noticed this too. So far as I can see, the 1798 entry is Vauquelin's discovery of the oxide, and the 1828 entry is Wöhler and Bussy's independent first isolations of the metal. Now the introduction says "The elements are listed generally in the order in which each was first defined as the pure element", but then I'm not at all sure what that actually means. I suspect that the elements mentioned up to and including the first half of the 19th century had by no means all been obtained 'pure' - so where does that leave us? Given that sodium and suchlike are listed for first isolation of the metals, even though (AFAIK) chemists had been sure that the alkali metal salts did contain metals, that would lead us to prefer the later date and we should remove the earlier one. Opinions? Kay Dekker 01:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ununoctium
Ununoctium appears to have been discovered twice. There should be only one instance of discovery on the chart, right? - Unsigned

Oxygen
Should it perhaps be noted that Scheele discovered oxygen a few years earlier than Priestly, but did not publish the discovery until 1777? On the page Carl Wilhelm Scheele it is also stated that he "also discovered other chemical elements such as barium (1774), chlorine (1774), manganese (1774), molybdenum (1778), and tungsten (1781)". This is in disagreement with what is said in these tables. Myself, I am not familiar enough with the history to be of much help, but it seems to me both pages cannot be right... Osquar F 13:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That should be clarified, yes. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 02:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Gold is missing from the list of elements known in antiquity.

John Woodruff

Time-line Table of elements?
Just an idea - you could make a table of elements colour coded with the century of discovery ... e.g. dull (e.g. grey) for anciently discovered and bright (e.g. red) for more recent. Just to add a splash of colour, may be there is a nice trend -- Quantockgoblin 07:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Text boxes
I think it would look a lot better if you fixed the width of all the text boxes so that they all line up - i.e. when scanning down the list it is a little distracting at the moment -- Quantockgoblin 10:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Old names and symbols
I think it might be nice if you could include the modern symbols e.g. H and the ancient symbol used in alchemy. Also if there is an ancient name give that too? -- just an idea -- Quantockgoblin 10:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Splash of colour
You could also consider adding pics of the chemical elements in one of the columns. -- Quantockgoblin 12:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Antiquity elements
The first section on the elements has a huge amount of repetition; perhaps even a table is unnecessary here? I assume the table is given to be in a more consistent format with the rest of the article, but maybe there is enough reason to just state something like the following: 'The following elements were discovered in antiquity (discoverers being unknown)ref1 ref2. Thanks. MP (talk•contribs) 11:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Poll/request for feedback
I've listed this article because I am stumped about an essential feature of the article/list: I am not sure how to define the discovery date. Here are some cases I have stumped onto (I am talking mostly about the Recorded discoveries section):
 * 1) many early elements are noticed/discovered by someone, but there is not a good definition of chemical element available to label as such; also, there was no academic community to accept these discoveries;
 * 2) many elements were discovered by someone but they did not care enough to advertize their discoveries (i.e. palladium) or simply did not get to publish it fast enough; meanwhile others have published similar discoveries, and not in every case the latter recognized the discovery of the first person;
 * 3) some elements were discovered obscurely but never got any attention; nevertheless, scientific assesments suggest veridicity of results (I cannot think of a better example right now, but technetium is a good example);
 * 4) some rare elements were discovered, but I am not sure they were actually truly isolated; for example some rare earths wewre probably isolated in small quantities, but there might be no report besides the initial discovery (heaviest radioactive elements fall in this category also)
 * 5) some elements were almost surely known to exist before they were isolated; for example F isolation from HF had been attempted for a very long time before it was actually done; is isolation=discovery in this case?
 * 6) some elements were prepared very impure; later, others got the credit for doing the separation the same way, but at higher purity (i.e. silicon); who is the winner?
 * 7) more to be added! I don't care about MOS or text yet. I just want to know what should I use as a principal date.

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I would suggest to report the first recorded date of discovery or mention of the element. If it looks like whoever mentionned the element first did not consider it a "discovery", then place a footnote or something saying that this is only the first report of an element, rather than the actual date of discovery.
 * Also I wouldn't call isolation = discovery. If they knew an element was in a molecule, then the element was discovered.
 * First persons to create the element wins. Give mention the second person if you feel its important
 * Hope that helps. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 01:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say to always list in order of discovery, not isolation. If the isolation date is significantly later than the discovery date, then it's worth mentioning including. As for the early elements, I don't think that an early lack of knowledge about chemistry really matters. So long as someone recognizes an element as a distinct substance, as with copper, that counts as a discovery. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've decided to have first characterization/mention/experiment that determined there is a new element/compound; first publication of results (that appeared in a journal, that ended up being widely accepted), and first isolation of the element (widely recognized). But is still have problems. Here's a typical example, arsenic:

Geber would clearly fit in the first category, but his works did not spread. Magnus's results seemed to be more spread, so he could fit for the second. Schroder's result definitived the debate and obtained the metal clearly. Lavoisier named this metal as element. Who should fit where? Nergaal (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * first discovered by Geber
 * Albertus Magnus around 1200 proved that there was a metallic substance obtained from arsenic oxides. "However, his documentation is considered vague" but people in the Middle Ages seemed to name this substance.
 * It was not until 1649 that Johann Schröder (1600-1664) clearly reported the preparation of metallic
 * Lavoisier was the first to state that metals are elements, not compounds.


 * Hi Nergaal, thanks for inviting me to the discussion. Personally, I think that adding more columns might not be necessary, as the Notes section already deals with the same information. In the case of arsenic for example, Geber's works were actually quite widespread among both medieval Arabic and European alchemists. Since the works of both Geber and Albertus Magnus were widespread, I don't think it's necessary to have a column about who should get credit for making the substance more widesptead. Of course, neither of them recognized it as an 'element', so I do think it would be a good idea to have a column for the first person to recognize it as an element, as with Lavoisier in a number of cases. In my opinion, I think the "First report of characterization (widely recognized)" and "First person to report characterization (usually accepted discoverer)" columns should be replaced by something like "First person to recognize as element". Jagged 85 (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Did gold or silver come first?
The dates given in the article contradict the comment as to which came first. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I see that this has been fixed now. Thanks. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Diamond or coal?
Although pure carbon (Allotropes of carbon) is best known as either graphite or diamond, coal is mostly carbon and has been known much longer. So why is not coal listed as the first known instance of elemental carbon? JRSpriggs (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Or charcoal, for that matter? —WWoods (talk) 02:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I see that this has been fixed now. Thanks. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Chromium
Really, discovered by the terracotta army? 69.198.107.229 (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Table formatting?
Trying to cram all that Notes text into a narrow column messes up the table. How about something like this instead: That loses the "sortable" feature, however. —WWoods (talk) 06:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks better but... I wanted to add all three dates and all three people because of the sort function. If you find a way to make sort still work, regardless of the way the table looks, I am totally for it! Nergaal (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I came here following a plea for help at Help talk:Table. I guess I don't see the problem that you're trying to correct.  Clearly there are problems above, but everything looks fine on the article page at browser widths from 2048 down to 1024 pixels.  Narrower than that—down to 600 to 800—it's a bit "scrunchy" but still quite usable. —EncMstr (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The table on the page is quite cramped. I was thinking the table here looks much bettter, but loses the sort function. Is it possible to have a table like this with sort function? Nergaal (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is. Once the rows have multiple meanings like that, there's no way to sort sensibly.  If it were my task, I'd concentrate on making the narrow columns narrower, like using a shorter word than characterization for the two columns in Recorded discoveries.  Maybe use fewer columns?  —EncMstr (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How can I make the table with a width of 150%, or say 800px? This woulld sove teh cramping and would make the table still usable. Nergaal (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend eliminating the "Report of characterization" and "Person who widely reported first characterization" columns entirely. The only entry that uses either one of these columns is the first one (arsenic), and even there the "Report of characterization" column only has a question mark in it--not exactly vital information. It would free up a lot of column space to just eliminate both; if there's a desire to keep the reference to Albertus Magnus for arsenic, then just make a footnote of it under the "Observer" column. The Rev (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

help
can somebody open this article: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/114234977/abstract Pleaaase `Nergaal (talk) 11:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I might get it! --Stone (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry its pay per view also for academic institutions in Germany.--Stone (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Order
What's the default order of the elements? If it's by "First observed", then Manganese (1770) and Barium (1772) are out of place. If by "First isolation", then Bismuth (1753), Zinc (1746), Magnesium (1808), Hydrogen (1500(ca.)), Barium (1808), and Tellurium (1795?). Also, the names are sorting by first name rather than last. I think there's some way of putting in a sort key, so that e.g. "Franz-Joseph Müller von Reichenstein" is sorted by "Reichenstein", but I don't know how that works. —WWoods (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the sorting order is independent of what is displayed by using the sort template. Instead of Franz-Joseph...Reichenstein, write  Franz-Joseph...Reichenstein .  That is, . —EncMstr (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Looking into it, I see there's also sortname, which'd save a bit of copy&pasting:  Reichenstein 
 * —WWoods (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Discover
The key question is: Who discovered the elemet? I have the problem with the definition of discovery.
 * Fluorine was known as a element for very long time and used acordingly. So who discovered it? Some alchemist or early chemist I would suggest. Fore sure not Moissan.
 * For my impression Molybdenum and Fluorine and some others are treated very different:
 * Molybdenum was discovered by Scheele although he only suggested the composition of Molybdena.
 * Fluorine was discoverd by Moissan because he first isolated it.
 * Lithium was first isolated as element by William Thomas Brande but Arfwedson discovered it
 * Zinc was used in ancient india but not identivied as an element, so knowing it but not stating it is an element makes you not discover it.
 * Copper was found by some ancient tribes 6000 BC but who suggested first that this is an elemenmt?
 * Had Geber already the concept of elemet when he isolated arsenic? If not he does not qualify as discoverer like the producers of zic in india.

For me this long list incorporates a lot of difficult to answer questions which would be best answered in an text, because a list is not capable to do the trick of giving explanations.--Stone (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all the table is not fully updated, so feel free to update it. I agree the answer is hard to give. I had created most of the text of the article when I noticed this. I even opened some sort of a poll up here to try to brainstorm on this issue. Nevertheless, simply going to a text is not the best option since this table has a huge potential in terms of sorting. Also, the first part is different from the recorded discovies.

My suggestion was to very clearly state 3 categories: one was first observer or predictor (i.e. discovery of HF or the first statement that HF includes a new element would count here for F); first published result which received wide aknowledgement (this would be hard for the early elements, but it should include the date the discovery was either put in a report or a book - i.e. first person to say that there is a new element and here is its spectra/characterisation); and first person to isolate+characterize the elemental form (i.e. publish a result saying here is how to get gaseous F2). These are all suggestions. Once several clear classifications are found, this list would look great. Nergaal (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I prefer just simply having two categories: the first observer or predictor, and the first isolator or characterizor. I really don't see any reason why the wide aknowledgement category is necessary, especially in regards to ancient and medieval times when discoveries were limited to certain regions. If there are some cases where it's necessary to point out the first wide aknowledgement, then the Notes section can explain it, instead of having an extra column for it. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I also think that the Indians should be recognized as the first observers of zinc, as they were clearly aware of zinc and built the first zinc mines. It seems a bit odd that the ancients are recognized as the first observers for the other elements, but not for zinc. Also, the only elements from the list that were referred to as 'elements' in medieval times were sulfur and mercury by Geber. The rest were not identified as 'elements' until Lavoiser. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Graph
It would be interesting to see a time graph of the discoveries to get a sense of how quickly/slowly the discovery of chemical elements occured. Suntag (talk) 04:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be great! Any takers for this job? Nergaal (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.mpoweruk.com/elements.htm Nergaal (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * http://periodictable.com/Properties/A/DiscoveryYear.html 65.80.178.227 (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have made this:
 * Known-elements-1700-2000.png


 * Soerfm (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sulfur/ Mecury
These are not identified as "elements" in the chemical sense by Jabir/Geber. In their pure (philosophical) state they are "principles" in the theory of metallogenesis. Please see The Mineral Exhaltation Theory of Metallogenesis in Pre-Modern Mineral Science Ambix Vol. 53, No. 1 March 2006 Pgs 43-65

J8079s (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)