Talk:Helium

Covalent radius
How does the concept of covalent radius make sense for helium, as it doesn't normally bond with anything? If it is based on a measurement of a bond in some actual helium compound, what is the compound? It seems like a reference is needed in the infobox.CountMacula (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm. In Covalent radius it says: Tabulated values of covalent radii are either average or idealized values, which nevertheless show a certain transferability between different situations, which makes them useful.  I suspect the idealized values part allows it. Note that on Covalent radius it has two (very) different values for helium. I suspect that not putting one on this page would be a good choice. Gah4 (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There are known bound ions containing helium, see Helium compounds. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to consider HeH+ to contain a H–He covalent bond, so these values make sense even without idealisation. The bigger problem to my mind is that the two values are very different, as says. Double sharp (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There are known bound ions containing helium, see Helium compounds. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to consider HeH+ to contain a H–He covalent bond, so these values make sense even without idealisation. The bigger problem to my mind is that the two values are very different, as says. Double sharp (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2023
Where they say that large amounts of helium-4 are made in stars, add to it "and a little more from alpha decaying radioactive materials" or some variation thereof. RealNamesAreFineZ.E.O (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Featured Article status
This very early FA needs improvement to keep its status; it has had two cleanup banners for years now, on citations and updates. The latter is especially troubling, with sentences such as "is expected to be largely depleted by 2021" and a lack of updates for issues such as conservation, the potential new molecular compounds, and applications usage. I will list this on WP:FARGIVEN, in case anyone wants to take it to FAR. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I see that the clean-up banners are still on the page. Would you be interested in evaluating the article to see if the banners should be removed, or do you want to nominate this to WP:FAR? Z1720 (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Isn't Helium p-block element
Many resources consider helium as p block element as it behaves like noble gas AdiDas5501 (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It is classified as an s block element because the last shell that is filled is the 1s shell. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 04:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Janssen not co-discoverer
The helium article should be edited in several places to correct the history of the observation of the line near D3. "Helium was first detected as an unknown, yellow spectral line signature in sunlight during a solar eclipse in 1868 by Georges Rayet,[14] Captain C. T. Haig,[15] Norman R. Pogson,[16] and Lieutenant John Herschel,[17] and was subsequently confirmed by French astronomer Jules Janssen.[18] Janssen is often jointly credited with detecting the element, along with Norman Lockyer. Janssen recorded the helium spectral line during the solar eclipse of 1868, while Lockyer observed it from Britain. "

This text is almost entirely wrong and needs to be rewritten. Rayet's report in no way can be interpreted to conclude that he saw a new line near the D line; see the quotation given. Haig's report is relatively vague, and the colors given do not correspond to that of the D3 line (which is yellow). Pogson's unpublished report is ambiguous and non-quantitative; he could not rule out that the line he saw was the D line itself. And Herschel concluded that the line he saw WAS the D line, not a new line. Ascribing any portion of the discovery of the line Lockyer called D3 is wishful thinking. F

Also, the following sentences should be removed: "The line was detected by French astronomer Jules Janssen during a total solar eclipse in Guntur, India.[26][27] This line was initially assumed to be sodium. " Janssen did NOT report this line in his 1868 letter to the French Academy, and the cited references (Kochhar and Emsley) do not provide compelling evidence to the contrary. For better references, which conclude that Janssen did not see this line before Lockyer, see Launay F (2008) The astronomer Jules Janssen—a globetrotter of celestial physics. Springer, New York, p 45 and Lockyer JN (1868) Spectroscopic observations of the sun—No. II. Phil Trans Roy Soc (London) 159:425–444 as well as the footnote in the Wikipedia text that begins "In his initial report to the French Academy of Sciences" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.141.64.252 (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)