Template talk:Infobox element/Archive 3

To remove pronunciations for specific elements
This proposal is to discuss and conclude on removing all pronunciation from specific element articles. (Remove all IPA and respell pronunciation completely from individual elements' infobox). Such a removal should be done in compliance with WP:PRON, WP:LEAD, MOS:LEADPRON. The applicable guideline is:
 * "For English words and names, pronunciation should normally be omitted for common words or when obvious from the spelling".

This is not a proposal to remove or add any pronunciation. This is not about improving the pronunciation spelling (improve transcription). This is not interfering with the RfC regarding use of Respell key for the names of elements.
 * This is not

The process I propose is straightforward: per element: from "default=keep", to "list for removal", to "discuss". All conclusions are per individual element (no blanket removals).
 * The process
 * Default is: keep pronunciation.
 * From here on, any removal requires explicit consensus through this section (as a safe line against edit warring, etc.).
 * Each element can be added to the list "", per the guideline quoted. No further arguments needed.
 * When any editor wants to dispute or discuss an element (for whichever outcome), move it to the section  and add argumentation. Once in that section, explicit consensus should be reached by discussion.
 * Each element mentioned here should be up here at least one week, to allow discussion.

Also:
 * Note that one element can appear only once here: either as "undisputed" or "discussed". Default "keep" are not listed at all.
 * No conclusion can be reached here on off-topic issues, such as items in a pronunciation (for example, the Respell item in the pronunciation). -DePiep (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

General notes
About the process -DePiep (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd like to see that even for the obvious ones we have a written consensus here. Will do no harm.
 * I strongly ask to stay on topic. Especially let's prevent deviating into the RfC issue(s).

Considerations to keep pronunciation. Thoughts: -DePiep (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The name has a foreign language background. Example: Roentgenium after Wilhelm Röntgen (Röntgen)
 * IUPAC systematic element name, a constructed word. Example: Ununennium
 * The name has relevant pronunciation variants (not being WP:RHOTIC).


 * Perhaps one could argue that a few other common metals can go without pron: sodium, calcium, chromium, and perhaps a few more.--R8R (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Foreign language background, by itself does not convince me that a pronunciation guide is necessary. YBG (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Then, circumstances can tip the scale. For example, uncommon spelling, and/or foreign pron origin. -DePiep (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the way this thread is developing. -DePiep (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought the idea was that pronunciations are kept by default. Is there any specific reason you've added discussions for elements which you have "no opinion" about? Nardog (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's because for a few (like phosphorus and bismuth) I can see some arguments in favour of deletion that I am not sure whether I am swayed by or not, and I wanted some feedback to see the community consensus. Obviously I wouldn't start one for something like "caesium"; that would be fairly absurd, and I would have an opinion about that anyway (an obvious keep). (Also, DePiep started one for boron, so I thought a few more for some ancient elements might make sense.) Double sharp (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I understand now. Nardog (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Elements that keep pronunciation

 * By default, elements keep their pronunciation(s) in their infobox. Do not list them here.

Elements to have pronunciation removed

 * Elements listed here will have their pronunciation(s) removed per WP:PRON:
 * "For English words and names, pronunciation should normally be omitted for common words or when obvious from the spelling".
 * Elements should be here at least one week.
 * After one week, all pronunciation will be removed for that element: IPA, Respell, all variants. No further argumentation needed.
 * If you want to dispute or discuss a certain removal, then move that element to the section below and start a discussion.


 * 1) Gold -DePiep (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Silver -DePiep (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Tin -DePiep (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) Iron -DePiep (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 5) Carbon -DePiep (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Oxygen -DePiep (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) Neon -DePiep (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 8) Argon discussed below
 * 9) Arsenic discussed below
 * 10) Copper--R8R (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 11) Mercury--R8R (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 12) Hydrogen--R8R (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 13) Nitrogen--R8R (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 14) Nickel--YBG (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 15) Radon discussed below
 * 16) Sulfur--YBG (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 17) Zinc--YBG (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 18) Sodium--YBG (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 19) Calcium--YBG (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 20) Chromium--YBG (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Closed for these 17 elements: pronunciation to be removed. (ipa1 done), (respell1 done). No prejudice regarding other, non-listed elements (in other words: below, discussion can continue). Closed by involved editor. -DePiep (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Neon has been reopened, see . -DePiep (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Discuss removal of pronunciation

 * Discussion per individual element. List elements here for discussion. Please state clear whether you want "keep" or "remove" pronunciation.

Aluminium

 * Keep Has two different spellings of different pronunciation. --R8R (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per R8R YBG (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per R8R. Double sharp (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Halogens [-ine]: Fluorine, Chlorine, Bromine, Iodine, Astatine, Tennessine

 * Keep The "-ine" ending can be pronounced differently.--R8R (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep pron, per R8R. -DePiep (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep As these elements are counterexamples of the common rule about lengthening the vowel before a silent "e". YBG (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per R8R. The problem is that depending on who is speaking, some of these (e.g. I, At, Ts) might or might not be counterexamples to the silent "e" rule. Double sharp (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Xenon

 * Keep The starting "x" is pronounced as /z/. Not unique for English, but it's safer to keep the pron.--R8R (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I can think of no initial "x" that is pronounced differently except for "X-Ray" which hardly applies. YBG (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There's also the upcoming X-mas :) And the X-ing.
 * And xi (the Greek letter) is pronounced either /saɪ/ or /ksaɪ/; xu (the Vietnamese coin) is pronounced /suː/; xat (a carved totem pole) is pronounced /kat/; xeer (traditional Somalian legal system) is pronounced /he:r/; xiao (a traditional Chinese flute) is pronounced /ʃau/; Xhosa (a South African people and language) is usually pronounced /kosa/. The name Xia is different ("x" is pronounced as /ʃ/). These are very rare examples, sure, but also very much so is "x" at the beginning of an English words, and this is perhaps the most important point of all, especially since when the word doesn't begin with an "x" but still has one, the "x" is pronounced differently. Also please take a look at this struggle of an Australian to pronounce a word with an initial "x". Given all the above, I don't think it's that bad of an idea to remind the reader that the word starts with a /z/ sound.--R8R (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * All of the examples given are either (a) unusual foreign words or (b) words where the 'X' is separated from the rest of the word to indicate that it is clearly to be pronounced as the name of the letter rather than as the sound that the letter represents. For example, a-frame doesn't suggest that we should pronounce the first letter of "argon" with a long a; h-beam doesn't incline us think that "hydrogen" should begin with the sounds ; s-curve doesn't make us put a vowel sound before the "s" in "silicon", and c-clamp certainly doesn't cause us to pronounce "carbon" with three syllables. And I haven't even started.  There's also d-ring, g-string, i-beam, l-train, o-ring, t-shirt, and v-neck.  (J stroke can be ignored as no elements begin with "J".) And for the fact that "x" is pronounced very differently word-initially from -medially or -finally, I don't think anyone would use that argument to require pronunciation for all elements beginning with "r" or "w" which have very different pronunciations initially than finally. So I remain opposed to instituting a rule that says that every element that begins with "x" must  have a pronunciation key. But of course I will abide by a consensus! YBG (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Foreign word for starters, and the opening x (also foreign by itself) has no common English recognition for pronunciation. All opening-x words are foreign and so not common in this sense. - DePiep (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To make it clear, I was not at all serious about X-mas or X-ray or X-whatever. DePiep is absolutely correct though: "x" as /z/ is a feature seen exclusively in words borrowed from Greek.--R8R (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Afterthoughts. "X-ray" is a good example though, of one more pronunciation form of an opening "x" (say "iks"?) in English. As when citing the alphabet: "v, w, x, y, z". Other form of pronunciation in English: xenon (/z/, apparently) and xanadu (s-sound; from Chinese). So there is not a common one. (A common form in English example I can think of: "taxi", not applicable here). -DePiep (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Because it has alternate pronunciations. YBG (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ... and to emphasize that -on is not pronounced as in "carbon". YBG (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. First of all, has two pronunciations so there clearly is not a common one. Then, it is a foreign word by origin, and with an opening "X" that has no common English pronunciation at all (see serious the variants R8R lists for this opening x). -DePiep (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Initial  in words of Greek origin is usually /z/ (though for xi I imagine the foreign initial cluster /ks/ gets used to avoid a collision with psi), so that's not the problem: I think the alternate pronunciations plus the -on ending is the important thing here. Double sharp (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * By this argument, incidentally, I would think that the pronunciation for neon might be restored, because the "-on" there is also not like "carbon". It is a more common word, but I think this confusion is worth avoiding. Double sharp (talk) 14:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead

 * Keep pronunciation. See wikt:lead: Mispronunciation introduces different word & meaning: /lɛd/ vs. /liːd/ . (lead vs. lede).-DePiep (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Homographs need to have explicit pronunciation to avoid ambiguity YBG (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per YBG. Double sharp (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - the pronunciation isn't very obvious. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Ununennium

 * Keep pronunciation, constructed word, by IUPAC systematic element name. -DePiep (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep IUPAC systematic names are neither familiar nor obvious how to pronounce. YBG (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per YBG. Double sharp (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Unbinilium

 * Keep pronunciation, constructed word, by IUPAC systematic element name. -DePiep (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep IUPAC systematic names are neither familiar nor obvious how to pronounce. YBG (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per YBG. Double sharp (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Unbiunium

 * Keep pronunciation, constructed word, by IUPAC systematic element name. -DePiep (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep IUPAC systematic names are neither familiar nor obvious how to pronounce. YBG (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per YBG. Double sharp (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Arsenic

 * Keep. Has two pronunciations (including stress shift). Even if the derived one would be removed, we need pronunciation to clarify which syllable in the noun is stressed. -DePiep (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. As UK=/=US. Note that both UK and US pronunciations currently show stress on the first syllable. YBG (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Having UK=/=US not always is a reason to add both pronunciations. See WP:RHOTIC. Cold you clarify on whether this is the case here? Also, pls what with the adjective variant existing and so better, to be clear, adding the pronunciation(s)? -DePiep (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Granted. By US=/=UK, I meant a significant non-rhotic difference. But now that I've looked at wikt:arsenic again, there doesn't seem to be a significant UK/US difference. The difference in stress is between the noun and the adjective; hence I'm cancelling the !vote above and replacing it with the !vote below. YBG (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (so: YBG struck and re-!voted below, 'keep'. -DePiep (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC))


 * Keep because noun ARsenic and adjective arSENic are stressed differently. (same !vote, different reason) YBG (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per YBG. Double sharp (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Argon

 * Keep. Being pronounced and not, unlike carbon, by itself warrants a notation IMO. Nardog (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. To emphasize that -on is not pronounced as in "carbon". YBG (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per YBG. Double sharp (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per all of the above. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Radon

 * Keep. Not intuitive or common enough. I would probably pronounce it if I first encountered the spelling. Nardog (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. To emphasize that -on is not pronounced as in "carbon". YBG (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per YBG. Double sharp (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per all of the above. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Boron

 * No opinion, but experts might take a look at this for being common and unambiguous. -DePiep (talk) 10:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, to emphasise that -on is /ɒn/, not /ən/ as in carbon. Double sharp (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Double Sharp. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Silicon

 * Keep. Even though this has /ən/ like carbon, this is useful to stop people from conflating it with silicone. Double sharp (talk) 14:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Double sharp. Nardog (talk) 14:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Double sharp. If silicone was not a word, we could safely remove the IPA. But it is a word and people can conflate it with silicon. Mr KEBAB (talk) 14:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Phosphorus

 * No opinion on this one. It's a rather common name, but the spelling is a little complicated. What do others think? Double sharp (talk) 14:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove It is only spelling, not pronunciation, that is complicated. It is difficult or impossible to predict that /f/ is spelled 'ph', but easy to predict that 'ph' is pronounced /f/. YBG (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * According to Twenty-five Thousand Words Frequently Mispronounced, phosphorus is commonly mispronounced. (The book is a century old and 25,000 is quite a number, but I'm still concerned.)--R8R (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although being a non-native speaker of English I can't comment on how common this word is, I'd say keep because the stress position of a trisyllabic noun is not that predictable (cf. thesaurus). Nardog (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nardog: stress position alone is decisive. - DePiep (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Antimony

 * Keep; it may be an ancient element (which is the only reason I brought it up in the first place), but even now I'm not sure how I'm supposed to pronounce this one. Our pronunciation guides (US and UK) stress the first syllable, but here on Periodic Videos is Prof. Peter Licence stressing the second: so clearly the situation is hopelessly confused, and we need more pronunciation guides. Double sharp (talk) 14:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Bismuth

 * No opinion on this one. The s sounding as /z/ is predictable, I suppose, and is pretty much bound to happen via assimilation anyway; but is the reduction of the second-syllable vowel to schwa obvious? Double sharp (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Although I don't feel particularly one way or the other, I'd say keep simply because are all distinct possibilities based on the spelling. Nardog (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Neon

 * Restore  (though previously deleted), like the other element names where final written "-on" is /ɒn/ and not /ən/ as in carbon; although this is a reasonably common word (neon lighting), it is still fairly ambiguous in spelling, like lead. Double sharp (talk) 14:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear what you mean by "ambiguous in spelling". Certainly you don't mean that it has a common homograph, which is the thing most in focus with lead, but what do you mean? YBG (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Same question here. I read it meaning: "pronunciation is not clear from spelling", which says it all. -DePiep (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * DePiep got my meaning right: it's not really predictable from the spelling whether the o will be reduced to schwa. For lead, even if there was not a homograph, it would still be unclear if the "ea" was to be pronounced as in "bead" or as in "head", and that's the kind of ambiguity I was referring to. Double sharp (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep removed  as it's a relatively common word. As much as I was the first one to say "being pronounced  and not, unlike carbon, by itself warrants a notation", I don't think there's a point in applying it indiscriminately (and that was argon, which is somewhat similar to carbon). Words spelled -on being pronounced  is not a universal (it could also be  or ), so with that logic the pronunciation for carbon would also need to be restored. Nardog (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep removed  It is a common word with no alternate pronunciations. Those uncertain can refer to wiktionary. This train of thought may cause me to reconsider some of my previous -on !votes. YBG (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Restore, as Double sharp says. After all, it still is a foreign word, showing non-English spelling. The "e-o" double vowel =  two syllables is not English. After 100+ years, it still can not be spoken-from-spelling. (the "carbon" example, mentioned, is not similar enough: spelling shows syllables. Sure 'otherstuffexists'). Nicely, Double sharp pointed that the spelling is ambigous re pronunciuation. So it is not my misunderstanding. -DePiep (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Content changes in pronunciation
, it appears that you have made content changes to the pronunciations, for example the thirtd pair has been removed. Please list the changes for discussion. -DePiep (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My changes are mostly maintenance, such as completing respellings and making sure they agree with the IPA, and shortening e.g. ", " into " ". The third pairs (which were few anyway) were removed as a result of this, but the number of variants has not been decreased except for a few of which I couldn't find evidence in dictionaries. Nardog (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See also Iodine: from three to one. -DePiep (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I am making some technical edits to this set of subtemplates. Mainly, preferred use of symbol, item instead of 1, 2. -DePiep (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Format changes made:
 * Respell is enclosed in brackets. This is to create distinction between IPA-string and  respell-string. This also nicely strengthens the notion that respell is subordinate to IPA. Helps in any situation (single IPA, double IPA).
 * When single IPA, unbulleted list is not used, nor respell indention. does not work out well in mobile view, so better not use when not needed (it has no bullets, but still does indent and so disrupt the data-column lefthand alignment). Also, when only one IPA + respell is present, indention does not help or clarify (the opposite: when in newline, the syllables are ~above each other).
 * Unfortunately, in my mobile view a longer respell like Tellurium still may break in-word (instead of using at the before-space). IMO this is a minor inconveniance, and difficult to prevent, since mobile formatting is hard to handl;e OK in all cases. -DePiep (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Alt name and pronunciation ordering
I reverted this edit by. The ES says that if we have an alt name, the (single) pronunciation field covers both and so should be below that 2nd name.

I don't think this is the right principle. Pronunciation should be as close to the pronounced word as possible, preventing any confusion or searching. So it should be in top closest to the formal element name (even above the image, could be argued). Then, if there is a second name pronunciation to be added, that should go with the alt name parameter: again closest possible to the word it is about.

I see three different situations. Note that this is about where to put any pronunciation, not whether it should be added.
 * Example of good: wolfram.
 * Example of has alt name, but no different pronunciation: sulphur, cesium. I'd say no pronunciation with these spelling differences, but PRON knowledge may say different. So: if wp:pron guidelines concludes to add pronunciation, add it to the alt name.
 * Example aluminum: depends. How does an American pronounce "aluminIum"? If US-pron anyway, then the two pronunciations could stay together (two for the title word, as today). If the American speech is "aluminIum" when spelled "aluminIum", then split the pronunciation (add one to the US alt name).

There are no other element infoboxes with alt name. -DePiep (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree that pronunciation should immediately follow the name. However, if pronounciation is the first thing, then alt names is sort of a zeroth thing, a continuation of the title (name). For example, country articles include native names directly in the titles of their infoboxes. And so is important to realize that an element may have multiple names and if that is the case, we should introduce the names we are going to pronounce before we pronounce them. It is more important to tell what the element is even named before we get to discuss how this name or these names is/are pronounced. Once that is established, we should immediately proceed to pronounciation, but only then. It is in fact likely that any element will be searched by its written name rather than pronunciation keys, so that argument in fact favors alt names first. However important pronunciations are, names are more important.--R8R (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * First replies.
 * I disagree that pron is comparable in importance to local names, synonyms, &tc. Pron is less important, and must be treated as such.
 * See Hypoglycemia for the placement of synonyms (synonyms, not pron).
 * Listing alt names is good, but that does not have any, any claim on their pron position. ("alt name is important, thus so is their pron"???) C'mon. See the synonym example.
 * The aim "pron should be near the word it is about" is OK in general. But it comes from the age that pron was in the lede sentence (inline text). Since we moved it to the infobox (making everybody happy), that principle should be rethought. Because: this induced that the pron must be near/below the infobox title, sort of. This is too much of a burden (by nice page design & presentation). It must be near sure, but in infobox situations we are free to find a new, different solution. Also, quite important: the infobox top image is there! It was not there when pron was in-line!
 * The image is a weird thing in this. pron below image?
 * The proposal you state still has this order:

element name (title) image alt name pron alt name pron name
 * IOW: pron of the title is split from its word! Even worse: alt name & alt-name pron are in between!
 * - DePiep (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I totally forgot to respond. My apologies. I will soon.--R8R (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Take your time. I've rethought all this meanwhile, and I am still very convinced. -DePiep (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

As for my proposal: you're reading into my words a bit too much. What I said was only that we should have the alternative name before pronunciations (of both). If I was to continue the infobox from there, I go with this: element name (title) image alt name pron for both (see Template:Infobox_aluminium for an example)

or this: element name (title) alt name pron for both image The latter makes more sense to me, though I wouldn't exactly oppose the former, either.--R8R (talk) 09:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2018
The title of the infobox section containing miscellaneous items is labeled "Miscellanea". Please change this to "Other Properties" or "Other". The item in question is "header100 = Miscellanea".

Reasoning: 1) Though a reasonable title for this section, the label "Miscellanea" is a term that is likely to be outside of the vocabulary of a majority of even native English readers, but especially non-native readers. Changing this label would increase the readability of the infobox to include a much wider audience.

2) Labeling the section "Miscellaneous" or "Miscellaneous Properties" would be a significant improvement, as the adjective form is in widespread and frequent use in English writing, however...

3) Considering that this section is meant as a sort of catch-all for any property not included in the other "X Properties" categories, it is more appropriate to label these items as "other" than "miscellaneous", as it is not an assortment of various items from various sections as the term "miscellaneous" properly implies, but a selection of items other than those falling under any other category. Lumentex (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ - DePiep (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Specttra cropped at too short a wavelength
The spectra shown in the infoboxes for chemical elements are cropped too early, in the yellow/green part of the spectrum; hence elements with characteristic lines in the yellow-red region do not show those distinctive features. Some examples: -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Neon should show Neon spectrum visible.png but actually shows
 * Sodium should show Sodium spectrum visible.png but actually shows
 * Rubidium should show Rubidium spectrum visible.png but actually shows
 * Shown ok in Spectral_line. -DePiep (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * . For some dark reason a cropping template was used. They look really nicer now., thanks for the report. -DePiep (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * for fixing it. But please don't put blank lines into lists. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "aluminum"
For the record, I have changed the pronunciation of "aluminum" per an edit request made at Template talk:Infobox aluminium. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 10:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Checking temperatures
I have added Check temperatures to the infoboxes. It compares the three temperatures (K, C, F) input versus, and reports when different. Does so for b.p. and m.p. No effects in mainspace. Report category is. -DePiep (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Element membership list

 * Per suggestion by, we want to develop a list per element that says:
 * "Element Xx is member of the following sets: ..." (like: metalloids, noble metals).
 * A "set" can be any group classification of elements ('category' is in use on this wiki).
 * However. To prevent creating unlimited lists, we better not categorise by individual property (not "synthetic", "fluid at r.t."). It shoud be by shared property not just same.
 * So please add set names to each element below, as appropriate.
 * When fleshed out and stable, we can make this into the infobox and other reuses (automated, well formatted).
 * When in doubt, use singular ("Element Xx is a ...").


 * To develop
 * 1) Add set names to each element (complete the list -- basic task)
 * 2) !!! how to handle bordercases/uncertainties? ("member of metalloids, 30% disputed")
 * 3) Vet possible sets. (why not "synthetic element"?)
 * 4) Decide: singular ("Po is a metalloid") or plural (?"metalloids")
 * 5) Useful format options (+/- wikilink, bl ubl flatlist, refs)


 * -DePiep (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Set names
Set names accepted (ie general categories, not just the enwiki "categories)". Under development, up for discussion. Pls do wl here.
 * metal, metalloid, non-metal
 * Alkali metal, Alkaline earth metal, Lanthanide, Actinide, Transition metal, Post-transition metal, Reactive nonmetal, Noble gas
 * Noble metal, Coinage metal, native metal

Per element list

 * Please improve the table
 * Edit sets for the element
 * Guidelines are above (available sets, adding new set option). Current enwikik category is already added.
 * Also available: note. Refs are welcome.

"group: n/a"
For automated element-to-group reading, we have Infobox element/symbol-to-group (with an overview). By now, it returns 1–18 as expected, and "n/a" for the f-block (excluding current group 3), and "n/a" for g-block (>=E121). Errors (element="Foobar") return blank; default unused so far. For the infoboxes, this bare group value is formatted in Infobox element/group format.

My question is, please take a look at these infobox formats, esp the n/a elements. At the moment, f- and g-block elements link to group n/a (plain [[Block (periodic table)]]). Is there a better link we can think of? Is "n/a" the best option at all? Is there no difference between g- and f-block (f = long time decided to be "n/a", and g-bock which is theoretical only and may have grouping on a different base than f-block)?

Yes, it's complicated, template-wise. Especially when Uxx, blank and "Xx" elemetns com in view. However, I guess for the time being these data sets are the better option (over Wikidata, and to maintain such properties single-place ). As always, if more specific or better automation is required, we can find that improvement. -DePiep (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The numbered groups 1-18 are for s, p, and d blocks only (since for group 3 we are following the most recent IUPAC provisional report with Sc/Y/Lu/Lr). So, f block elements don't have group numbers. It's true that g block elements are not known yet, but under the current system, they would likewise not have group numbers either. So if we're willing to call 119 and 120 "group 1" and "group 2", then it seems to make sense to me that 121 through 126 should get a "group n/a".
 * Maybe a better link for lanthanoids and actinoids is Group 3 element, for those who might remember the old Sc/Y/*/** form which claimed all lanthanoids and actinoids for group 3. That link explains where that came from and why it's planned not to be so anymore. Indeed, Group number of lanthanides and actinides was previously a link to Group 3 element (an old section that talked about the same thing, before I rewrote it in response to the provisional report). Double sharp (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * For 1-18 I understand, though I would not phrase it as "are for ... blocks only", as if they follow from an element's block (not so). Also good to apply the single, group 3 configuration here, since this is in general.
 * A question I had/have is, whether "n/a" ('not applicable') is the right and best value for f-block and for g-block. And, whether this is decribed well enough in the link (today: not). I think this should be addressed in Group_(periodic_table): "f-block elements do not have a group number, commonly labeled 'n/a'. This is because ...". Then, same text & link applies to g-block?
 * About your idea about lanthanoids and actinoids (= all f-block, + Lu, Lr from group 3/d-block!) is Group 3 element. In this place (infobox, blanket for 30 elements), the group 3 dispute is irrelevant. A footnote could be added with the formerly disputed 6 elements. Anyway, the "n/a" link differs from any "group 3 / [-dispute]" link.
 * -DePiep (talk) 10:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * n/a isn't a common label (or at least I've never seen it). The "n/a" thing just means a group number is not applicable to them. f block elements do formally belong to groups, as groups just mean vertical columns (e.g. lanthanum group La+Ac, cerium group Ce+Th, praseodymium group Pr+Pa etc., named by the IUPAC first-element convention), but these groups have no numbers. And these groups are not even particularly common to refer to, since they only consist of two elements each anyway and there's hardly any scope for trends in them.
 * However, I understand that the current presentation makes it look like "group n/a" is an actual thing. So, really, perhaps it should really say "does not have a group number" or something like that. And, yes, it could be linked to Group (periodic table), where it should be stated that groups in the f-block (and hypothetical g-block) do not have numbers. Double sharp (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * TL;DR Sigh. Please stop explaining to me whatever. Please start writing for our encyclopaedic Readers what it is. -DePiep (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Base-centred orthorhombic
I tried to correct the crystal structure description at Template:Infobox iodine from face-centred orthorhombic to base-centred orthorhombic following a request at Talk:Iodine. The preview shows a red link instead of File:Base-centered orthorhombic.svg. Could this be fixed, please? --Ben (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The option "Base-centered orthorhombic" had to be added to Template:Infobox element/crystal structure, now done. Set in Infobox iodine; please check.
 * Thanks for the report. DePiep (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

This is great, many thanks for such a quick response. --Ben (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * :-) That's what a good report does. DePiep (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Image dataset
, I saw you changed the image for manganese‎‎, nice. Do I understand you met technical glitches in using datacentral like Infobox element/symbol-to-top-image? Something did not work as (technically) expected, then? DePiep (talk) 10:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * DePiep I tried to update the image at the central database first and remove the image link from Infobox manganese. But somehow it doesn't work. Even after purging, refreshing and clearing out my cache, the new image does not load (though strangely the caption does). So instead I just link to the image directly in the Infobox manganese template. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

"isotopes ref"
The parameters and  are in use. See  — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 19:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes I saw. I was testing which templates had this parameter empty, using the category (harmless). Check now ended, whitelist restored, category empty. DePiep (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 23:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Theoretical elements handling
Should be neutronium ("E0") be also added? 195.128.99.9 (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Only if considered an element. This is (to be) decided elewhere (not part of group 8 theoreticals). DePiep (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would oppose treating it as a chemical element, because that's not what most chemists do. (I confess I'm not aware of many stated justifications for this, but the fact of the matter is obvious enough. My own personal reason is that a chemical element must have chemical properties, but that requires having electrons, which neutronium does not; but that's OR.) But of course it belongs on the chart of nuclides. Double sharp (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Overview

 * Numbers of isotopes:


 * Numbers:
 * In NUBASE2020:
 * "The NUBASE2020 evaluation contains recommended properties for the ground state of 3340 nuclides and for 1938 excited isomeric (T1/2 > $100 ns$) It also includes information for yet unobserved nuclei (218 in their ground state and 45 excited isomers) whose properties were estimated by following the systematic trends in neighboring nuclei (TNN)"

Which adds up to:
 * 3340 ground state
 * 1938 excited isomeric
 * 218 unobserved, estimated; ground state
 * 45 unobserved, estimated; excited state

&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash; &plus;
 * 5541 isotopes are listed


 * On average, 5541/118 = 47 isotopes/element -DePiep (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Number of stable isotopes (CIAAW atomic wights; terrestrial)
 * ca 300 (in Z 1-92; "300/118=2.5/element")


 * Post-NUBASE2020:
 * 10 new (say)


 * Having enwiki article:


 * RL relevant
 * Medical use, therapeutical
 * 20 (Diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals)
 * 11 (Therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals)
 * These 31 merge to 29 unique isotopes.
 * Nuclear power:
 * 10 (say)


 * Cosmogenic:
 * 36 (25+11 listed)


 * Nuclear waste:
 * 20 (say)


 * Nuclear arms:
 * 10 (say)

That's circa 100 listed in the articles (not uniqueified).


 * -DePiep (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

ISOBOX reuse in Infobox

 * From WT:ELEMENTS:§ ISOBOX reuse in Infobox


 * -DePiep (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)