Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 13

Transition metals GA
Is it just me or some of them are really slightly above the line? I just took a look at a few. Scandium is filled with stubbish sections, hafnium lacks a Precautions section, and almost all I've seen up to date have a few minor (refs, some fact omissions) issues to deal. I just wanted to know if this is a result of some old (less strict) GA rules, and if something's to be done.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Naturally, something should be done. We should keep our GAs from degradation. Double sharp (talk) 08:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The GA rules did not change that much since 2008 but article tend to degrade and the expectations rise and at the end the GA is not that good anymore compared to the others.--Stone (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to suggest a GAR series. I'm not sure if all this work can be done any fast. We've got too low on HR and too much to do (take a closer look). This is a relatively fast to get feedback without/in addition (not that we won't do anything to keep the level...guys?) looking ourselves. I am also not scared of losing the plus. It is not a goal for me, more an indicator the work's done fine. We'll reconquer them sometime later (if none else, then me). Think if we won't care about pluses themselves, it'll make no worse. And if a reader's eyes are asking for more as are mine, then why are we to disappoint them? Opinions?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! This is only going to get the articles to improve anyway. If we leave them as they are, they'll stagnate and, despite being GA, get worse and worse. If they lose their GA status, people will be more willing to work on them. (Remember what happened to Cu? OK, that was some years after its GAR, but still. It's still got some problems, but at least it looks worthy of its GA status for now.) Double sharp (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I want to remind you on the GAR of chlorine which failed because only very few people in the project cared about it. As I contributed to most of the Transition metals GAs a GAR of all of them in short periode of time I will not be able to support.--Stone (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

My goal would be to get the start and C-Class articles upto a certain level befor starting a rework of the old GAs, but this is only my personal thinking.--Stone (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, I don't plan them all in a short time (max 3-5 at the time, we won't get so many reviewers). Secondly, it's OK if you won't be able to help. If we lose some pluses, nothing bad will happen, because if none else tries to get them into shape, then I will (sometime, but I promise, if I have to). I came up too late to get a useless transition metal, after all. Think that if one already tries to improve the worse articles, another one can allow himself to make sure others are OK, and care about that
 * Got nothing against if Double sharp or whoever who likes the idea starts the mess... I won't be helpful for some days again, although will maybe try tos lowly tag or fix a selected article to make myself useful. I need to learn about the process and time to get involved.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll wait for all B's first. Some of the start-class articles are really not in terribly good shape. I started a rewrite of nobelium some time ago, and will probably start working on it again soon. Double sharp (talk) 06:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Personal preferences in a header
I'm sorry to bother the elem project with this minor stuff - but I was asked to do so.

I just removed the RC link from the project header (I still don't get what that abbre/link is supposed to give). Then StringTheory11 reverted it, es: "I use it all the time" (no kidding). Now how do I convince this ELEM community that it is not, eh, WP-like to maintain personal preferencs in headers? An of course, why is there an coded word like "RC" in the header at all? -DePiep (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm perfectly willing to let other members of WP:ELEM decide this, although I see no reason to remove it. It is useful and doesn't cause any harm. StringTheory11 00:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So, OK, I'm perfectly willing ... -- how generous of you. What would WP be without that gesture? I see no reason to ... -- Indeed, that is the issue: you only like to see what you like to see. What we need is rational discussion, not what one sees. Quite probably I see someting else. What would be the argument of that? useful and no harm -- Is that the best reason against my change? If you persist: my change also does no harm and is useful. I have yet to read a serious argument from you. -DePiep (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How is it useful to remove it? In fact, it is the opposite of useful. It would get much harder for people to track the changes to articles. From what I've seen, WP:ELEM is one of the fastest projects to respond to questions on the article talk pages. We are able to do this because we have so few articles. Now, you may ask how this fits in to this discussion. The recentchanges tab lets us track the changes to articles and talk pages so we can revert vandalism quickly and answer requests on talk pages much more quickly. Not to mention that it serves as a reliable way to simply see what's going on in project space. StringTheory11 00:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Recap. My initial edit was at 23:55. Then you (ST11) rv 23:56 es:"I use it all the time", 2nd cycle me/you rv: 23:58. On my talkpage then you say 23:59 "I fail to see ...", then you rv and "ban" me from your talkpage 00:04-00:07. In 00:24-0026 you address the ELEM talkpage with arrogance (softened in a 2nd edit) I pointed to. So this within in half an hour. And only now, after more than a dozen of these personally motivated edits and rants in this, you have found an argument and you want to discuss? Wow. -DePiep (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's supposed to give a list of recent changes to all articles within the scope of the project. Whenever I want to check recent changes for the WP:ELEM articles, I use that page. Double sharp (talk) 05:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I created the RC sceme used now and we discused it here and in this process StringTheory11 changed it form the old Changes related to "Category:Chemical elements" which worked not that good for or project. I use it nearly everyday and it is important for my work. If this is personal convinience OK, but I will protect my personal convenience. There are two perfect resons to leave it like it is.
 * It is usefull. (A considerable numer of people use it)
 * It does no harm The only critic mentioned obove is it is for personal convenience. No policy or rule forbides it.

--Stone (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Stone, there is no problem with the existance of the special page link. The link just shouldn't in the project page header. The header is, well, a header. Not a project navigation box, not a linkfarm, not a do-as-you-like Userpage. In general, it is useless to link every Project page on every Project page, as it is done now. Such usefull-everywhere reasoning leads to: we only need one WP:ELEM page with everything put on that one, because everything is relevant/usefull/easy/important. But I say: it is not in the right place there. And there is also this illogic detail: the RC link includes non-article pages, though when put under "Articles" it should no contain templates/project/talk/... pages at all (but don't you expect these to be there?). Oh, and abbreviations in a header? Really?
 * Another negative aspect: the project now has multiple Recent Changes links, sometimes transcluded not linked in the middle of anywhere.
 * Of course, "I will protect my personal convenience" is not an argument at all here - even worse. Use that here.
 * Usefull? - only for those used it being there.
 * Does no harm? - Yes it does. It disturbs the overview/detail organising of pages. It puts information on the wrong place.
 * -DePiep (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How is that in the wrong place? It's under the "Articles" heading, and the recent changes to the articles are obviously closely related to the articles. Where else would it fit? Double sharp (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * hmm, WP:MAINSPACE. In short: any article page is mainspace, the rest is, eh, non-mainspace. -DePiep (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Me again. Said so: if there are e.g. templates on the Recent Changes list, then they should not be in the Article header. Interestingly, to me the wp:elem community has not changed for over five years (since when WP servers ran on steam), so the only thing that counts is "habit" (aka "prference"). And this for chemical elements!, we are talking science! Sorry to disturb you al. -DePiep (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean we haven't changed in five years? Double Sharp (formerly Lanthanum-138), R8R GTRS, Freywa (who was active until a few months ago), and I are all new within the last 2 years, and you say the community hasn't changed? StringTheory11 01:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, is about what I say. I am not talking individual editors (though U:mav is wp#64?!, and U:materialscientist is wp-old? if I remember well), but the editing mentality is elem-conservative. I am new here, 2 months, and many reverts were motivated by "we are used to it" tone & argument (not a nice way to receive a "newby" in elem). The WP:ELEM pages are still horrible to me. More importantly, this also (of course) spills over to article space (way of editing, way of talking). One example of bad WP:ELEM in article space: . Five years ago this was great (I can easily assume), today it doesn't even come close to a navbox (footer) idea. Not just one editor, but multiple editors (in high esteem here on wp:elem) reverted me without opening to improvement or rethinking: why would s/he edit this such?. So, yes. -DePiep (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * DePiep, in the past 5 years I have been here I don't think there has been this much drama in WP:ELEM. There is absolutely no need to make such a big discussion out of such a trivial thing as a link in the header of the project page. Seriously, if you check out most of the other projects and you will see that they are less polished (such as WP:CHEMS). Nergaal (talk) 02:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nergaal, this topic is just one example of my general point: the wp:elem pages do not give me an overview, nor is it inviting to edit or update them. In the topic of article quality, there may be a dozen lists & tables repeated on multiple places. Then there is notifications: another dozen, scatterred around. Just this question: how would you introduce a new member to this project, how would you guide them around? -DePiep (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * All these are repeated and scattered everywhere so that no matter where the new member goes, they are constantly reminded of what is going on in the project. (That's how I felt it was last year when I was new, and I feel it's still a nice constant reminder now.) The announcement pages are regularly updated, and since they're transcluded widely, everybody knows what is going on. I didn't even need any guidance when I first joined the project in 2011 – there was so much of this help that I didn't need it. (And the template PTQ didn't even exist at that time – I created it. Perhaps you might like to ask a more recent member than me, like StringTheory11, to share their experiences here?) Double sharp (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As the newest currently active member, I can safely say that I found no problems navigating the project. I found that it helped to always be able to see the PTQ when doing almost anything, and the replication of the noticeboard makes it much easier to see what is going on. I don't see anything else repeated on here much, other than the aforementioned items: the announcements page is only on the main page and the participants page, and nothing else is repeated at all, I don't think. The tabs at the top of the pages are, IMHO, what make the navigation here a breeze compared to other projects like WP:AST, where you have to find some hidden-away links to get places. Sure, it can be a little hard to figure out how to update stuff like the announcements page, but once I figured it out, which took maybe a minute, it became a simple routine.


 * In short, if you don't like reading walls of text, I did not find it hard to navigate the project at all when I joined, and once I figured out that stuff is transcluded, it became a breeze to update pages. StringTheory11 14:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why in the world would anyone want to remove the RC link??? It's one of the most useful things for a project! The link should stay. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Extended periodic table (in infoboxes)
I have extended the miniature periodic table we use in the infoboxes. It is now in the. The extension only shows when number>=119, otherwise no change is visible. Before I deploy it into the real wikiworld, I'd like to have some checks by others for disturbances I missed. Two infoboxes are prepared by their sandbox: (119) and  (26). On their article page the right cell should still be marked (checkable by preview). Please do not deploy early. -DePiep (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I really like the idea. (The extended table looks very grey, though. Perhaps use lighter shades of the chemical series colours for predictions?) Double sharp (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, will look for some colors downtown and work on it tomorrow. If I understand it well, the greys from 109Meitnerium -- 118Uuo (already in this table) will get one too. -DePiep (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should do for the extended ones (Mt–Rg, Uut+), but I'd rather not have them for the normal ones. We really need to hammer it into the reader that their chemical properties are unknown, since they have been discovered and people think that every element is known to fit into a chemical series. But when you read about elements that (the article explicitly states) that are not discovered (Uue+), you no longer need that so much, and prediction of chemical properties becomes more and more useful. (Not that it wasn't useful for Mt–Rg and Uut–Uuo, but those pages are more popular and need to be more explicit.) It's like our, using greys for Mt–Rg and Uut–Uuo, and colouring them in (but with a note at the bottom saying that these are only predictions). OK? :-) Double sharp (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Will pick it up tomorrow, will have to read this carefully (I'm not too familiar with the issue). -DePiep (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I meant that in the extended table header (where Uue+ are present) even Mt–Rg, Uut–Uuo should be coloured. They should only be uncoloured in the usual one. Double sharp (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW DePiep: can you get "superactinides" (#80a0e9) and "unknown chemical properties" (#e8e8e8) to work in ? Currently they just return white. Double sharp (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do. ✅. See Unbiunium and Meitnerium. -DePiep (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we actually have reliable sources for these "predictions" of chemical properties? Things seem to get quite messy from the end of the 7th period, with e.g. Fl experimentally suggested to be a noble gas... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd love to hear a WP:ELEM commmunity outcome on this. I can do the colors afterwards. But the strange thing is, there is not even consensus on a simple thing like description of some list. Gives me an idea about what an IUPAC meeting must be like. -DePiep (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should start a new discussion on this? I think I'd prefer at least all elements >112 to be coloured grey (except maybe the superactinides, for which we have prediction references), since conventional "periodicity" predictions contradict experimental evidence already for flerovium and thus are unlikely to be reliable for even higher Z. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Color scheme for categories known or predicted
Shown when atomic number &lt;=118:

Shown when atomic number &gt;118:

(just the links to speed up page preview here) Above, Double sharp asked for different background colors for elements that are predicted Alkaline metals and such. I have cunstructed a color scheme for this, applied in some sandboxes. First question is: what color scheme do we choose? All other stuff (legend adjustments, coding here & there) can be solved after that answer. Below is my proposal, as coded in these sandboxes:

Minor notes:
 * Note: this table has changed after some first talks here.


 * -These examples are hardcoded in multiple places. There is no easy way to try another one. Communicate via this page I suggest. As said, getting the scheme right is our first task.
 * -Background for superactinides and eka-superactinides (darker blue and green): I have shifted them to a lighter shade. The darker color will no be used then (only predicted property exists). This has another advantage: the dark colors, which give very bad contrast with text, will not be used.
 * -As suggested above, when no extension is shown, the elements Mt--Uuo are grey (top small periodic table).

-DePiep (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A few minor points: difference between known and predicted post-transition metals is hard to see on my screen, and predicted alkali metals colour looks too much like known transition metals colour. Double sharp (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Post-transition metal: the basic color is grey, and then it is difficult to find a lighter shade that still differs from "unknown".,  (numerically it is halfway between). This can only be solved to move away from the grey: either "unknown" (into white?) or the p-t metal into an unused (rainbow, non-grey) color. You think we could change the post-transition metal color?
 * Alkaline metal (predicted): yes, it looks like the known transition metals color. As said earlier, there are not much red colors left. I'll look for another one. -DePiep (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I like the idea of changing "unknown chemical properties" to white. You suggested that before, didn't you? It makes the most sense anyway. That frees up #e8e8e8 (or perhaps the old #f0f0f0) for predicted post-transition metals, and there is enough difference. Double sharp (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I proposed it when introducing the grey backgrounds. Now there rises a problem too: the white should differ from any background, usually light-grey or even white (see the miniature periodic table shown here). I am gathering inspiration to work on that. Will be back on this. -DePiep (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Minor note: could you please correct the spelling "eka-superacinides" to "eka-superactinides"? Thanks. Double sharp (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Spelling t: done. -DePiep (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Adjusted color scheme
Shown when atomic number &lt;=118:

Shown when atomic number &gt;118:

I have changed some colors. Topics:

- Reds problem: Most other reds shades cannot be distinguished between Alkali metal, Alkali earth metal, Lanthanide, Actinide, Transition metal (and their lighter ones for "predicted"):. Compromise: accept a dirtier red color. Change: : changed into a darker/dirty red.

- Greys problem: We use three shades:, ,. Only the middle one (ptm predicted) is free to choose now. It is impossible to find a shade that can be distinguished from the both outer ones. Compromise: shifted the middle on top. This is nearly the "unknown" color, but these two do not occur at the same time. (Note using "white" for unknown background is difficult, because the table background is white too here).

Effects can be seen in the top of this thread (mini periodic tables). I have adjusted all the sandbox examples we use here (including ). Is this good enough to turn into live? -DePiep (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections, I plan to introduce the extended periodic table as described (118+ only, colors as shown). Note that we can refine or change colors afterwards. -DePiep (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * One more question. In the new situation, the tooltip text (when hovering over the periodic table) is like Boron (metalloid). This way the background color is explained (current version only shows the element name in the tooltip).
 * My question is: what about the "unknown" ones? Is it usefull to have a tooltip like Livermorium (unknown)? Or should we leave out the "(unknown)" part: Livermorium? This only applies to the nine grey colors in the folded (<=118) table; when unfolded the tooltip is Livermorium (post-transition metal (predicted)). -DePiep (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd rather have "unknown chemical properties" than "unknown". "Unknown" has the connotations that the element itself is unknown (i.e. undiscovered), which is not true. Double sharp (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Changed "unknown" to "unknown chemical properties". Also corrected "alkaline metal" to "alkali metal" for both the known and predicted alkali metals. Double sharp (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

✅. Moved from sandboxes to live. For element infobox, subtemplates & their color schemes, and the compact extended periodic table. -DePiep (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Has anyone considered whether the color choices work well with color blind individuals? YBG (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A very good point, but I don't think anyone here has ever considered that. Our basic colour choices date back to about 2002(!), when the project was founded, and nobody seems to have seriously considered changing the colours or even examining whether they're suitable for colour-blind individuals. Double sharp (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

On the grouping
Since these are predicted chemical properties, explicitly linked to Group (periodic table), shouldn't we lump lanthanides and (super-/eka-)actinides together? They're all group III. After all, we lump all the transition metals together, and nowhere else do we separate by period. — kwami (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * explicitly linked to Group (periodic table)? That link is not present at all in the template discussed here. If you mean that the legend below, Alkali metal ... Noble gas does so: only four link to a (correponding) group (column of elements). Others are not such a group. -DePiep (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The early actinides behave chemically rather differently from the lanthanides. The superactinides and eka-superactinides are predicted to be even more similar to each other than the lanthanides and actinides. So they seem, at least to me, to deserve their own categories. (I originally wanted both the superactinides and eka-superactinides to be combined in one category, but nobody seemed to define the superactinides as going past element 153, so I had to add the term "eka-superactinides", which is unfortunately not used by any WP:RS, but which seems unavoidable.) Double sharp (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can't we just use "inner transition-metals" to label all the elements in the f-block? The halogens are a more notable group of elements and we are discussion possibly merging them into the nonmetals; why not merge all the f-block elements together then? Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable, especially if we're inventing terms for s.t. which does not follow our presentation to begin with. — kwami (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * [re kwami]: Aren't superactinides and eka-[super]actinides (g-group) inner transition metals (predicted) [too]? And why merge those two distinctive groups [lanthanides and actinides]? -DePiep (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (Clarified myself using [ ], sorry; the reply by Double sharp, below, was before). -DePiep (talk) 08:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The lanthanides have a well-defined group chemistry that is similar for all members of the group and is at the same time distinct from other groups of elements, even the actinides. (The actinides, especially the earlier ones, can achieve higher oxidation states than the lanthanides, and that's why they were at first mistaken for transition metals.) The halogens don't have such a well-defined group chemistry that is similar for all members of the group and distinct from that of other groups – iodine is quite close to being a metalloid, and astatine certainly is one. The superactinides are explicitly defined to be the elements with Z from 121 to 153 only, forcing us to use a different term for the elements with Z from 171 to 173. Much as I don't feel comfortable with it, "eka-superactinides" does seem to be our only option, unless we find another term for these elements listed in a reliable source. Double sharp (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Legend wording: singular
Many periodic tables here have a legend wording in plural, saying: red background = "Alkali metals". This is wrong. First of all, it is a legend. The direction of reading is one way: an element cell has a background color, and that color must be explained. That is what the legend is for. Not the other way around, "Alkali metal(s)" is not the point of the table. The elements are. (As a RS I throw in my Times Concise Atlas of the World, 9th edition. All those blue lines? The legend says: "river"). So it should read like: red background = [this element is an] "alkali metal". -DePiep (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I understand your position now. Both ways (singular and plural) seem to make sense to me, so I won't revert. It's a minor issue, anyway. Double sharp (talk) 08:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

A worrying trend
Look at the June 2012 to July 2012 section. Double sharp (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, what happened here? Honestly, I don't know what to make of this. I would see what happens in August to see if this was an isolated incident (tool malfunctioning maybe?) or something more important. StringTheory11 01:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems to be related to why WP:ELEM/PP never gets updated at the beginning of the next month, but in the middle. It seems OK now. Double sharp (talk) 07:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Periodic table section name
I was told in the PR for periodic table to change the name of the "contents" section of the article. However, I can't think of a good name for the section. Does anyone have any good ideas? StringTheory11 01:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Components? Nergaal (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Elements? ;)  S  B Harris 01:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, guys! I think components would work really well here. StringTheory11 02:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Popular pages
Why is WP:ELEM/PP not being updated on time? Double sharp (talk) 06:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * User talk:Mr.Z-man. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Marking a category in the micro periodic table
I have adjusted the our micro periodic table to mark a category (=by color, demo). Now when used in a sidebar, it pushes the sidebar wider. See Template:Periodic table (alkali metals)/sandbox. That does not look good. Any suggestion on how to proceed? -DePiep (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe use a out-of-line f-block? StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, a standard (not wide) pt. Do we really want this, or am I over enthousiastic? -DePiep (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And while we're at it: let's add a group and period cell? A dot it would be, but a link still. Worth sandboxing? -DePiep (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't care if these are in the infoboxes or not, but what do you mean by a group or period cell? I'm a little confused. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We could add a top row for group numbers, and a left side column for period numbers. They would not be the digits though, but a black/white dot or so, clickable (linked). -DePiep (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? We already have a similar table further below: Periodic table (alkali metals location). Double sharp (talk) 09:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that table is a bit meager in information. Esp. it does not show the range of bg colors we use. And it has no period and group links. (It could go if we have a more complete one in the sidebar, as proposed). -DePiep (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This looks like a good idea to me, then. (But I'm not sure about the period and group links. Could you put it in the sandbox so we can see it?) Double sharp (talk) 07:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. First the current one (without micro group/period headers). But what with the width? Enlarge pictures? -DePiep (talk) 07:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think enlarging the pictures should be OK. Can we see them enlarged in the sandbox first, though? Double sharp (talk) 08:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless discouraged, try widening the infobox (enlarge the cells)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Bigger pictures? A bit bulky I think. -DePiep (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Bigger pictures (150px &rarr; 210px). (and per MOS: no link in the title). -DePiep (talk) 08:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Works especially well when the Periodic table (alkali metals location) is removed. (Seen through preview on a normal – not laptop – 1152x864 monitor). Double sharp (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the pictures are nice enough to be this big. Should we add a link to periodic table with it? (like the infobox element has)? If someone argues that the present (location) table should not be removed, we shouldn't add this micro one (cannot repeat that info). -DePiep (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added two options: mark category (like metalloids), mark group (just added; column 1-18). demo, alkali metals (linked above) and pnictogens (15). Tweakings? -DePiep (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I really like it! (I made a small tweak – Mt–Rg and Uut–Lv are in fact in their respective groups, because the names for those groups aren't defined chemically. However "halogens" are "noble gases" are, so I left Uus and Uuo ungrouped.) Double sharp (talk) 11:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. So numbered groups do not extend into the 118+ region. OTOH, "predicted" properties cannot be grouped with "discovered" now (the tetris blocks use the category color definition, which is different for "predicted" ones). -DePiep (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, we shouldn't show the categories and groups (except for the superactinides and eka-superactinides) when the micro table is extended (showing the 118+ region). Double sharp (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Propose to go live then with this one, into the sidebars. Location templates like Periodic table (alkali metals location) will be removed~from the articles, and ultimately deleted when unused. -DePiep (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good. Double sharp (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Step 1:, the micro one, adjusted to receive these markings. Should not change in the regular Infoboxes per element (I did not see change indeed). -DePiep (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Step 2: start adjusting sidebars and articles - eg Alkaline earth metal. -DePiep (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ including adjustments. -DePiep (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Compact periodic table
It doesn't display properly on laptops (and I suspect every non-1024x768 display) - the legend doesn't take up the whole space it should. It worked fine before DePiep's edits some time ago; could this problem be fixed? Double sharp (talk) 09:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What proper do you mean, and what whole space should it take? It reads like nothing is broken right? -DePiep (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The legend doesn't have the same length as the entire table, which it should. Instead it reaches "unknown chemical properties" about midway through the table and then just stops. Double sharp (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I have a 1280 by 800, and it works fine on mine. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've set the legend to 100% width (so should use whole width always). Please check, I cannot. If ST11 sees nothing wrong too, we can leave it. Also reduced the font-size to 90%, for a legend. -DePiep (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, it's displaying correctly now. Double sharp (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

WT:WikiProject Chemistry
A discussion about what is a "chemical element" in different particular cases. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Transition metal color
I read the discussion about the coloring of the table, and noticed the problem was that we have too many red colors. Do you think it would work to simply change the color of the transition metals to something like or ? There's nothing similar to it on the table, and I would imagine that it would be easier to find "predicted" colors for stuff like the alkali metals. I think it would also be easier for people to read, as there would be fewer similar colors. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, and you describe the issue(s) well. Though I must say: my short & main reply is:

-DePiep (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Not the dark green, too dark for reading: it is only a background
 * 2) Color change in the Template:Element color legend/categories including superactinides: only from overview, not by single one. (Of course we can do, but only after crisp agreement. Could involve hundreds of pages to change a color)
 * 3) No dark background color ever (So not the  dark green you propose). It's a background! Makes text illegible. Already bad: Alkali metal red (group 1). Way too dark. Adding: softening the font color, by legend for "undiscovered" or "gas" &tc, makes this even worse
 * 4) As for colors to be changed, I also opt for the grey into any-other-suitable-color for post-tansition metals.
 * 5) Most complete legend colors today are in the legend of Template:Compact_extended_periodic_table
 * 6) Best structured metals/nonmetals overview (including the bridging categories like "metals") today is at Template:Element_color_legend/categories_including_superactinides
 * Yes, the red for the alkali metals is pretty borderline. (We can use the current transition metals colour for predicted alkali metals, which is almost DePiep's original suggestion, IIRC.) Double sharp (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Complete overview: WP:WikiProject Elements/Legends. -DePiep (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion: Periodic table location of groups templates
See WP:TfD. Eight location templates are up for deletion (like . This location now is in the sidebar. -DePiep (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Increasing activity
The most important discussion (the one above about the colouring of our periodic tables on Wikipedia) is not being responded to, even with the noticeboard advertising it so noticeably, and the amount of article work has dropped because of the passed GANs. How about (1) putting a note on every member's talk page to alert them of the discussion and (2) starting an aggressive improving-Bplus-to-GA campaign? Double sharp (talk) 08:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To me it is confusing when three discussions flow together: 1. What group is the element in? 2. How to name/describe that group? 3. What color to give that group? I'd prefer to rigorously keep these apart. -DePiep (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC) ("group" meaning set or chemical category, not the column of course) -DePiep (talk) 09:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We're really discussing only the first two. The colour scheme seems unlikely to change, looking at the comments (nobody's addressed it). It's been suggested in another section here by YBG that we should find out whether they look OK for colour-blind readers, though. Double sharp (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason I haven't commented on the discussion at all is because, honestly, I don't care what the outcome is. I feel that improving the articles is more prudent that the discussions going on here, which, while no doubt important, won't have as much of an impact on readers as improving the articles. StringTheory11 (t • c) 14:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

About an aggressive improving-Bplus-to-GA campaign. This has to be done that everybody has fun with it. People like to play an to make it like a game might be the most promissing way to do it. --Stone (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We can have a race: whoever gets the most views on their GAs by the end of the year wins! The only criterion is that the article has to have been below GA on August 10. "A"s count double, FAs count triple. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * wp:CUP. Nergaal (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Currently, the B+ articles are As, Po, Yb, metalloid, origin and use of the term metalloid, and boron group. Double sharp (talk) 06:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, is Bk FA-ready yet? (Shouldn't getting an article from A to FA give something? I'd suggest putting levels below GA at 0, GA at 1, A at 2, and FA at 3; then, the number of times the views are counted should be the difference between the level after improvement and the level before improvement.) Double sharp (talk) 06:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Now they're just As, Po, Yb, and group 13. Double sharp (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Lanthanides
I looked through the lanthanide articles today, and a lot of them are currently somewhere very near the boundary between start-class and C-class. How do people think we should rate stuff like terbium and holmium? Should they be start, or C? StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * When in doubt, choose the lower rating to stimulate some work on it. May take years, but... Not like it changes much anyway for a reader, right? But it may (has to) work sometime (haven't read the articles).--R8R Gtrs (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're a hard man to please. Can you find that much general information on terbium in any encyclopedia but this one? And you want to give it a START class? I'm offended. S  B Harris 23:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I simply gave a general tip. But also notice we aren't a usual encyclopedia... There are a few things a usual encyclopedia won't even give a damn about (ever heard of a 4-million-articles encyclopedia?), yet that shouldn't affect our internal ratings. And I'm sure that we can lift the requirements up to stimulate more work sometime. Although you're maybe right, and I am hard to please...--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, our rating standards are now very high, much higher than most projects. I think that's a good thing; others may disagree. But I find that putting articles at the lowest reasonable class tends to stimulate work on it, while putting them at the highest reasonable class tends to lead to a situation when nobody really cares much about that article and nobody does much work on it. Double sharp (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

More "Related Changes" links
I have created. After the Articles List (known for its Related Changes "RC" link), a similar list & RELC button exist for Isotopes, Images, Templates, Secundary pages. The new lists should be expanded into some completeness. Notes: I did put the template on the main page and other pages, but not on /Articles, because I don't know how that would be used & preferred. Issue: Images (pics & graphs) cannot be tracked this way using WP:RELC, I'll look for another way. -DePiep (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Tc,43.jpg
How much longer must the deletion request for this file take before it becomes a record? :-P Double sharp (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've now commented on the discussion there. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with image policies, but I think you can call an admin you know (or whoever has the right to finish the discussion). Or even if you don't know one, call any admin, they'll help you. Just give out a note on a talkpage. This is not really scary, though. It took me over a year to rename ru:Хлорид диртути(2+) into ru:Хлорид ртути(I) (dimercury(2+) chloride, mercury(I) chloride, respectively) in ru.wiki, and even when I finally did it, I still saw some older requests open. So it could be worse--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Template facts already there and the discussion is clear. I checked WP:CP and such, but they only advise templates, which is already there. Trigger via WP:ANI then? It is copyright, so serious. -DePiep (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

"Isotopes of" articles
Are they really lists? They seem more like articles to me. Not all their info is in the main table. Should we change them to being listed as articles? Double sharp (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Stuff like hydrogen is probably closer to an article, but stuff with like xenon is definitely a list. Nergaal (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * They will all be articles eventually, each ending with an embedded list per WP:EMBED. See isotopes of iodine for another example. It's just that with many articles we haven't had time to put all the info on the various isotopes in, up front. The article section for each element needs a full discussion of the various nucleosynthesis origins of the various isotopes, including ones that are now seen only as daughters of extinct radionuclides. (Radio)isotope production needs discussion, where it is commercialized, and the uses of stable and radioisotopes of that element in radiometric dating, isotope geochemistry, cosmochemistry, paleoclimatology, and so on. So, patience. Right now there's not a single one of these articles that is all it could be. S  B Harris 23:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll go and rerate them under the usual scheme, then. Double sharp (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Emsley 2011
Nature's Building Blocks (2011) is now available on Google Books. :-) Looking at the transcopernicium elements, it:
 * predicts Uuo's boiling point as 50 °C (p. 584);
 * predicts Uus to have the properties of a halogen(!) or metalloid, and predicting based on iodine(!) that it would form salts(!) with acids, oxyacids, and even forming UusF5(!) and UusF7(!) (p. 583);
 * predicts Fl to show +2 (more stable, although perhaps still unstable) and +4 (unstable) oxidation states, perhaps behaving like a noble gas (although it does not claim that Fl is probably a noble gas, only that it would be chemically rather inert) (p. 580);
 * says that Uut is the last element where cold fusion is predicted to be useful, and that it would show +1 (more stable, in UutO and UutF) and +3 (less stable, in Uut2O3 and UutF3) (p. 579);
 * predicts the compounds UbnO, Ubn(OH)2, and UbnCl2 (but doesn't have the latest two GSI reactions of Cm-248 + Cr-54 and Cf-249 + Ti-50), and defines the term compound nucleus (a "jumble of particles" with the target and projectile nuclei forced together by the forces of collision, having no internal structure and being unstable, flying apart very quickly before the nucleons can occupy their nuclear shells, when the CN becomes an isotope) (p. 586);
 * gives pronunciation "oon-bai-bee-um"(!) for Ubb, mentioning that it would behave like Th (p. 588);
 * saying that the GANIL experiments for Ubq only found CNs and not isotopes, so do not count as a discovery (p. 590);
 * that Ubp-332 is probably the most stable Ubp isotope (p. 591);
 * that there were many papers from 1976 to 1983 searching for Ubh in minerals because of a 1976 paper that it might have caused radiation damage in minerals, and some claimed they had found radiation at the right energy for that while others claimed that no Ubh was present, and that Ubh would probably show various oxidation states, perhaps until +8 (p. 592);
 * that in 1978, there was an unsuccessful attempt to make Ubs at the Darmstadt UNILAC accelerator using the reaction (natural Ta) + Xe-136, and that Ubo is probably the last possible element (p. 593). Double sharp (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

So Ubs is probably now notable enough for its own article. It confirms that Ubu, Ubt, and Ubp have not had synthesis attempts (p. 591). Double sharp (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This info needs to be used wisely. While it can be used to prove someone tried to synthesize element 127 for whatever reason, there are specialized superheavy-element books (or book chapters), which are more reliable. Does it have a list of cited works (like our articles?) if so, I'd rather try to access those books rather than citing this one (for superheavy purposes at least).
 * (Current recognition rules are: a claimed isotope must be created at least twice (same or different lab), with data matching up, have an anchor to the known isotopes, and have a half-life of over 10^(-14) seconds)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 10:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Periodic table FA

 * Moved to Talk:Periodic table. Double sharp (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Notability for articles for elements after unbinilium
Here is a list of articles for hypothetical chemical elements that might be notable enough for their own article and why.

Elements

 * 1) Unbiseptium (has had an unsuccessful synthesis attempt)
 * 2) Unbioctium (said to be the last physically possible element)
 * 3) Untrioctium (the last element in the G-block for period 8)
 * 4) Unpenttrium (last superactinide)
 * 5) Unhexoctium (last period 8 element)
 * 6) Unhexennium (first period 9 element)
 * 7) Unseptunium (first eka-superactinide, one of the heaviest possible neutral elements)
 * 8) Unseptbium (one of the heaviest possible neutral elements)

Periods or groups

 * 1) Period 9 element (containing unsepttrium, the last possible neutral element)

Add more if you can think of any. Remember to tell why. Gcchemistry (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with 127 – it seems notable enough (although I'd prefer – but wouldn't insist – to see a primary source). But I'm not so sure about the rest. The 128 claim is just one of many claims (there are a lot of such claims – 155 was also once claimed to be a possible end of the periodic table), and Emsley doesn't state what the "growing evidence" is. His refs are all in a huge bibliography at the back, so it's hard to see exactly what he's referencing for a particular statement. The arrangements of periods 8 and 9 are uncertain (see the Pyykkö model, for example), and so the other elements you put are uncertain and they might not be the actual elements at the milestones you point out. (Besides, they only have one mildly interesting property. Perhaps I should revise my criteria so that an element would only get its own article after one very interesting property – synthesis attempts and chemical predictions belong here – or two or three mildly interesting ones – milestones on the periodic table, like those you suggested, should go here. Please don't treat my criteria as policy! They're just my personal views on the matter of the notability of trans-ununoctium elements.) The problem with 171 and 172 is that while it's not certain exactly what happens at Z > 173, it might not actually spell the end of the periodic table of neutral elements (see this link), so it's a bit shaky to base other articles on the assumption that 173 is the end of the periodic table. (Although 173 is claimed and backed up by many reliable refs, and not just one, so the 173 article itself seems on steadier ground. Some articles need to be edited to reflect that 173 might not be the end.) Finally, because we are largely ignorant of what happens past Z > 173 (and thus most of the 9th period), and since only one element in the 9th period seems notable, I don't think we actually have enough non-boilerplate information for an article. (Feel free to prove me wrong, though, if you can locate some reliable sources on the 9th period.) Double sharp (talk) 10:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Criteria
I have five criteria to keep articles. Here they are:


 * 1) There was an error about discovery (e.g. unbibium)
 * 2) There was one or more synthesis attempts (ones planned or in progress count, also discovered ones count) (e.g. unbiseptium, unbinilium)
 * 3) There were predictions or facts about these elements by external sources (e.g. unbiunium
 * 4) They were referred to in culture, television, or other popular places, including laboratories (e.g. unbitrium, unbihexium)
 * 5) It has a notable property (e.g. untriseptium, unhexoctium)


 * Too wide a list. Why culture? List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles is perfect for the purpose. If you want predictions, you'll have to make articles for half of the elements between 118 through 173, there's much more at least episodic info than you think. Besides, if you there is info a non-notable (yet) thing, it doesn't make it more notable. Wikipedia could easily break the 10-million barrier if all music bands ever existent and described anywhere (Twitter, etc.) we're included. About notable property. If the article centers around it, it is probably fine without an article, since its phenomenon is described elsewhere (search and see 137 in Wiki). Wp:FORK (mean if it worked without it, and it did, we don't need more)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I think we only need one criterion: Would the article be complete if it were simply created by copying and pasting material from other articles? If yes, the element does not deserve its own article. Predicted properties should not count unless they are not immediately obvious (i.e. cannot be inferred immediately from the periodic table and using some extremely basic knowledge of chemistry), which would discount 136, 138, 139, 153, 168, 169, 171, and 172.
 * BTW, the trans-periodic table in Star Trek looks nothing like the actual periodic table. It doesn't have sequential atomic numbers, and most of the currently known elements (even those discovered in the 18th or 19th centuries) are missing. We do not mention daffyduckium (supposedly element 87 on the trans-periodic table) in the francium article.
 * Moving on to my thoughts on your criteria:
 * Looks reasonable.
 * Definitely agreed.
 * Support, with the qualification that the prediction must not be obvious. (You can merge 5 into this.)
 * Cut all the culture and TV. I'm quite sure that almost every element with Z > 118 has been mentioned in some TV show or popular culture somewhere. Often they are probably using a random number because it wasn't discovered yet and not because anything special is known about that element.
 * Merge into 5, and this property must not be obvious (i.e. you wouldn't be able to figure it out after a look at the periodic table and some basic knowledge of chemistry).
 * (P.S. We don't know exactly where the island of stability is. It could be centered at Z = 126. Perhaps it is centered lower, around Z = 114, and we just haven't found it yet because we haven't synthesized heavier isotopes like 298Fl yet. And element 173 is probably not really the end of the periodic table – see my earlier link. Also, the info from the element 137 and 173 articles are scattered in many places throughout Wikipedia, such as at extended periodic table. We can just keep it there – we don't need an article whose entire content is already in other articles.) Double sharp (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (P.P.S. We should put the 128, 137, and 173 article material into the section "End of the periodic table" in the Extended periodic table article. I find that it fits better there, as the only interesting thing about these elements is that they have been predicted as possible endpoints of the periodic table. So has element 155, by the way – Emsley's book mentions that predictions as well.) Double sharp (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

List of elements and criteria (Uue to Ust)

 * Uue (2, 3?, 5)
 * Ubn (2, 3)
 * Ubu (3, 5)
 * Ubb (1, 2, 3)
 * Ubt (3, 4)
 * Ubq (2, 3?)
 * Ubp (3?)
 * Ubh (2, 3?, 4, 5)
 * Ubs (2, 3)
 * Ubo (3, 5?)
 * Ube (none)
 * Utn (none)
 * Utu (none)
 * Utb (none)
 * Utt (none)
 * Utq (none)
 * Utp (none)
 * Uth (3, 5?)
 * Uts (3, 5)
 * Uto (3, 5)
 * Ute (3, 5?)
 * Uqn (none)
 * Uqu (none)
 * Uqb (none)
 * Uqt (none)
 * Uqq (none)
 * Uqp (none)
 * Uqh (none)
 * Uqs (none)
 * Uqo (none)
 * Uqe (none)
 * Upn (none)
 * Upu (none)
 * Upb (none)
 * Upt (5)
 * Upq (none)
 * Upp (4)
 * Uph (none)
 * Ups (none)
 * Upo (none)
 * Upe (none)
 * Uhn (none)
 * Uhu (none)
 * Uhb (none)
 * Uht (none)
 * Uhq (none)
 * Uhp (none)
 * Uhh (none)
 * Uhs (none)
 * Uho (5)
 * Uhe (5)
 * Usn (none)
 * Usu (5)
 * Usb (5)
 * Ust (3?, 5)
 * Usq and heavier (none) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcchemistry (talk • contribs) 22:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

? = unconfirmed

If an element article meets at least one of these criteria, I would keep it. If it doesn't meet any of them, it should be removed. Thank you. Gcchemistry (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Looking at my criterion (given in the subsection immediately above), 119–122, 124, 126–127 meet it. (As to why I don't feel 128, 137, and 173 meet it, see the subsection immediately above for my rationale. They all have exactly one property which is notable, and it is shared by all of them: they have been predicted to be possible ends of the periodic table. So has element 155, BTW. So these predictions all fit better in the section Extended periodic table. The elements with synthesis attempts don't fit together in one article very well, and almost all of them also have predictions about their chemistry, so I'd keep them separate. There may not be an end to the periodic table, in fact. I've linked to the source two subsections above.) Double sharp (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, should I add a section about element 128 into "extended periodic table" or "period 8 element", or should it have it's own article? Several external sources have an article about unbioctium. Should elements 137 and 173 have their articles being merged into "Extended periodic table, period 8 element, and possibly period 9 element (currently a redirect)"? Should I also add elements 136, 138, 139, 153, 155, 168, and 169-172 to "Extended periodic table, period 8 element, and possibly period 9 element (currently a redirect)"? They seem notable enough for a section in another article (e.g. "Extended periodic table, period 8 element, and possibly period 9 element (currently a redirect)"), but maybe not notable enough (and not enough info) to have their own articles. If that is a yes, I will do that and redirect those element pages to those sections. Thank you! Gcchemistry (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd dump 128, 137, and 173 into extended periodic table, and also add 155 to that article. But the properties of the others – last superactinide, last period 8 element, first period 9 elements, one of the heaviest possible elements (which may not be true) – are so self-evident from the extended periodic table itself that I would hesitate including one- or two-sentence descriptions of them if that's all there is to say about them. 128, 137, 155, 173, however, need a lot more words to explain, and so I think putting them into extended periodic table would be fine. Double sharp (talk) 01:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Period articles
Our period articles (e.g. period 6 element) are focused too much on the individual elements and don't mention enough about, for example, trends across the period. While taking a look at and examining the properties of the individual elements might be acceptable in an article on a group, which would have far fewer elements than a period, we don't do this in articles like group 4 element. Instead, we look at the group as a whole, looking at the elements in the context of the group. So, IMHO, we should also do this for the periods. As it stands period 6 element (I didn't look at the others) seems imbalanced (giving too much weight to the individual elements, since there are so many of them, despite the fact that the individual lanthanides don't have their own sections) and incomplete (because the other things in the period are also incomplete).

BTW, sections like "Biological role" for some groups and periods are forced to become lines copied and pasted from the individual element articles when the links between the elements are not strong and, taking the example of biological role, they are handled by organisms very differently. (Of course this is more applicable to periods than groups.) In such cases, I think that we should just remove the section(s) in question. Double sharp (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * They were stubs until a few months ago. Feel free to improve them, and when they get near B class then we can start thinking about trimming down details that don't really belong there. Nergaal (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that the best way would be to invert the hierarchy. Currently, the structure is by element and within element by propert type.  A better way would be to resort so that the primary hierarchy was property type and within property type describe the trend through the period.  YBG (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good plan. Nergaal (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

FL: Periodic table (large version)
I was thinking of getting a wp:TFL for our project and I realized that this featured list is the most likely of our WP content to lose its featured item status in the future - due to wp:FL? 3.c 3.b, as being a content fork of periodic table. Do you guys have a good suggestion how to "rebrand" the list so it looks more like an adequate FL? I was thinking to rename is as standard periodic table... any thoughts? Nergaal (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Standard? I don't know. Who named it standard? Maybe something like "periodic table (mid-long form)"? Will it be fine?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "periodic table (18-column form)" or something similar? Double sharp (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In the periodic table templates overview I have introduced these two groupings: "form" is for the content periodic table essential content or layout: standard -- wide -- extended -- other. If I am correct, these are accepted, external non-wikipedia terms. The (sometimes unmentioned) "size" then is the wikipedia page related size and layout: compact -- (normal) -- large. So e.g. there exists Periodic table (wide large). This for the tables (templates).
 * Applied to the FL page Periodic table (large version), indeed it uses form (unmentioned) "standard" as a periodic table (Lanthanides and Actinides are separate, below), and "large" for WP layout: big cells, more info per element, possibly running off screenpage. As such the page is a content fork, albeit more detailed. Of course, to save the page itself against WP:content fork complaints, we must be sure to stay or get within WP:CONTENTFORK rules. With the page thus secured, it is sensible to keep it FL. -DePiep (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Asked differently: could the page be AfD-deleted because of content fork (as Nergaal OP wrote), or do FL exceptions apply so it is safe?
 * Note to Nergaal: you point to FL? 3.c., but that c I could not find. -DePiep (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose Nergaal meant 3.b. Double sharp (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Ubt recreated
Unbitrium (123) is recreated. I added the infobox, then found it was AfD'ed into a redirect in February 2012. Guess that's it then. Will notify the creator to this talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I put a CSD tag on the infobox template (G4 – repost of previously deleted material). It should be deleted soon. Should we put a set of criteria for creating a new element page on our guidelines page? I have three, which I used on the element 125 deletion discussion last year: (1) has an interesting, verifiable and unique property, (2) have been reported or misreported as being discovered, (3) have had synthesis attempts. If an element fulfils any of the criteria, then I would be willing to keep it, but it appears that 123, 125, 127–136, 138–172 and 174+ don't. Are there any comments on these criteria? Double sharp (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

But Element 121 ('unbiunium') definitely does not meet criteria 2 and 3, and does it really have verifiable properties, even though some predicted properties are listed on the article for unbiunium? King jakob c (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, those predictions have been made by reliable sources and are thus verifiable. (I originally listed it for deletion last year, but there were enough reliable sources for the claims.) Besides, I did mention that an article only has to fulfil any one of the criteria, and doesn't have to fulfil all three. Double sharp (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Invited User:94.36.21.113 to this talk . -DePiep (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And 94.36.23.105 (I've invited him to this talk as well) has recreated period 9 element, unbitrium (element 123) and unhexoctium (element 168). These articles seem to be blatant copy-and-pastes of other articles for notable elements and periods, with numbers changed. Most sections are either completely irrelevant (e.g. the Star Trek reference to "element 123", even though the "trans-periodic table" looks nothing like the real periodic table) or are blatant original research and speculations (like the predicted isotopes) or show signs of the "copy, paste, add n" syndrome (I borrowed this colourful expression from a thread at WT:WPMATH two years ago involving myself), such as where content from period 8 element was copied and pasted straight into period 9 element, with only the numbers changed (adding one for the shells and 50 for the elements).
 * If this persists (and I suspect it will, because these articles have been recreated and re-redirected for years), semi-protecting all the redirected element articles may be necessary. This way, the endless creation of articles on non-notable elements that don't contain any useful, verifiable, sourced information (it's been going on for years) would cease. Also, I propose that newly created element articles would also have to go through checking against certain criteria (I proposed three above) by members of WT:ELEM immediately after their creation. Double sharp (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Asking indefinite WP:SEMI at WP:RPP will prevent the recent edits. The latest AfD looked convincing to me for any other similar page (not just Ubt). -DePiep (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should request for indefinite semi-protection now. We could also block the IPs involved in this – after all, they are edit warring and repeatedly recreating material that consensus has decided to redirect (which is almost the same as repeatedly recreating deleted articles). Double sharp (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, I think blocking the IP might be taking it a step too far, as I think he/she was trying to be constructive by creating these pages. I definitely support the semiprotection though. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I've alerted him/her to the discussion here already, and he/she has been repeatedly recreating the articles . I wouldn't request for an indefinite block – probably 24 hours should be enough or more than enough. Double sharp (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Asked protection for Ubt, the AfD should do it. The IPs that are active have the same geolocation, so sockpuppet investigation might work. -DePiep (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And to DS: take it easy, don't hurry don't worry. It will all be reverted. WP:SOCK and WP:SPP and all will work with us. Just take a time off from this. -DePiep (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, s/he has continued, so I reported him/her to AIV. StringTheory11 (t • c) 06:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can't revert again due to 3RR. We need him blocked, and FAST. StringTheory11 (t • c) 06:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * These are the IPs to follow. The IPs are from the same provider.
 * (currently blocked for 12h)
 * was active on the same pages in nearly the same period (from August 14), but is not edit warring. -DePiep (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (currently blocked for 12h)
 * was active on the same pages in nearly the same period (from August 14), but is not edit warring. -DePiep (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * was active on the same pages in nearly the same period (from August 14), but is not edit warring. -DePiep (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Gcchemistry (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)I think "unbitrium" should be recreated because it seems to meet criteria 1 by Double Sharp (It is on an island of stability, and it had fictional reference in Star trek. RSVP. Gcchemistry (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Screw sci-fi. It don't matter IRL. There's a big list of fictional matter (can't recall the exact name), can go there. It would work for any element (123 is an arbitrary choice). Also, it is not on the island (unless you can prove it). Not for experiment purposes, at least.
 * There's nothing to write about it, actually.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And now yet another person has attempted to recreate the unbitrium article. I've put all the redirects until element 218 on my watchlist. Double sharp (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a comment telling people not to recreate it. Hopefully this helps. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Periodic table by article value
Na and Th, together with the alkaline earth metals (except Be and Ba) and the halogens that R8R Gtrs hasn't touched (Cl, which is barely B and thus not listed as a blemish, Br, and I), are the most important articles in terms of needing improvement. Double sharp (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * During the next update, could you go back to the older view rating system? It was slightly better (not that many important elements, better visual identification. Doubt it that strontium as edit-needing as sodium or iodine, assuming only importance. And there shouldn't be only nine low-viewed elements out of 118, I'm calling for visual identification). Sorry if I'm picky, thanks for updating the chart.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What was the "older view rating system"? If it's the one I used in last month's update, it's still the same view-rating system. The number of views for several articles has gone up a lot for some reason. Double sharp (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies, should've checked before saying. But if it happens the next month again, could you lift the borders up?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Double sharp (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks man. Hope you don't feel bad about me--R8R Gtrs (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course not. I'll change the high views from 20000+ to 50000+ if this continues next month. Double sharp (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In the old time I think the top third in views of articles was high the second third was mid and the last is low.--Stone (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A good approach, it is--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to use the old system. Double sharp (talk) 07:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I inserted the image on the main project page. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, can someone (Stone?) help change the names for Cn, Fl, and Lv? I haven't figured out how to do it without causing a lot of damage when I try to change the colours. Double sharp (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Copy the text from the other JPEG that already has the correct names. Nergaal (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I missed that one.--Stone (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I fixed Cn and Fl by taking the letters from other cells on this table. There's no other lowercase "v" on the table, so I couldn't change Lv. The names are still the old ones, but at least they're not as visible. Double sharp (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * File:Periodic Table by Quality.PNG has what you are searching for.--Stone (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

GAN of Arsenic
I am busy and therefore it will take a few days before I can answer the requests made by the reviewer. Is anybody wanting to help? Thanks! --Stone (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm really busy as well, so I can't, sorry. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The GAN is going to fail very soon unless somebody with time on their hand decides to chip in. Nergaal (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm busy helping R8R Gtrs on Uus. Double sharp (talk) 08:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Is element 173 really the end of the periodic table?
It probably is not. For Z > 173, if the 1s orbital is ionised, then an electron-positron pair is emitted, where the electron fills the gap in the 1s orbital. But if the 1s orbital is not ionised, although the energy of the 1s orbital has now entered the "negative continuum" (the sea of negative-energy electrons from the Dirac equation) (having dropped below zero at Z ≈ 150), the atom remains stable and the energy states of the 1s orbital mix with the energy states in the negative continuum. In fact, Walter Greiner now says that the periodic table will not end. Double sharp (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, that assumes you can assemble nuclei for those atoms...--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The higher magic numbers (184?) might create more, more remote islands of stability that would stabilise the nuclei of such heavy elements. Of course, the more practical problem now is how to create period 8 elements. Fusion with 48Ca, which was the most successful method for the p-block period 7 elements, is impossible with current technology beyond element 119, and it stops being practical beyond element 118 anyway. Double sharp (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

So shouldn't we be editing the articles which claim that element 173 is the last possible neutral element? (I also don't think elements 128, 137, 155, 173, and whatever others have been offered as potential ends of the periodic table deserve their own articles – all the end predictions can be just covered in one section, Extended periodic table. Does anyone have any objections to this merging?) Double sharp (talk) 07:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I've gone ahead and merged them. What does everyone think? Double sharp (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Any other sources for unsepttrium? I've reverted it until you can provide some solider evidence. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 19:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No. The calculations given for the unsepttrium article, which are cited, are correct. The way they are interpreted by the Wikipedia article, which was not cited (with one exception where the source was misrepresented), is not. Double sharp (talk) 08:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Since 173 is not really the end, I've re-extended most of the extended periodic tables we have back to 218. (DePiep, could you please help fix the elementbox table?) Double sharp (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why only until 218? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 17:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We have to stop somewhere, right? :)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * After 218 we have to insert the "h-block" into the 10th and 11th periods and you'd need both the g-block and the h-block ripped out of Compact extended periodic table, which would require a lot of asterisks or other symbols. A secondary reason is that the redirects stop at 218, and Element cell automatically links to the element name, and I am most certainly not going to create redirects until the end of period 11 (element 362, I think). Double sharp (talk) 08:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Eka-superactinide
Does anyone think we should split this off into another article, separate from superactinide? Since we now know that there will probably be more than three, it probably deserves its own article. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Same with Period 9 element. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There haven't been as many predictions for them: the only elements I can find predictions for after 172 are elements 180 and 184, and the latter probably due to its probable magic number of protons. I think they're just too heavy to receive any interest now, in a time where we have only filled up the periodic table until the seventh period. Double sharp (talk) 05:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. There aren't even predictions on when the eka-superactinides (or any of the series of elements in period 9) start and end. Period 8 at least has predictions: 119 is an alkali metal, 120 is an alkaline earth metal, 121–155 are superactinides, 156–164 are transition metals, 165 is an alkali metal, 166 is an alkaline earth metal, 167 is in group 13, 168 is in group 14, 169 is a pnictogen, 170 is a chalcogen, 171 is a halogen, and 172 is a noble gas. (But 173 should not be an alkali metal.) The only interesting prediction I could find about the eka-superactinides (such as 184) are that just as the superactinides should show lower oxidation states than the actinides, the eka-superactinides should have even simpler chemistry, close to that of the lanthanides. There should be a very large superactinide contraction of about 20 pm per element: although the eka-superactinides should have this effect as well, I cannot find any sources for it. Double sharp (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Period 9 probably deserves an article, though, now that we've redefined it as elements 165–172. The "eka-superactinides" (173+) would then be in period 10 – no predictions, so I don't think we need a separate article for them yet. Double sharp (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Isotope lists in infoboxes
We list a lower limit for the half-life of 180mTa in infobox tantalum, but not for 181Ta, even though both are predicted to be unstable (180mTa can decay by IT, β−, or ε; 181Ta can decay by α to 177Lu). Shouldn't this be consistent? Double sharp (talk) 07:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added predicted decay modes for stable isotopes which have predicted half-lives, but not for those that have predicted decay modes but don't have predicted half-lives. (What should we do with those in the latter category?) Double sharp (talk) 12:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * List of nuclides, Stable isotope and the "Isotopes of X" pages give the information required (except some half-lives). Double sharp (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Electron shell images
I plan to create the missing electron shell images (Z=119 and up). Is this list correct & complete?:

- Not for redirect element pages. - Colors according to legend, these are the lighter, predicted ones.
 * Ununennium: 2,8,18,32,32,18,8,1 (#d8bcbc)
 * Unbinilium: 2,8,18,32,32,18,8,2 (#ffecd3)
 * Unbiunium: 2,8,18,32,32,18,8,3 (#d1ddff)
 * Unbibium: 2,8,18,32,32,18,9,3 (#d1ddff)
 * Unbiquadium: 2,8,18,32,36,18,8,2 2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 21, 8, 3 (#d1ddff) see below & infobox
 * Unbihexium: 2,8,18,32,38,18,8,2 2, 8, 18, 32, 34, 20, 9, 3 (#d1ddff) see below & infobox
 * Unbiseptium: 2,8,18,32,35,20,8,4 (#d1ddff)
 * Untriseptium: ... (#d1ddff)
 * Unsepttrium: ... (#c6dd9d)

-DePiep (talk) 10:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See the gallery at Electron_shell, and each element page infobox. 119 is already there. -DePiep (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ubq should be 2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 21, 8, 3 and Ubh should be 2, 8, 18, 32, 34, 20, 9, 3. Double sharp (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL, I just finished spreading 38 electrons evenly over 360 degrees, by hand ;-). I will change these. -DePiep (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. -DePiep (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The complete electron configurations for the elements over 118 are given in Haire, BTW. Double sharp (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Those who have no page are unused. -DePiep (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

✅: Created a complete set without the labels (to be used in the infoboxes). See Electron_shell_-_no_label. -DePiep (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding: I like the new view of the infoboxes, wrt the electron shells. Both lower and higher Z ones look good. But hey, that is me talking. -DePiep (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good. An added benefit for students using Wikipedia for information is that the lighter elements (which they probably will look at more often) have larger and clearer diagrams, rather than the size being the same for all the elements. Double sharp (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this Haire list serious enough to add to Electron configurations of the elements (data page)? In a separate section I guess, as it is here, and noting its prediction character. -DePiep (talk) 11:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. You should also extend the list back to Db, as that's the first element where the electron configuration is not known experimentally. All the elements from Db to 120 should follow the Aufbau principle (as Haire states). There should not be a problem with putting the elements from Db to 184 in the same table as H to Rf, as long as there is a note at the top stating that everything past Rf is predicted (as there is at Molar ionization energies of the elements). Double sharp (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, I'd expect you would put it there. Really, I cannot describe or source this. -DePiep (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I meant that the above list should be added to the list (with a note added at the top that everything past Db is predicted), with the following added so that the atomic numbers stay continuous:


 * Double sharp (talk) 11:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ King jakob c added them (thanks!). Double sharp (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

super heavy elements
I liked the article on the discovery of some of the super heavy elements. --Stone (talk) 09:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Ununpentium
Cultural references (e.g. Bob Lazar) got added to ununpentium again yesterday and today. Materialscientist has expressed my point better than I can: "In science, element 115 is distinctly different from element 100, not only by the number, but by all properties, whereas most cultural references simply pick up a nice number (115 because its not yet characterized in science) and do not give a hint why 115 but not, say, 114. Suggest lumping all such cultural references together in one article. Unobtainium is a good example." Double sharp (talk) 11:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have appreciated your efforts done to bring some explanation about the atomic number in the summaries, in my talk, and now here; thanks. However while some users can find this very useful (I hope so), on the other side this is not necessary for me because I am enough aware of what are atoms, isotopes, etc. So, repeating what was said in my talk: Adding legitimate references and their respective contents as I did was exactly the definition of what is a constructive contribution. On the other side, I´m sorry to say, but your edits removing legitimate references and respective content just to fit to your own subjective opinions was obviously unconstructive. The legitimate references mention only the Element 115, doesn’t matter if done under a pop or scientific way. While the references are legitimate, like plainly is the case, Wikipedia is not supposed to discuss the merit of their contents; if so this would be bias (as you apparently did) which breaks the current rules. Eka-bismuth (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I mean that the cultural references would not have any significant difference in meaning if they referred to a different element. They have nothing to do with the real element 115. However, the scientific references would differ very significantly if the atomic number was substituted throughout. This makes me think that such cultural references should be grouped together in a single article (we already have Materials science in science fiction), or perhaps something like ununpentium in fiction (although all the Bob Lazar and conspiracy theory stuff is already in Materials science in science fiction). Besides, the main topic of the element 115 article is about the real-world element 115, although I would not be opposed to a link to an article covering the cultural references. Double sharp (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand your opinions and preferences about what you regard good content to an article; as matter of fact I almost agree with the chosen logic. Unfortunately that logic is based on your subjective preferences, and as said above, while the references are legitimate and right related to that element (115), like plainly is the case, Wikipedia is not supposed to discuss the merit of their contents; if so this would be bias (as you apparently performed) which breaks the current rules. Following these rules there is enough room in that article to a section exploring the popular aspect of that element (as done). Wikipedia for now doesn’t exclude popular topics from any article, there is plenty space for all. Materials science in science fiction article is an umbrella article, therefore not appropriate to a specific topic. But if you want to create a new, hopefully unbiased article dedicated to that aspect (Element 115 in Popular Culture), I don’t see why not. If you do it and done with no lost contents, then after your creation I will remove myself my contributions from the former article to avoid redundancy. Eka-bismuth (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Just create a dab article, or Ununpentium (fictional element); also, i see no harm in having one para at the end with cultural references. Nergaal (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ I used Nergaal's solution and created Element 115 in popular culture, moving all but one paragraph of the content added there. Double sharp (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) Another solution would be to have one article on Chemical elements in popular culture with two main sections (1) Fictional elements (with subsections on Unobtainium, etc) and (2) Actual elements (with subsections on UUP, etc). Then each real element could have a wikilink Ununpentium in pupular culture, and if any element has a large number of references, the section can be relatively short with a reference to the fuller article. YBG (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This essay gives three interesting criteria for popular culture references: Double sharp (talk) 04:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Has the subject acknowledged the existence of the reference?
 * Not applicable in this case.
 * Have reliable sources that don't generally cover the subject pointed out the reference?
 * The only references given in element 115 in popular culture seem to be references that generally cover the subject. There might be more not cited, though.
 * Did any real-world event occur because of the reference?
 * I don't know of any, although there seem to be numerous references in video games.
 * That page then goes on to say "If you can't answer 'yes' to at least one of these, you're just adding trivia. Get all three and you're possibly adding valuable content." Does anyone know of any sources or events that would make items 2 or 3 have an unquestionable "yes" answer? Double sharp (talk) 09:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. My Google searches don't pick up anything that would give items 2 or 3 the answer "yes". If nothing can be found, then this should be deleted as trivia. Double sharp (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Nicely saying: Instead to put these questions, you should demonstrate some more good faith and in particular more good will. Remember that all editors around here already made a huge compromise allowing you do that, and kindly ignoring your repeated infractions. As you have decided to create a new (the more complicated solution) article, then please remember also that now is time to do the rest of your job, which is not only to use the hard work done by other editor (which has perfect RS’s;… to make it clear) but also to expand that article making sure the use of reliable sources. And remember that if things do not go right, we always legally can put back that section in its integrity and even expand it in Ununpentium. So let’s observe from now on. Eka-bismuth (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the RS's are reliable. However, they are generally covering the subjects of conspiracy theories and other cultural references. Item 2 is talking about reliable sources that do not generally cover the subject, but still mention the reference. Both item 2 and item 3 are gauging whether a certain reference had any outside effects, and thus whether it is notable enough. If all the reliable sources are from within the subject, then it did not have many, if any, outside effects. (Also, I'm quoting the questions from the guidelines at "In popular culture" content.) Double sharp (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. Ununpentium exclusively refers to the real-world element (none of these references call it ununpentium). On the other hand, Element 115, while often synonymous with ununpentium, does not exclusively refer to the real-world element, as it is the term used by these references. Double sharp (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh goodness! Are you asking for a direction? If so, if for some reason you still have doubts, my suggestion is: the Google is a complement, it is not the ultimate source; then for instance buy those referenced books or research them and others going to a good library. Eka-bismuth (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, looking at the titles and contents page of those books (and others found on Google), their topic seems to be conspiracy theories and other cultural references. Item 2 is looking for reliable sources whose topic is not the subject; if such sources exist, then these references have clearly gone beyond their original area and have a much greater claim to notability. (Emsley's Nature's Building Blocks 2003, which covers the elements in much depth, doesn't mention this at all: the 2011 edition doesn't seem to either.) Double sharp (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The History And Use of Our Earth's Chemical Elements: A Reference Guide (p. 360) does mention this though. So it looks like item 2 is a "yes". Double sharp (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Item 2 is probably still a "no". The reference you cite was reviewed in the Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 84, no. 11, 2007, p. 1767. The reviewer commented, in part: 'Unfortunately this 2nd edition is still riddled with inconsistencies, misunderstandings, and errors and, therefore, is all but useless as a reference guide.' Sandbh (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have commented on the deletion discussion with my proposal. What do you two think of it? StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Seen and responded. Double sharp (talk) 02:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ununpentium in popular culture

 * Created subsection -level 3- for this post. No text edit. -DePiep (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am coming from Articles_for_deletion/Element_115_in_popular_culture. It seems that the consensus there leans towards merging the material added by Eka-bismuth in the Bob Lazar article. However I feel that a mention on the element page is appropriate, given that element 115 is a redirect to ununpentium, and that element 115 is the most plausible search term for the UFO-(il)logical theory. I'd suggest a one-sentence mention, making it very clear Lazar's element 115 has none of the properties of real element 115, and linking to main Lazar page. It seems however that here consensus is otherwise. Can I ask why and what to do? -- Cycl o pia talk  10:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Because this is not ununpentium and doesn't have anything to do with ununpentium (except in name). Also, someone looking for Lazar's theories would probably look at the Bob Lazar article. Double sharp (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Per WP:ONEWAY we do not give obscure fringe theories space in articles about a mainstream topic.
 * Fringe views, products or the organizations who promote them may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. However, meeting this standard indicates only that the idea may be discussed in other articles, not that it must be discussed in a specific article. If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether. If no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, there should not even be a link through a see also section, lest the article serve as a coatrack.
 * The due weight is just not there. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding the temprary names to the element articles
Considering the temporary names were what the elements were referred to all the way up to when they were named, I think it is only natural to include the name as a parenthesised bit in the first line of the articles of the elements which were recently named. For example: "Livermorium (also known by the temporary IUPAC name ununhexium)", and "Flerovium (also known by the temporary IUPAC ununquadium)".--Coin945 (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It only works for element without real names, like 113. Those names are outdated when an element has got a real name. IUPAC itself says so. Also, nobody in real science calls it "ununstuff." Element 112, 114 are still used, BTW. And none gives a damn. Not legal, not used -- why would we want them?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahh, apologies. Due to Wikipedia, I had come to the conclusion that those temporary names were "official" throughout the academic field, and then simply replaced when the new name came along. That's how I came to know those two elements, anyways. --Coin945 (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A colourful quote from a scientist (Cody Folden) regarding the systematic element names: 'Note that we just use "115" rather than "ununpentium". (Everyone hates that nonsense).' Double sharp (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. @R8R Gtrs: That presentation also contains another island-of-stability picture. Double sharp (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh..... wow that's really interesting. Forgive me if I'm stating something obvious, but is this interesting fact in any of the Wikipedia articles? Perhaps one on how the elements are named? (I haven't perused through every single relevant article so I do not know the answer to this offhand). It seems rather important, and if nothing else a fascinating misconception that certainly tripped me up.--Coin945 (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's on Ununseptium. Double sharp (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Pnictogen vs. Nitrogen group

 * section moved: I moved this sub-sub-section (level four) into a separate section (from sub ). The topic is alive, and not related to the "metalloids" section/topic. -DePiep (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Further reorganization done to keep these topics on group names under a common header (separate from the "metalloids" topic). Double sharp (talk) 07:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW, if the group names at the bottom include pnictogen, should the nitrogen group article be moved to pnictogen? (Yes, I proposed that some time ago, but it was rejected as being not that common a term, although I suppose that same argument could be made against chalcogen.) The group is more commonly known as the pnictogens among people who work with the pnictogens. Double sharp (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, group names are a different topic right? This thread is about category names. -DePiep (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is why I put it in a different subsection. Double sharp (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Supported. I can't think of any good reason to not change nitrogen group to pnictogens. There is a good article (1999) in the Journal of Chemical Education summarizing the 'Origin of the Terms Pnictogen and Pnictide' . Coined by van Arkel, a chemist, in the early 1950s. 'Banned' for 35 years by IUPAC. Now an IUPAC-approved group name. From the JCE paper: "According to a search in the Chemical Abstracts database SciFinder, these terms appear in over 300 papers each year, a frequency not far from the ~1000 papers per year that use the similar terms chalcogen and chalcogenide for the group 16 elements." Halogen dates to 1811; chalcogen to 1932, so pnictogen has a way to go. As noted by Double sharp, used by workers in the field. Sandbh (talk) 10:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (don't have an opinion, just giving another view, won't insist on anything) The arguments given would convince me if I were to write a professional paper, but we are to write for all people. I'm not sure if that is commonly known among casual people; maybe this term will come the main one someday, but I'm not sure it's today already.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What about chalcogen? I'm not too sure if that term is very well-known to casual people. Double sharp (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per UIPAC source Red Book 205 p.51 (=pdf p.63): If appropriate for a particular purpose, the various groups may be named from the first element in each, for example elements of the boron group (B, Al, Ga, In, Tl), elements of the titanium group (Ti, Zr, Hf, Rf), etc. The following collective names for like elements are IUPAC-approved: alkali metals (...), alkaline earth metals (...), pnictogens (N, P, As, Sb, Bi), chalcogens (O, S, Se, Te, Po), halogens (...), noble gases (...), lanthanoids (...), rare earth metals (Sc, Y and the lanthanoids) and actinoids (...).
 * So: naming by the first element is for special situations only; and "pnictogens" is "IUPAC-approved". -DePiep (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

What does everyone else think? Double sharp (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say: two supporters plus an UIPAC source: just move it. No harm would be done anyway. -DePiep (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. But mention "Nitrogen group" in lead. Do the same for all UIPAC-listed group names.  YBG (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't move it myself, because the Pnictogen redirect has substantial history. We'd need an admin to do it. Double sharp (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just found this: it was discussed last January. -DePiep (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I mentioned that above ("...I proposed that some time ago, but it was rejected as being not that common a term..."), although I should have linked to the older discussion. Double sharp (talk) 10:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Another argument for "pnictogen": using "pnictogens" instead of "nitrogen group" makes it easier to talk about a specific element from the group, which is necessary in the article: it can be simply referred to as a "pnictogen", rather than as a "nitrogen group element". However, if the article is titled "nitrogen group", then it looks strange and inconsistent if "pnictogen" is used very often. The boron and carbon groups don't have similar IUPAC-approved (or even commonly used) names, so this problem is unavoidable for them (the groups in the transition metals also cannot avoid this problem), but in case of the pnictogens/nitrogen group, we have a good, IUPAC-approved and commonly used (in the field, at least) term to use that makes it easier to write the article. Double sharp (talk) 10:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You know guys I said I didn't care, and I still don't, but you'd obviously need to try over with the requested move since there was one with the result "no consensus.". it looks like, "didn't get him see in the face, so I'll stab him when he's looking away." Since you have new backup reasons, go ahead and try it over. Convince the community. You need to. There were more people there not to come into agreement than here to, after all.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll put in a new RM tomorrow. Double sharp (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅: Talk:Nitrogen group. Thanks to Sandbh and DePiep for the arguments (I also contributed one). Double sharp (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Moved. Double sharp (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have tagged this section "Resolved". To the archive that is. -DePiep (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Boron and carbon groups

 * Moved separately from the "Metalloids" section by DePiep to the bottom, then moved by me to here. Double sharp (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

(BTW, Sandbh, have you seen any special collective names for the boron and carbon groups, apart from "triels" and "tetrels"? They're obviously not IUPAC-approved, and so wouldn't be used as article titles, but this would be interesting information. Wiktionary gives crystallogen as a special name for the carbon group, along with a French version, cristallogène, but I've never seen either of these outside the French Wikipedia. Crystallogen is a redirect, though.) Double sharp (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have seen Greenwood & Earnshaw make mention of icosagens for group 13, in reference to the frequency of icosahedral structures in this group. Crystallogens for group 14 is beautiful. There was a suggestion in the 1960s to refer to the noble gases as aerogens. Sandbh (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've created redirects for icosagen and aerogen. Double sharp (talk) 05:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Boron and carbon groups vs. Group 13 and Group 14
BTW, does anyone think we should change "boron group" and "carbon group" to "group 13 element" and "group 14 element"? They do make the article easier to write, and naming by first element is for specific cases whereas the IUPAC group names are for general use. Double sharp (talk) 07:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A least it should be the plural, "group 13 elements" etc., right? Unless one says Aluminium is a group 13 element. Still I do not prefer this, see next. -DePiep (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there was an interesting previous discussion on this somewhere else, although I can't find it. Double sharp (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We use the IUPAC group names and not naming by first element for the transition metal groups as well (we use group 3 element instead of scandium group, group 4 element instead of titanium group, group 5 element instead of vanadium group, etc.) Double sharp (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to make names like group 1 (periodic table) not group 1 element
Split from. This is about the wording of the "Group X" page names (content pages only, not redirects). -DePiep (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC) About "group 13/Boron group":
 * Step 1: It should be "group 13", noone adds "element" in real science life is it? Then, here at WP we might need to disambiguate, so we use brackets: " group 13 (elements) " "group 13 (periodic table)".
 * Step 2: Clearly, this should be changed for all existing "Group X element" pages into "Group X (periodic table)". For example group 1 element &rarr; group 1 (periodic table).
 * Step 3: btw, the word "(elements)" could be better "(periodic table)"?
 * More on the disambiguation word: we already use: Period (periodic table), Group (periodic table), Block (periodic table), (and also Mercury (element), and in secondary pages: Helion (chemistry), Heavy metal (chemistry)). So we could stick to group 13 (periodic table). (I already changed earlier examples here). -DePiep (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If we agree, the topic of this proposal would be: change "boron group" into "group 13 (periodic table)". Apart from the wording, I do not know enough to !vote. -DePiep (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Disagree. In the same way we would say "Sodium is an Alkali earth metal" or "Neon is a Noble gas", we would say "Boron is a Group 13 element". So I think in the case of groups without IUAPC approved names, the WP article should be "Group N element".  Not sure if it is a WP policy, but it seems that if there is a clear, acceptable name that would be generally preferable, all else being equal, to a name with a parenthesized disambiguation word.  YBG (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes one says: "Boron is a group 13 element", but that would be written "Boron is a group 13 element". The nouns are: "alkali earth metal" and "group 13". That is the starting point (in WP page naming, per MOS). Any derived wording should be motivated. By introducing "alkali earth metal" as a group name here, the problem is introduced. It is skewed. As a group name, one says "the alkali earth metals" (as a group, it is plural; as one would say "the group 13 elements"). Anyway, this is not about "alkali earth metal" as a group name or not. It is about "group 13" as a group name. -DePiep (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding, from the Red Book (see discussion above): The following collective names [i.e. group names here. DePiep], for like elements are IUPAC-approved: alkali metals (...), alkaline earth metals (...), pnictogens (N, P, As, Sb, Bi), chalcogens (O, S, Se, Te, Po), halogens (...), noble gases (...), lanthanoids (...), rare earth metals (Sc, Y and the lanthanoids) and actinoids (...).". As a group name, in these cases the plural is used, intuitively too. But in wording like "group 13 elements", the "elements" is a repetition. "Group 13" is well defined. "Element(s)" is already in the definition of "group 13", it would be pleonastic (repetition of meaning). -DePiep (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it: the same is valid for Period 1 element &rarr; Period 1 (periodic table) &tc. for period 1–7. -DePiep (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Periodic table
Annoyingly it does not seem possible to have periodic table as a TFA because it was already a TFA on 28 February 2004. Double sharp (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It would otherwise be a very strong contender for TFA, getting 4 (vital article) + 1 (if StringTheory11 or Sandbh nominates it) + 1 (less than 50 chemistry FAs) + 2 (no similar articles on the main page for six months) = 8 points if StringTheory11 or Sandbh nominates it or 7 points if someone else does. In comparison, none of the articles currently nominated for TFA have more than 6 points. Double sharp (talk) 04:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've asked at WT:TFAR. Double sharp (talk) 05:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be glad to nominate it if this proposal goes through. I'll comment there as well. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks as though cases like this will be treated on a case-by-case basis, but also that it should be OK for Periodic table to appear on the main page again. Double sharp (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Now it looks like it will not happen. :-( Double sharp (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Propose deletion: project page A-class review
I propose deletion of the project page: WikiProject Elements/A-class review. The page is not volatile, only 15 edits in its history. Its topic could be discussed elsewhere (and it is). The creator (R8R) I have contacted and does not object strongly. Usable parts (guidelines, procedures) could be copied to elsewhere.

-DePiep (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Activity: : July 2011 (creation) -- July 2012, ~15 edits.
 * Intention: I have discussed deletion with creator R8R gts: User_talk:R8R_Gtrs.
 * Useful parts: The process described could be moved to WikiProject Elements/Guidelines.
 * I'm not a fan of the A-class review process at all; I think it should be similar to the B- and C-class assessment changes: anyone can change it. I feel that we all have a pretty good idea of what constitutes A-class, so I don't believe this page is necessary. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with DePiep and StringTheory11. Sandbh (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Could someone copy the useful bits (the procedure i guess) to WikiProject Elements/Guidelines?. -DePiep (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is deleted, we ought to change the shortcut WP:ELEM/A to point to WikiProject Elements/Articles instead. Double sharp (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Unused shortcut now to /Articles page as requested. -DePiep (talk) 10:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

MfD: see WikiProject Elements/A-class review -DePiep (talk) 10:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of WikiProject Elements/A-class review
WikiProject Elements/A-class review, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/A-class review and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of WikiProject Elements/A-class review during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Discussion was above. -DePiep (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Unbitrium Re-creation request
Unbitrium is studied by many scientist. There are many references of unbitrium. such as Nuclear Binding Energy. also there ar fictional reference. --Unbitrium123 (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to think that we ought to extend the time material stays on this page before it gets archived, but see Articles for deletion/Unbitrium and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 13. Double sharp (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Unbitrium123. also, the consensus is too old --게이큐읭 (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, two months is NOT "too old." Under no definition in Wiki space.
 * Second of all, I'm not sure if "being extensively studied" is a notability pointer. If everyone started learning penguin guano, its chemical composition, difference between wild and zoo penguin "stuff," would it work?
 * Third of all, instead of arguing, do write a good article in a sandbox, elsewhere. Make yourself useful. If even it is notable, you need to show it, and given none's interested in that given the disputability, the members of the project won't probably do it (although are welcome to try). If you write a good article you can convince everyone is worth existing, then go 'head, give it a try. But it won't probably go. Remember the previous consensus. Also, given the disputability, it would need to be better than (most) stubs to go. Here's your recipe for an attempt, the rest's on you.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Check here. Gcchemistry (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't rely too much on Schiff's predictions – he doesn't seem to be calculating them relativistically, even though he really should have given the high Z of such elements. Fricke/Pyykkö's are relativistic and better (they're in the large table in the "Electron shell images" section). Double sharp (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Still not it. If you rely on the "studiedness," you have to show it, and give many examples not present anywhere on Wiki yet. Or ever. There's almost no unique (not appearing anywhere else) content in it. Only the most stable isotope. But this one could suit into, say, superactinide, if it were to closely discuss nuclear stability. If you want to give it a try, you have to add 5-10 new (not from Wiki) sources and reasonable calculation, not stuff like "analog of 173" (which I believe is not relevant here (not proved it would be the last (with tons of candidates as of today), not expected by those who actually do science and not just extrapolate rules they would never think of to be a homolog, etc.). Wiki articles are not acceptable to be sources (but they have sources you can use given you've read them (this is really important, if you want to not just show off with it, but rather have it well done. Reading sources is quite surprising sometimes, in a good way. Can help you the original citation was wrong or get more material). Etc, etc. I'm not against you, I just think that making this article about a non-important element should be reasonably hard for its separate existence. If even they won't delete it later anyway, which is quite likely. But in principle, I'm not against it if it's well done. Check ununseptium and ununoctium out to see what the idol would be. It doesn't have to be that good, but quite good should it be.
 * There's just not much sense in the article's existence otherwise, if I can read the data anywhere else or extrapolate (which is also a bad thing given no proof it would be relevant for an element in question).--R8R Gtrs (talk) 12:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I tried adding extra external sources. Check my unbitrium page again. Thanks!! Gcchemistry (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that there are no attempts (or even planned attempts) to synthesize it, the whole uncited synthetic-possibilities section is WP:OR. WP is not a place to list hypotheses of what combinations work according to "our" understanding or attempts to balance an equation (need to cite published works that say "this is a way that could work"). DMacks (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are a few possibilities. First, we could simply remove it. Another choice would be to try and find some sources (not in WP). If there are no sources found, put a "citation needed" tag, and I will take care of it. Then we can talk about the article. RSVP. Thanks!! Gcchemistry (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * SEE THIS

Unbitrium stablity researched by Sukhoruchkin, S. I. and Soroko, Z. N.

from this version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unbitrium&action=edit&oldid=522204937 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.29.38.128 (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * They've done this for lots of nuclides with Z ≤ 130: . I don't think this is enough. Double sharp (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is enough. I think there work means every elements Z ≤ 130 is notable --정과 (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No – these are just routine calculations and don't add many interesting properties (like some predicted chemistry, which is more than routine calculation, or, even more interestingly, a synthesis attempt). For elements 123, 125, and 128+, there is simply nothing to write that is accurate and non-trivial. Double sharp (talk) 04:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I support Double sharp's position in this matter—there is simply nothing of any substance, as far as I can see, that has been written about element 123. Sandbh (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Listen. I can remove the section on synthesis and I would like to know what is wrong with an article on unbitrium? OK? Gcchemistry (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I've got an idea. Instead of recreating unbitrium or deleting it completely, we could create a section in Superactinide devoted to some of the superactinides, such as unbitrium, where there is some information, but not enough for a standalone article. How does that sound? King jakob c (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * However, the problem is that there really is no notable info for 123. Double sharp (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure what this is, but it seems to have reasonably good data on the atomic mass and electron configuration (as in, its data on existing elements is accurate). King jakob c (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a reliable source (this is yet another mirror of apsidium.com, which was determined to be unreliable in Archive 10), and just predictions. Also, the electron configuration given is not relativistic, which is not acceptable at all for such high atomic number. (They also have the wrong electron configuration for Lr, BTW.) Double sharp (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How about this? King jakob c (talk) 03:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is also not reliable – it's a mirror of Book:Extensions of the periodic table (on Wikipedia), with a misspelling in the title. Double sharp (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The original WikiBook and unbitrium article have to have gotten their information from somewhere. And I don't think it could be from a mirror site of Wikipedia, because when the article was first created mirror sites could not have existed.King jakob c (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The original 123 article was totally uncited. That cite is most probably a mirror of a later version, not the first version of the 123 article. Double sharp (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right. I suppose we can keep the page in user-space until someone tries so synthesize it and/or a reputable expert calculates that properties (as has been done for, say, 119 and 120) and when that happens, move it out to article space. King jakob c (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, scratch that. How about a table in the format of: Name...Number...Electron Configuration. You said earlier in the section that there are reliable sources for unbitrium's electron configuration.King jakob c (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We can add the huge table I posted earlier to Electron configurations of the elements (data page). Double sharp (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean add a few of the predicted electron configurations for 119+ to the table? That seems good for now. Maybe also the fictional reference can be put into List of fictional materials and if more properties are calculated by experts and/or someone tries to synthesize it, then the userspace article can be moved into regular article space. King jakob c (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the trans-periodic table has no relation to and looks nothing like the real-world periodic table. We do not mention daffyduckium (supposedly element 87 on the trans-periodic table) on the francium article. Double sharp (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant more properties or a synthesis attempt of the actual element, not the fictional one. Of course the fictional element belongs in List of fictional materials and nowhere else. That aside, where is the huge table you posted earlier?King jakob c (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It got archived, but it's still visible at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 13. Double sharp (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Should we add a section on Ubt to "Extended periodic table?" Gcchemistry (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There's really nothing to write. Nobody has even predicted anything about it that isn't immediately obvious from the structure of the periodic table. Adding article sections for elements only makes sense for elements like 164 (which has a section in group 12 element) where there are some predicted properties but there is not really enough to justify a separate article and it is better to discuss the expected properties of the element in relation to those of its congeners. Double sharp (talk) 11:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I think ubt redirect to list of superactinide or list of 9 periode elements is suitable. --게이큐읭 (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Redirects
Should we create redirects to period 8 element and period 9 element for all the Redirect-class articles (123, 125, 128+)? Gcchemistry (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, 121-155 should stay as redirects to superactinide, but the other elements should be redirected to these articles. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO the best solution is: 121-138 to superactinides and 139 onwards to systematic element name. I really think the categorization of the table (periods, etc.) is a question of a choice, since both schemes talk about the same elements (said very similar properties are given). In fact, I also think that both period 8 and 9 are too pushy, without even giving a second alternative. While there should be. I even think these two should be treated as equal, even though that can be messy (can also be organized well). Or we could hold a discussion solely about this choice (we need some not talk-tired users). Also, if I were unaware of this discussion, I would still be left wondering after reading the former why there are 35 superactinides and why there are no p elements in the period. Just not to lean toward a side.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should definitely explain our choice of our standard format for the extended periodic table, and preferably in the main Extended periodic table article. Double sharp (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally I'd prefer StringTheory11's solution (i.e. 123, 125, 128–155 to Superactinide, 156–164 to Period 8 element, and 165–172 to Period 9 element). The redirects above 173 (which go up to 218, BTW) can redirect to Extended periodic table or Systematic element name (I'm not sure which is better). Double sharp (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Element infoboxes for Z=113-118
We do not have any elements below elements 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, and 118 in our Extended periodic table. Should I fix the infoboxes for these elements? Gcchemistry (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see arguments for both sides. Since there are no period 8 p-block elements in the Fricke extended periodic table we are currently using, the period 9 p-block elements could be considered to be the next elements below the period 7 p-block elements. On the other hand, this might be confusing to the reader, as there is a gap between 113–118 and 167–172 (which you've mentioned). I'm undecided about this. Double sharp (talk) 10:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikicup
For all those thinking of doing significant editing next year suggest signing up for the next year's cu at WikiCup/2013 signups. Nergaal (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about it, but I would get completely creamed :(. I see that Double Sharp has already signed up, however. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * On second thought, what's there to lose? I've signed up. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am there for several years and I like it, although I know that better than the last 16 or 32 is nearly impossible for me. Others must have huge amount of time to create content.--Stone (talk) 07:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Article at AFC
There's a draft for an article on unbitrium at AfC. I was going to accept it, but I see that you all have had a discussion about that topic already. Could someone from this project do a review? Danger High voltage! 05:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Gcchemistry, wasn't there already agreement (several times) that 123 is not notable enough for its own article for now? I don't know of anything that has happened since we last reached the same conclusion that would cause a change in 123's notability (e.g. a synthesis attempt, or a detailed prediction of even some of its non-trivial physical and chemical properties). Double sharp (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Helium-3 or Trilium
Is there any source for the name trilium for helium-3. I could not find one and the ref on helium-3 page is a link to wikipedia. --Stone (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * tralphium look also not well sourced for mentioning in lead. .--Stone (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Quote from the article Stone linked to) "And God said: "Let there be mass three." And there was mass three. And God saw tritium and tralphium, and they were good." If this is where the name tralphium originated (as a joke written by George Gamow), I'd rather not state it, much less put it in the "position of honour" of the lead section where only official (or widely used) names are supposed to reside. Double sharp (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Deleted from lead. (And then an IP user added some more unreferenced "popular culture" uses to the article, which I really think shouldn't actually be there, but that's another topic.) Double sharp (talk) 02:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Periodic table by article quality
Is this a better periodic table by quality? Gcchemistry (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I modified it slightly, as I marked period 10 element and all the redirects up to element 137 as redirects in the table. Also, I corrected the states of matter and added the Stub-class box to the key. Gcchemistry (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not better to me. 1. A table without a title (and no v-t-e box)? 2. The border has disappeared, while that kept the whole together. Now there appear whitespace lines as if a new table starts or separate blocks are glued together. 3. State of matter colors (in the number) make some situations illegible. The hard bg colors are not suitable for red or grey font. Also, this SoM information is really irrelevant to the topic (btw same for occurrence frame). 4. Just noting: there wee earlier talks here last summer on whether to include redirected elements, and whether to add the currently unused "stub" color. -DePiep (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No redirects, please. They make it appear as though those elements are notable enough for their own separate article, which they're not.
 * When I first made the PTQ last year, I experimented with both the state of matter colours and the occurrence frame. I found that adding the SoM info, in addition to being irrelevant, makes the table look worse. But I thought that adding the occurrence info, while also irrelevant, made it look slightly better (which was why I kept it). Perhaps I am biased by the fact that every PT we have (except the compact ones and a few other exceptions) uses the occurrence frames, though. I wouldn't mind if the occurrence frames disappeared from our "official" PTQ. Double sharp (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have changed, a bit bold, the template. The occurrence frame is gone, and replaced by a black line. I have created a specialised template Element cell AQ for this template, to control the settings. There is less distracting code in the template. Changing a quality class is easier (I think), via the parameter: aq=FA. I did no class edits. -DePiep (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Another enhancement I suggest for WP:PTQ, now in sandboxes. I have adjusted the basic element cell AQ that, since a few days, sets all PTQ cells (name, link, and bg=class color). Now I have added the input option imp=... for article importance Top, High, Mid, Low. That is, in the same place (row) one can edit both importance and AQ: . What the template shows is up to you. Default is good old AQ (unchanged), but the importances are this way: Periodic table by article quality/sandbox. Here is the proposed Periodic table by article quality/sandbox PTQ, with demonstrations here Template:Periodic table by article quality/testcases. Note the third option in testcases: show=both cobines both input. If this is useful for you, I'll promote the sandboxes to live code. The basic PTQ (default showing) will not change visibly. Future possibilities: since we have both parameters together, we can calculate a weighing (GA=0.9 x Mid=0.5 = 0.45 etc.) automatically from that same input! I'll dive into that later on. (Thanks to Double sharp, from whom I stole the idea & useful preparations). -DePiep (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Concepts of development
Please read User:R8R Gtrs/Elements. The project's going fine, but it may take some work to make it keep on. It has a few ideas, which may even burn the spark of the interest again.

It takes time to make it shine; I hope you all are old enough to get a concept without being told the same thing millions times and pic (sorry guys, didn't know what to include).

Also, I have an idea to always call WP:CHEMS editors when we have a big talk on whatever from now on.

Merry Christmas/Happy holiday for my Western friends!--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * (BTW, I think Ln, An, and the main TM article should also be FA'd – IMHO, they're more important than the TM groups (group 3, group 4, group 5, etc.).) Double sharp (talk) 09:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's awesome. Maybe we should create an elements report-esque page for this for every article. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Stone has a page like that. Nergaal (talk) 19:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that. Have looked for a link and haven't found. Is it still available?
 * Anyway, I'm glad that no opposition has been raised. Let's now start looking for future. The most important thing is now get new goals which would be interesting to work on AND useful to the project.


 * How about this (a very first draft for short term (which could be, say, 2 years) goals, to be discussed and altered):


 * Turn 2 vital articles into FAs
 * Make alkali metal a GT
 * Get us a SHE (101-116) FA
 * Get us a lanthanide FA
 * Get us three GAs of articles of Mid- or Low-importance (there's a greater choice than one could expect!)


 * Also, I got us a small table to track progress and write down those who want to work on certain articles, for now in my user space. See User:R8R Gtrs/Elements table. How is it?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've created another table at User:StringTheory11/Elements work needed table, which shows a rough representation of the amount of work each article currently needs. What do people think of it? StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This looks like a good rough draft, but one goal that I think needs to be included is a "bring gold to FA". Looking at my table, improving gold would give the readers much more benefit than any other article. This would also satisfy one part of the first goal; maybe we should change the first goal to "bring gold and one other vital article to FA". For the lanthanide FA, it seems that neodymium would be the best way to go here. Similarly, for mid or low importance articles, it appears that improving group (periodic table)would give the readers the most benefit, and ununpentium for the SHEs. Maybe we should include these as recommendations, but not mandates in the goals? Also, considering that sodium is in the red on my table anyways, goal number 2 looks great. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The gold to FA goal might be fun, but also a lot of work and a lot of axing out stupid things to which a lot of strange people will have a strong affiliation. If there is enough momentum I will be with you.--Stone (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect the high number of views for element 115 is due to all the non-notable popular culture "references" which people think are related to the real element 115. Double sharp (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Since everyone else is creating their own version of the PTQ, I think I ought to do so as well. User:Double sharp/Periodic table by article importance gives the importance rating for each element. Double sharp (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have merged this importance data into the WP:ELEM/PTQ. See Periodic table by article quality/testcases for effect and options. Future possibilities: automatic weights added. -DePiep (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

For reference, the fourteen level-3 vital element articles are Periodic table, H, He, C, N, O, Al, Si, S, Fe, Cu, Ag, Au, and U. Five of them are already FAs (PT, H, He, O, and U), which leaves nine. Double sharp (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Stone's view
I do my work here al ot different. I started with niobium a long time ago, because it looked terrible and it needed some help. After starting a few others joined the work and we got it to be featured in a relative short time. From that time on I improved one article after the other in a very uncoordinated way. I always tried to help when I noticed a efford to improve an article and I always tried to help to save GAs and FAs. Overall planing was never in my view. I have no problem if we have a 100% GA periodic table and the FAs take another century. The informations you get from a GA are not that different to what you get from a FA, but it is a better read. And beauty is a nice goal, but informations do not count in the FA process and this is the point I want to have. The plan is only good if all editors follow it, and following a plan is done here because people want to do that. They must like the idea and be 100% with it. In any other case the plan will be on a page nobody will read until the next plan comes around roughly 2016-2018.

I will try to be with every plan, but I like to do a little work in the wikicup and there the most promissing way to go for me is GAs of the less prominent elements, because the GAs of the more complicated ones will take too long and will take endless for review. So you see there are other influences than plans from this projects and everybody in the team has other needs. --Stone (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Man, yes! The whole point is to get a plan everyone would want to follow! My personal view is, if there is activity not mentioned in plan, it's okay, but the plan has to be interesting. I do want everyone to make a suggestion what kind of work they would want to do to get a doable plan. I mean, if the lanthanides seem boring and none wants 'em, okay, they're out. Just wanna start the talk.


 * And I do support GAing easy elements-- because the complicated ones are those which are worth FAing. I myself want to work on getting FAs. Three times I tried, failed every time, but this doesn't stop me from working on and trying over. I just finished going through reflist of fluorine. Now need more HR (fresh competent eyes, that said) to make it FAC-worthy. GAing is easy and productive, and I think there are other people to do it. Like you. So let the voices sound, they'll be forming the thing as well. What was I saying... Nothing's set in stone (sorry for the word game), let's talk.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A plan which might lead to a work on an article and to a FA in the near term would be good. --Stone (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the general idea. I am completely against targeting FAs from among the less read articles (i.e. lantanides or trans-actinides), but I am generally towards completing some of the topics that are within reach. It would be nice to get gold to FA or even to GA, but are ppl actually interested in a collaboration? Also, fixing hard goals for long periods of time (such as 2 years) seems naive: there isn't a sufficient large number of editors, and chances are that most of the editors active now will have a significantly different level of involvement so long into the future. Nergaal (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Good one about term things, didn't have that in mind. About turning the less read articles into FAs: I don't think that proclaiming it as goals is necessary, but I still think it could be a good idea. 'Cause none else would care about those. There are at least two people who think like me. But if none says, hmmm, yeah, I'd work on those, then screw that. (Say, I personally would be interested to FA cerium, 'cause it's interesting to me (not because of views, which are quite low). If I'm alone on that, than never mind. I never thought our activity, even in its perfect way, should be limited to those points stated under the goals title. And my personal goal shouldn't be everyone's goal, that's clear. Also, I think that there should be two people claiming they would do some work to get written into the goals, but I don't insist.) All I want to say is, that may not be written IMO, but should be had in mind.
 * Do you plan to work on the project's articles during the coming year? Could you say how goals should look like from your perspective?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Elements/A-class review
Your process page, has been nominated for deletion. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 10:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We know that. It was nominated by DePiep (a member) as it was unused. Double sharp (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It was sitting at MFD for a month without garnering much activity. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 07:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * IP, you are right in that. There was a notification here earlier, and that has been archived already! -DePiep (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The page was deleted today. Double sharp (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Element cell enhanced
I have changed element cell. It now is more generic. Parameters that are optional by now: #1 (top line, atomic number with its &lt;br/>), #5 (front color, SoM) #6 (bg color, category) #7 (border, occurrence). When one is omitted or blank, the template uses a neutral setting in black or white, and no word is added to the title, the mousehover text. (So, it does not turn into any "unknown" meaning; if that is needed, one should add that when using the template). No current usage expected to be broken. Tip: one can use the template freely without having to add a border. One can use only the meaningfull colors. Examples are at element cell/testcases. -DePiep (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The "*" and "**" used for the lanthanides and actinides (the cells below Y) are broken, displaying as though they began lists. Double sharp (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Should be OK now. Or revert when an error pops up. -DePiep (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ...but if you see a problem, please notify and give a link to the page that went wrong. -DePiep (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Element cell is a perfect thing now. All ideas are incorporated, as an option!: title, name, legend, links, text, background & frame/border. Legend or just a color? done. See, for example. Simple 1: Template:Periodic table. Extreme: Template:Compact extended periodic table and Template:Periodic table (persistent carbene). -DePiep (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Colors for the grand categories metal–metalloid–nonmetal
We use the category background colors as in the complete legend. In most cases that is fine. But on a few pages we only use the top categories: metal–metalloid–nonmetal. Two of these categories are colored grey where we need an expressive legend color (the middle one, metalloid, is OK). The example page where we need a non-grey color is Periodic table (metals and nonmetals). For these situations only, I propose the color scheme as in this project subpage. The demo page is Template:Periodic table (metals and nonmetals)/sandbox. Notes: Question: OK? -DePiep (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is that we should only use these colors when the detailed (regular, familiar) colors are absent. The category structure (legend) should not be mixing rows (not grand and detailed, not "metal" and "noble gas" in one table). Never the legend should have to look like this, throwing all together.
 * I also added a blueish color for grand grouping "inner transition metal". I have not see an usage, but alas, it follows the logic. "Predicted (non)metals" I have not given colors -- do we need?
 * For the moment, I used HTML color names like "gold" ;-) "aquamarine" and "thistle". When accepted, we should not use these names any more. "Gold" is #ffd700.
 * I can write more about my color chosing process, just ask.
 * Even newer colors now, more soft: Element color legend/metals nonmetals/newcolors -DePiep (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed: color nonmetal (blueish now). -DePiep (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there should be more contrast between the metal and nonmetal colours. It is currently quite hard to see the difference between them, especially when they are next to each other (H and Li) without the dark "metalloid" colour in between. Double sharp (talk) 09:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea. -DePiep (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, if you're going to have predicted metal/nonmetal colours, you'll have to change the colour scheme to use colours with bigger differences between them (like the current grey, brown, and green). Double sharp (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there is no simple soution. In this the full legend category scheme has not just 12 categories and their prediceted subs (we well understand). Introducing colors for the top categories, as I do, makes the scheme a theoretical thing (that is, not all colors appeare at the same time). Now in reply to Double sharp: there is no space in the rainbow to solve all these requests. Already the base 12 categories have problems with related "predicted" colors. I have no solution. (I just do sandboxes). -DePiep (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we can forget about the "predicted" colours, though. If a reader wants info on the expected chemical properties of those elements, he or she can always look at the main articles on those elements or our extended periodic tables where they are included. Double sharp (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed the color for nonmetal into "powderblue". See above and legend page and /sandbox. For now there will be no (separate) color for top level "predicted metal/metalloid/nonmetal" categories (for no distinguishable colors are left). -DePiep (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't really like this scheme.

The metals and metalloids are too similar, esp. given there is a metal--nonmetal contrast, and the current standalone blue seems very heavy and complicated (I have no idea how to correctly describe what I feel about the color, it just doesn't look like an arbitrary color I would expect). Also, the thing looks a little wooden to me. No, I mean, this doesn't bear any resemblings to metals, rather to the metals' "natural opponent." Pink or green or orange or cyan could be considered arbitrary, but this doesn't really.

I, however, don't blame it for being bad. I wouldn't probably come up with anything better. I would maybe give a try to a dark green (green that isn't too dark and can also be considered "warm") as the metal color and yellow-orange to nonmetals, also trying them pale but not too pale. But I'm no color designer. I mean, I have no solution to insist on either. I just hope my critic can be considered constructive (it is intended to)?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm no color designer either, for color pickings I first browse our Web colors. But this is the reasoning (it takes some steps, please follow). 1. First, it is a background color for the metal-nonmetal range (that range you know). A background (bg) color, so it must be light. Otherwise the text (font color) is illegible, whether it's black, red or grey. No darker colors can be used, end of argument in this (really)(the alkali red bg is not OK). And it is a 2. legend. So the reader must be able to see a bg color and translate  that to the legend below (the key table). No compromise possible with that. So if colors are similar to the readers eye we loose: mistranslation by the reader! That is why we must use distinct colors. Then there is 3. misleading colors: I'd say grey is not a meaningful color, let's keep that for "unknown" (not suitable for "metal" really).
 * 4. Now I proposed the legend Legend page. Although these colors will not appear in the same table ever (because an editor should not mix up category levels, ever), it is just theoretical. But still: if it looks OK in theory, practice can follow. And, to me, it does. This legend page examples show why I do like the scheme: they fit, within the freedoms we have.
 * R8R Gtrs, concluding. You may not like this scheme. OK, but I canot respond to that: it is personal. And also, I tried to explain that there is little space to choose colors for this (minor) thing. We aleady used "all of the rainbow" for metal-nonmetal range. -DePiep (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have pushed the new colors into the pages (Periodic table (metals and nonmetals), Periodic table (metals and nonmetals)). At least we do not double-use the colors for "post-transition metal" and "other nonmetal" any more. -DePiep (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed a small problem where the template wouldn't recognize the natural occurrence when a colour not from Element color was used. Now it works fine (although I probably could have used better colour names than "Metal" and "Nonmetal", which are confusing with the old "Metals" and "Nonmetals" – shouldn't the old colours be renamed to what they're currently being used as, and not keep these historical names?) Double sharp (talk) 11:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All to the point. So (1) I changed the color of "Element color/Metals" after a check on its usage, (2) I created Element color/Other nonmetals (green), (3) then edited all pages that used "Nonmetals" when meaning "Other nonmetals" (green cells; some 50 pages many PTs), and (4) changed the color in "/Nonmetals" into the new blue one. Then (5) made /Metal and /Nonmetal unused. Note: some user pages and talkpage archives are unchanged, and will show the blueish not green for using "/Nonmetals" (they are in old style).
 * Could you tag for speedy (db-u1, author) the pages Element color/Metal and Element color/Nonmetal (singular's)? (If I do so for db-T3, hardcoded duplication, it takes seven days). We don't want possible confusion around. -DePiep (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Double sharp (talk) 08:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Colors for predicted properties
(Section heading inserted to separate this discussion from the "grand categories discussion")
 * The topic: see #Legends, Category (lower row, with the lighter shades of color). This is our current standard. "predicted" colors are mostly used in extended periodic tables. -DePiep (talk) 08:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need a separate color for "predicted". Instead, I think the background in those cases should be white, with a small bit of the color within an otherwise white cell, either using  or a solid text block ( █ ). YBG (talk) 07:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. If you mean to say: such cells in a PT should be colored partially, I do not agree with you. It adds confusion to the readability (it looks like a captcha then).
 * 2. Above Double sharp stated: I think we can forget about the "predicted" colours, though. for another reason. So then the question is: is there a need for such colors in a legend? That would be, "predicted metal", "predicted nonmetal" and "predicted inner transition metal" ("predicted metalloid" already is used). -DePiep (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My suggestion was based on the (apparently incorrect) idea that there was a stong desire to represent "predicted" states in the table and hence in the legend. I agree that the best solution would be to eliminate the "predicted" colors entirely from the table and from the legend.  Is there a consensus that predicted colors are not necessary?  If so, then remove those entries from the tables and from the legend.  Then reconsider the question of colors.  It may be that some of the colors previously assigned to predicted categories might be used to improve the color scheme.  Or maybe folks have already considered this.  YBG (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer keeping this about the major categories as mentioned only. (Discussion on the "predicted" properties as used and colored widely, better be elsewhere on this page). So far these categories are used and colored only in Template:Periodic table (metals and nonmetals), but these are plainy wrong colors: they have other meanings here. My proposal would lead to /sandbox. In these, no "predicted" property is used. -DePiep (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If we can hijack the chemical series colours for entirely different properties in Template:Periodic table (valence) then I don't see why we can't do it here as well, though. (I don't think we'd really need separate colours for the grand categories anywhere else – am I right?) Double sharp (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have inserted a new section heading above so this part of the discussion os only about the predicted colors.
 * I'm confused. Are we talking about the predicted colours for just the grand categories metal–metalloid–nonmetal, or for the subcategories (e.g. superactinide, post-transition metal) as well? If the former, I think the predicted colours can go, and this thread should be a subsection of the previous. If the latter, I think they should definitely stay, and that these should be separate threads. Double sharp (talk) 08:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My fault entirely. I didn't realize there were two different sets of 'predicted' colors.  My original thought was, if there is a consensus on eliminating 'predicted' colors, then that opens up additional colors to be considered for the 'observed' colors.  YBG (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So. Current situation, and proposal to keep it this way: #Legends, Category
 * 1. "predicted" colors in the range alkali metal–noble gas (10 discernable ones in the bottom row)
 * 2. no "predicted" colors for the range metal–metalloid–nonmetal (not present today)
 * 3. Unaffected: the grey "unknown chemical properties" stays. And metalloid (brown) has a "predicted" color for being a detail category.
 * If I read YGB well, this is the situation and the desired outcome wrt "predicted" colors (no changes). -DePiep (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not strongly vested in this, but I really think that having the predicted colors is unnecessarily confusing.
 * Looking at the colors in WikiProject_Elements/Legends, the only way I can make the connection between colors for known properties and those for predicted properties is because they are above and below each other in the periodic table.
 * The colors in WikiProject_Elements/Legends seem much better.
 * As I said, I'm not strongly vested in this but I really think things would be much better without a special set of colors to distinguish between known categories and predicted categories. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, e.g., if someone can show me an example where separate colors for "known" categories and "predicted" categories are beneficial -- e.g., they add more clarity than they add confusion. YBG (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To me it adds a lot more clarity for the alkali metal–noble gas range. Mt is not known to be a transition metal and so colouring it as known to be one is factually incorrect, which is a bad thing. But if we simply used "unknown chemical properties" for every element past Hs (except Cn) then Compact extended periodic table would look extremely boring. It's much more informative to give information about their predicted chemical properties, but not mislead the reader by portraying them as being known chemical properties. (BTW, you are talking about the currently used predicted colours of the alkali metal–noble gas range, right?) Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am talking about predicted colors in the alkali metal to noble gas range. I agree that it is good too clearly distinguish between that which is known from that which is not known, however, with the current scheme, it is very difficult to tell at a glance which colors are represent known facts and which colors represent predicted facts.  Also, despite the careful attempts at using colors, the known/predicted color pairs are not immediately obvious apart from the location in the periodic table -- even for individuals without colorblindness.  I still think that it would be best to use the same colors for both known and predicted properties and distinguish between known and predicted in some other manner other than color.  The fact that some known colors have no corresponding predicted color and vice versa further confounds the matter and makes it nearly impossible to tell at a glance which colorations represent known properties and which ones represent predicted properties.  To summarize, I believe that a good scheme should
 * make it easy to quickly navigate the key to unequivocally identify a particular element with its properties and their "knownness"
 * make it easy to visually distinguish the set of all elements with known properties from the set of all elements with unknown properties
 * make it easy to visually identify the elements with a particular known property with the elements which are predicted to have the same property
 * IMHO, the current scheme is weak on all three criteria. Nevertheless, I believe it represents a carefully thought-out plan and probably goes about as far as can be gone using color alone, with the possible exception of the alkali color pair.  YBG (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks YBG for explaining. @Double sharp: as I understand it, YBG does not want to abolish the marking of the predicted property, but wants to mark it in a different way (only abolishing these lighter colors). Somehow: one bg color, marking two situations. I agree, having ~20 bg colors into a legend is not ideal. So maybe there is something in it.
 * Just some first rough demo options, let's see where it leads us:


 * Only one column style (existant/predicted marking) shall appear in a periodic table and its legend. It should be used everywhere in the ELEM pages consistently. Note that exact cell format and occurrence frame style can have an effect on readability. Many PTs here are squeezed, so there is not much horizontal leeway (extra cell width). -DePiep (talk) 11:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * @DePiep: To me a and b suggest that there are two forms (allotropes?) of the element with different chemical properties (a not unheard of situation – see the case of α- and β-Sn). And t, with its placement of the note, suggest to me that the "predicted" note has to do with the atomic number, as though the element had been formally placed into the periodic table based on its chemical properties, but that its actual atomic number had not been measured (for lack of time, perhaps?).
 * To me it looks as though, if an alternative solution can be found that almost all readers will almost certainly understand, it won't be easy to come up with one. This feedback post suggests that the current system is understood clearly by our readers (and has an interesting suggestion regarding removing the unused "predicted" colours, although when we recolour the PT, we'll probably need to actually use those two). (It also suggests that "other nonmetal" is being taken for a noun, if a weird one – which is not something I'd like readers to leave thinking, for it's certainly never used that way.) Double sharp (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict)
 * @YBG: I can see where you're coming from. Nevertheless it would prove rather difficult to use something other than colour, especially for small tables like NavPeriodicTable and Compact extended periodic table. It's a widely recognized and recognizable convention to use stronger colours for things that are known (and will not change – [speculation] might this stem from people colouring things in deeply when it is certain that they won't need to be changed, and doing it more lightly when they might?) and lighter versions of those colours (so that it's still recognizable as a variant of the strong colour, rather than a separate colour).
 * IMHO the current colour scheme is very good. When the known and predicted colours are placed next to each other, you can almost imagine one fading into the other (except for the alkali metal colour, but there doesn't appear to be enough space available in the rainbow. Originally █ was suggested by DePiep for that, but that looks too much like the transition metal colour.) That seems to make it fulfill your criteria 2 and 3 already – elements with known properties have strong colours, those with unknown properties have lighter colours. If a reader can recognize the eleven basic categories – group 1, group 2, Ln, An, San, TM, PTM, metalloid, other nonmetal, group 17, group 18 – then I don't see why he shouldn't be able to recognize nine more which are easily visually identifiable with nine of the eleven categories we already have. That would seem to satisfy criterion 1 – you recognize the basic colour (red, orange, pink, purple, blue, reddish-pink, gray, brown, green, yellow, cyan), which tells you the property, and the shade of that basic colour (darker or lighter), which tells you whether that property is known or predicted
 * Finally, I cannot really support eliminating the predicted colours for one more reason: people who do not read the legend fully (I suspect many won't fully read text describing how to find known or predicted properties) will leave with a misconception that we know the chemical properties of some elements when we don't – and since this table makes no mention on what elements are actually known as of the current year, some might even imagine that there's some way to know for certain the chemical properties of an undiscovered element without having to synthesize it first! It used to be like this, with just a note. (Yes, the beige colour for the superactinides is quite a horrible choice. I eventually realized this, prompting me to change it to the blue we use now.) As a result we had quite a few anonymous IPs changing Mt–Rg and 113–118 to the "unknown chemical properties" colour (but not 119+) – this may be due to just not reading the footer text (it was later corrected to speak of Mt–Rg and 113+, and not just 113+). By using different colours, any reader instantly gets the message that there is some difference in property between Hs and Mt, and now they would certainly look at the legend to find out just what that difference is (as many periodic tables on the Internet don't show this difference in any way!) I'm concerned with not just (1) presenting information such that it is factually correct, but also (2) presenting information such that it is factually correct and that readers will (almost certainly) leave with an impression of that information that is factually correct. Double sharp (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly as for today I do not support or promote such a change, I am just exploring options. Even stronger: at the moment I see no improvement in such a change. re Ds: the two forms (allotropes?) I did not associate with icolumns a or b, because I have no idea about that (consider me a layman). And indeed connecting text (footnote "p" here) with something about the color, intuitively for the reader, is difficult or impossible. So in general I can support your positive arguments for the current situation. Saying something on different shades of colorblindness: WP:ACCESS warns that using color only to clarify is not enough, because not all people can discern the colors meaningfully (as everybody here knows). Advice is to use a second or supporting notification. In the PTs, we use the mouse hover text ("title"); that mentiones the category in text. I don't know if that is enough, but it's the best I can think of (in large PTs we can do more). And one word on the basic colors and their problems. We could embark on this huge task: redesign the color set from scratch (but not the categorisation itself), to serve all requirements more nicely. Will take a lot of ELEM support, and touches about every ELEM page, commons included. But to think of this .... I see a huge elephant in front of me. In multiple colors. -DePiep (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I did put "allotropes" in parentheses and question-marked it. ;-) Maybe I shouldn't have added that word. But we already use the "double-border" effect to mean something like this (two forms – in this case, nuclear isomers – with different properties) in Table of nuclides (complete) and related articles. Also, it is rather hard to explain this scheme very briefly and concisely for a legend.
 * Is it possible to get mouseover text to work for the compact PT templates? Double sharp (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * One can use one of the element cell variants (dunno which one), that strings together some input into the title="...". Or add hardcoded (e.g. in Compact periodic table):
 *  &rarr; H
 * (that closing /span is not needed in a table, but inline here it is). -DePiep (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done using extended Element cell. See Compact periodic table for example. -DePiep (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI: Citations to Wikipedia in chemistry journals
Here, in case you have not seen Sandbh (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * --Stone (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * “"WikiProjects" that try to monitor chemistry-related articles”… IMHO an activity of WP:WikiProject Chemistry is noticeable only in maintain infoboxes in articles of their own WikiProject (although it is a good deal, anyway). They were never interested in fixing chemical terminology and links outside chemical articles. They can't cope even with hundreds of links to a set-index page hydrogen ion, for example. Actually, a huge number of articles outside chemistry proper are in some way chemistry-related. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Reassess Chalcogen
Hi. I've noticed that the article on chalcogen is rated start-class, but I wrote the content for several sections that seemed to be lacking, so could it be reassessed? Thanks,

King Jakob  C 03:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Properties
 * The bit that says…
 * '…tellurium and polonium are metalloid semiconductors (that means, their electrical properties are between those of a metal and an insulator). Nevertheless, tellurium, as well as selenium, is often referred to as a metal when in elemental form.'

…needs some work. Po doesn't show any semiconducting properties. Se is very rarely referred to as a metal; tellurium rarely so. I think what is meant to be said is that the most stable form of Se, the grey trigonal allotrope, is sometimes called 'metallic' selenium due to its electrical conductivity being several orders of magnitude greater than that of the red monoclinic form.

Explanation of above periodic table slice:
 * Presume 'above' should read 'adjacent'?

Allotropes
 * Say something about oxygen allotropes. The reference to Te's 'only' allotrope is logically contradictory. If an element exists in only one form then it has no allotropes.

Applications|Mining and Earth crustal composition explanation
 * Content re mining etc has nothing to do with 'Applications'

Toxicity Sandbh (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Add supporting references
 * Add something about toxicity of O and Se.

✅ King Jakob  C 01:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it B-Class now? Or better than that? Or is it still C-class?

King Jakob  C 16:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice job! But I would prefer a bit more cleanup before showcasing it as a B-class. Look at Alkaline earth metal for comparison. The applications, chemistry/compounds, and properties sections should be expanded a bit, and history section needs to be created. Nergaal (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ Is it good enough for B-Class now?

King Jakob  C 03:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, from a brief glance at the citations, most of them appear a bit bare. I know there's other citations for Theodore Gray's book floating around (I added a lot of them, lol), so you can use those to expand those citations. Emsley's book is in a similar boat. and  may be helpful for bringing the citations up to speed. After that, I'd probably B-class, although some more citations wouldn't hurt (every paragraph should be cited before GA). StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, formatting of the references needs to be improved, as per Alkaline earth metal, for example. The orphaned citation that starts the Applications section needs to find a home too. Oh, and what is tellurium suboxide(?)---is that TeO? Sandbh (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, tellurium suboxide is TeO. Anyway, I've fixed the citation mess. Better now?


 * King Jakob  C 14:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, in answer to what you've said about every paragraph needing to be cited for the article to move up to GA, I've added citations to just about every significant (i.e. more than 1 or 2 lines) paragraph in the article. I'm still missing some citations here though, but that's because this website won't give me access to the original paper on Goldschmit Classification. King Jakob  C 16:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, big improvements there with the referencing and formatting of same. Sandbh (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Could it become a GA now? It appears to meet all the criteria except for maybe the one about pictures--it's a little hard to find relevant files for most of the article--but even the criterion about pictures says that "Illustrated if possible by images". King Jakob  C 02:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've done a bit of leaning up and left a few notes on the article. The article might need a bit more wikilinking of the technical terms. Nergaal (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I added a few wikiliks, but I can't see any more technical terms. The section about Goldschmidt classification is copied from the article Goldschmidt classification, which cites only one inaccessible source. Should it be removed since it's about chalcophiles not necessarily chalcogens? King Jakob  C 23:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, maybe Carbon Group deserves a reassessment too. (Should I use article talk pages for this type of comment from now on?) King Jakob  C 22:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed rename (move) from group 3 element to group 3 &tc, and periods alike
See Talk:Group_3_element for a central discussion. -DePiep (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * More voices are welcome. -DePiep (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Closed as no move. -DePiep (talk) 10:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Unbitrium
I've noticed that several Wikipedias have articles on unbitrium. Would it not be possible to translate material from these articles to recreate unbitrium? King Jakob  C 17:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As I have already told you several times, there is simply nothing significant about element 123, and none of these articles contain any info that would change that (in fact, they're pretty much just boilerplate text and references with some sci-fi "references" that don't even relate to element 123). Double sharp (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * With regards to unbitrium's properties, John Emsley's book Nature's Building Blocks discusses unbitrium's atomic mass on page 589.King Jakob  C 20:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * He also does so on element 125, where he just writes that unbipentium-332 would be the most stable isotope (with no explanation as to why). I suspect he got those predictions from an unreliable site like apsidium.com because he didn't want to say nothing for those elements and didn't want gaps in the atomic number sequence for non-notable elements. Double sharp (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Nitrogen
Is the Electromagnetic spectrum section within the nitrogen article a 100% copy of a book chapter or if the 2008 indian book simply copy right violating copied from wikipedia? --Stone (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 11:38, 11 October 2006‎ Gen.Sec. introduction of this section.--Stone (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Periodic table (pictures)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Periodic table (pictures), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. DePiep (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC). Both are project pages (no articles involved) giving overview of the same element pictures (so mostly content copy). A merge would leave just one page. -DePiep (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Vickers hardness
The chemical elements pages contain a point Vickers hardness and Brinell hardness and there it is given in MPa which was pointed out at the tungtsen talk page is strange. The definition of both test does not include the MPa but that it is a force divided by a a area.

--Stone (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Pa is artificial unit for many hardness tests. At some point, someone (maybe even I :-) converted those units to Pa for comparison reasons, and the conversion was approximate, i.e. using some factor like 100 instead of proper 91 for convenience (I don't remember the actual numbers, just for the sake of example). There will always be people who don't understand all those HV and other hardness units, and also those who'd say Pa is wrong, so this is a matter of editorial decision. Materialscientist (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The articles suggest that the measurement is in kg-force per millimeters squared. Notice that one kilogram-force is almost 10 Newtons, and one millimeter squared is one millionth of a meter squared. So one kg-force per millimeter squared is about 10 MegaPascals. JRSpriggs (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You shouldnt "convert" values of processes "for comparison" that are only right and valid for the dedicated methode. Instead you should add a commentary and a link to Hardness comparison. --Kharon2 (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Metalloid FA
I intend to nominate metalloid for FA. Does anyone have any comments before I proceed? Sandbh (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would strongly suggest getting somebody outside of the project to copyedit it before putting it there. Things will be a lot smoother that way. Try with user:Sasata. Nergaal (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That worked well thank you Nergaal. I'm currently incorporating Sasata's feedback. Sandbh (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * English variety. As part of climbing the FA nomination mountain, the article needs to use a consisent English language variety. The first non-stub version dated Sep 21, 2009 had the word 'behaviour' in it, which is a British (BrE) spelling. I've been more or less editing the article in Australian English (AusE) apart from being notably inconsistent with my use of –ise endings v –ize endings as in, for example, characterise v recognize (I introduced 'characterise' on Jul 4, 2011). Choices as I see it are American English, since much of the literature about metalloids is American; AusE, which is close to but not quite the same as BrE; or BrE. At the moment I've updated the article to be AusE-consistent e.g. colour instead of color; characterise, delocalised and recognised instead of their –ize variants; however it can easily be rendered in another variety. Sandbh (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh, I'm also very inconsistent about ise/ize. I haven't checked which I use more often in Alkali metal yet. ;-) Double sharp (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Copyediting all done, for now. I intend to review two FACs, before nominating metalloid. Sandbh (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I reviewed and contributed to the FACs for KFC and Arthur W. Radford. Metalloid FAC nomination to follow shortly. (I now find myself intently watching/analysing KFC commericals on TV, however.) Sandbh (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I went ahead and nominated it. Sandbh (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Strontium
I think we can go to a B-Class here. Please have a look and give a hint what is still missing to GA.--Stone (talk)
 * A 30 sec look:
 * even more reactive toward water than calcium -- to what extent? what if I know nothing about calcium? It can't be the only ref point. reacts on contact -- how else can anything react?
 * Is it dense?
 * 89Sr is a short-lived artificial radioisotope that is used in the treatment of bone cancer. In circumstances where cancer patients have widespread and painful bony metastases (secondaries), the administration of 89Sr results in the delivery of radioactive emissions (beta particles in this case) directly to the area of bony problem (where calcium turnover is greatest). The 89Sr is manufactured as the chloride salt (which is soluble), and when dissolved in normal saline can be injected intravenously. Typically, cancer patients will be treated with a dose of 150 MBq. Patients must take precautions following this because their urine becomes contaminated with radioactivity, so they must sit to urinate and double-flush the toilet. The beta particles travel about 3.5 mm in bone (energy 0.583 MeV) and 6.5 mm in tissue, so there is no requirement to isolate patients having been treated, except to say they should not have any one (especially young children) sitting in their laps for 10–40 days[citation needed]. The variation in time results from the variable clearing time for 89Sr, which depends on renal function and the number of bony metastases. With a lot of bony metastases, the entire 89Sr dose can be taken up into bone and so the radioactivity is retained to decay over a 50.5-day half-life. It takes about 10 half-lives or about 500 days for 99.9% of the radioactive strontium to decay. However, where there are few bony metastases, the large proportion of 89Sr not taken up by the bone will be filtered by the kidney, so that the effective half-life (a combination of the physical and biological half-life) will be much shorter. -- belongs to applications, plus should be shortened
 * pyrotechnics is interesting. My head begins to generate question like "how much %% and g/kg/lb Sr(Whevr)2 can be there to remain safe?" BTW, the whole thing doesn't say anything about how to stay safe if you're breathed in the metal dust or stuff like that.

--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My real life as rocket scientist will keep me busy, but I will work on it.--Stone (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we have more citations for the content in the "Isotopes" section? (Per R8R, much of it should also be moved.) Double sharp (talk) 06:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Group templates coloring: simplicity vs. complication
Look at our pnictogen group template just as an example.

We are stating in every cell that an element is a metalloid (antimony's case) or whatever else. And duplicate that with color, which, according to the legend, means essentially the same. The color info is only duplicating what we are saying without using it.

Do we need the color legend? Do we need colors at all?

See a draft of how it looks w/o colors.

Not perfect either. It has colors still in the small top table. We could remove them. Or keep them, we don't say what most of 'em mean anyway.

But there's a designing trick called multiplying by two, which basically states "make me more complicated, but so that anyone could understand me." Is it the case? (Just to confuse you further, there's also division by two, but something makes me think this is almost certainly not the case. may be wrong.)

Your thoughts, guys?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't mind. I think I prefer the coloured template because the colour in the cells matches the colour in the small top table. So the cells are a blown up version of the small top table. Hence would expect to see the colours in the blown up version too. Also the progression of colours is congruent with metallic character increasing going down the group. Sandbh (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * agree. R8R annouced this nicely on my talk page here. The proposal is: do no show background color for metalishness ("post-transition", "non-metal"). I support. We have a diff, please compare: Periodic table (pnictogens) versus Periodic table (pnictogens)/sandbox. These same pictures look soooo much more brightly! -DePiep (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy to have the colours removed (the pictures do look better). Sandbh (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine with me either way. Double sharp (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Changed basic template Element cell image. The color is element color "table mark", that is a light grey:. One can still use to overrule this color (set bg color). Note: bg colors in Periodic table (with pictures) are gone too. If someone wants them back there, please say so.
 * Not a simple edit any more: legend lines removed from each PT group infobox, expect 18 times. -DePiep (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

✅ -DePiep (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Electron "shells"
When did we arrive at a consensus to include simplistic diagrams like File:Electron shell 092 Uranium - no label.svg in infoboxes? Especially for the heavier elements these seem so highly misleading as to be counter-productive. I would accept these for lighter elements (e.g. sodium) in the body of the article with a warning. Not for anything beyond about argon though. What do others think? --John (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * AFAIK it is a graphic of this. We could add the word "simplified" to it in the infoboxes. But how is it misleading and counter-productive? What warning do they need? -DePiep (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, electrons going in circles around the nucleus was the Bohr model of the atom. That was superseded by quantum mechanics in 1925, so the diagram is now 88 years out of date. Chris (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree it is somewhat misleading. But it is still a useful picture, despite being inaccurate. The quantum mechanical model has the subshells (1s, 2s/p, 3s/p/d, 4s/p/d/f, 5s/p/d/f/g, etc.) This picture doesn't show the subshells, only the shells (and shows these as orbits, which I'm sure you know is not true, but is nevertheless a useful mental picture). The quantum mechanical model is hard to show in an image in the same way this model can be shown. We do include the quantum mechanical model configuration in the same place, and even show it above the picture. (The picture has no label, so readers who don't want to count around 32 electrons will look at the text above it).
 * Also, if we're going to have the pictures on the lower elements, we should have them on all the elements. Otherwise readers will be wondering where they went. And after all, the electrons still do occupy these shells (see above about their representation as orbits), so it is not completely wrong, just somewhat misleading about how it conveys its information (and there's not much better for this kind of thing). Double sharp (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is better not to have them at all. The text carries the same information more concisely anyway. I take it there was no consensus to add them in the first place and someone just did it? --John (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You agree with whom or what? -DePiep (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Double sharp when he says "if we're going to have the pictures on the lower elements, we should have them on all the elements" and also "somewhat misleading about how it conveys its information". Unless there's a strong consensus that these are worth keeping, I'm going to start removing them in 24 hours or so. They should not have been added without a strong consensus to do so. --John (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Double sharp adds the word somewhat as you quote, and you left a lot more out of the quote. For example: still a useful picture. And no, you cannot remove them on a basis of your self-constructed consensus criterium. For starters, as there is no consensus here, there will be no change. -DePiep (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Er, no. Unless you can show me a consensus where it was agreed to include these misleading primary-school graphics to our articles, or unless a strong one emerges very soon (I can hold off a day or two if you think it matters) I will start removing them. The onus is definitely on you to show good reason if you want them to be retained for some reason. --John (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is up to you, John, to build consensus for any change. Imposing a deadline is not part of that. -DePiep (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say these pictures are useful for a simple look at the way electrons fit into shells, as long as there's some way to indicate that the model is no longer the one used. And, I will say, the Bohr model is easier to depict as an image than the electron cloud model we use these days.King Jakob  C2 21:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * They were already in the infoboxes, just in very small size in the periodic table. DePiep added them with the electron configuration information a while ago. As for consensus, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 12. You will notice that, in that discussion, nobody suggested removing the pictures (that were already there).Double sharp (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep. And still, we are not to "prove" consensus for what is here under threat of a deadline. If John or anyone else wants to propose and discuss an improvement, that is the route to go. Just build consensus for that change. Until now, in this thread, I get the impression that John is not engaging in the discussion he started himself. For example, already in the second post I asked some questions which are neglected. So far I feel not invited to think about improvements. -DePiep (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if I have in some way hurt your feelings, DePiep. I see you were one of the instigators of the idea to make these diagrams enormous, and I am sure you must have had some good intentions in doing so. I am still however waiting for an answer to my initial question; "When did we arrive at a consensus to include simplistic diagrams"? They weren't always there. Sorry if that is a lot to ask. Or do I have to dig through hundreds of edits to find out? --John (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * John, let me see if I can summarize your point of view:
 * The electron shell diagrams are problematic
 * You want to speedily delete them in the absense of a consensus otherwise
 * This consensus should be reached in a matter of days
 * You would also accept a reference to a past consensus
 * The burden of proof is on those who want to retain the diagrams
 * I'm not sure whether I have understood your view correctly, so some of my statements above may not be fully accurate. Please correct me if I have misunderstood you.  I appreciate the fact that you chose to broach the question on this talk page instead of simply boldly making the change.  However, please keep in mind that the fact that these diagrams have been around for a while (at least 7 months, if I understand the above discussion above).  This, and the opposition your suggestion elicited, constitutes some sort of a consensus, although not a formal consensus in the WP sense of the term.  May I suggest that best way to improve these infoboxes would be for you to agree not to make any bold changes until a (new?) consensus is reached, possibly in a new thread?  Here is what I would suggest would be good topics to cover in a discussion:
 * The probems with the current situation (Size, Bohr, ...)
 * Potential alternatives (No diagram, New type of diagram, ...)
 * Pros & cons of each alternative
 * Hopefully such a discussion would either result in a change that would be an improvement over the present situation, or else a consensus that the present diagrams, while not perfect, are better than any of the alternatives considered. YBG (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * re YBG: your description is finely to the point and appreciated. Note: these pictures were here long time before (in the infobox), but alas small sized. -DePiep (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Good summary. A good alternative, and one I have already offered, is just to have the numbers. That tends to be what post-primary-school resources in the real world do, as it's less misleading. --John (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * John, you write about hurt your [my] feelings and such: that is you getting personal. I was just asking topical questions. Invoking AGF after you imposed your non-discussed deadline is funny, sort of. -DePiep (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I was responding to your So far I feel not invited to think about improvements. If you don't want to talk about your feelings, don't talk about your feelings. That would suit me. I am just here to try to improve this mess we seem to have here.--John (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * John, please tell us: which numbers? What numbers? Above you wrote this: I would accept these for lighter elements. So which element numbers would you agree on? Oh please, tell us what you want. -DePiep (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Which numbers? The electron arrangements of course; that's what we're talking about, isn't it? For uranium that would be [Rn] 5f3 6d1 7s2; 2, 8, 18, 32, 21, 9, 2. This is an appropriate and meaningful way to show the information, and it is what real-world sources would show. The Bohr diagram; well, what do you think it adds, since you are the one defending it? --John (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

(The text's getting too thin)

What they're trying to say is, "we don't know. Rather than wondering a million times, just 'dig through hundreds.' Anyway, we're ready to talk, but don't you push it." It's a doable thing: there is some way to keyword-search only in Project's archives (I don't know how, but there are technical help pages on Wiki, should be easy to find out). Or contact the people who inserted the thing (look at templates' histories, pic creators, etc), ask'em. If after doing this no info comes up, then ask for a change, offer a discussion. Any rational idea can make it through a discussion. May sound like shit (no feeling like I wanna!). Still, the fact you work on your position much increases your chances to be listened to (not necessarily agreed with).

Oh well, you were just offered a discussion above. Go 'head and discuss. Don't pressurize people for no reason -- the hate it.

Also, just food for thoughts: Newton physics is false (it's just an approximation of what's really going on, and anytime our bodies may break apart 'cause our atoms may, and the screen you're reading this on may vaporize away, but the probabilities are neglectible), but ask RSA, or NASA, or ESA, or whoever if it's useful.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What is this? Is this really R8R? -DePiep (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm too tired IRL, have little time to sleep, a lotta work to do, etc. In such conditions, it freaks me out when people are wasting others' time asking questions an answer for which is searchable, and forcing others to ask for some alternative suggestions (I'd write "I don't know what it could be like instead, maybe X?", so a not so stressed talk begins). Nothing in person, John-- after all, when I have a few days off, I'll be at least not so picky.
 * Also, DePiep: decent work on adding elements' names to the PT. The thing doesn't look overcrowded. Don't know what you even coud improve. Still somehow want to get an ability to click and have a large/short table displayed, but if it's not possible, then fine.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I get it. Let's say I was getting concerned ;-). The names-in-PT I will address elsewhere, it is not dead yet. -DePiep (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * One month on, and no reason advanced for using these over-simplistic graphics. I've removed them from the infobox pending a reasoned consensus that they add something to the articles. I wouldn't be against using them in certain articles, eg the alkali metals, but not in the infobox please. This is not Simple Wikipedia. --John (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted. No consensus so no change. -DePiep (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That wasn't very clever. Please see WP:DRNC. Saying "no consensus" is not a reason to add this dumbed-down and misleading graphic to our articles. Another 24 hours to come up with a better reason? I'm almost tempted to swing by WP:AIV but I won't as I know your intentions are good. Please have a think about this. --John (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As for DRNC you point to: it says ... merely .... Given this thread, that is not at hand. -DePiep (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * John, I'd like to give some counter-arguments. Will I be listened to?
 * I remember myself being 14 years old and started to get chemistry lessons. In the very first year (in the end of it), we made it to the Bohr model. And hat was the point when chemistry finally got me. Not that I was bored at lessons, and back then we looked in the Internet for the way to explode something. But when my teacher (not a really good one) told me at first about the Bohr model, this was the moment when I realized: it's so cool, not ever gonna stop doing it. This was a very easy way to understand how chemistry works. The whole science became so easy to understand. And you want to cut it off? I assume that there are thousand or millions people who were/are/will be thinking like me. There are reasons why this was/is/will be taught in schools.
 * (Sorry, I already mentioned that) Newtonian physics is also outdated, it's an approximation of what's going on in the real world. 108 years out of date. Should we give it up as well?
 * But if we had an instrument as useful so the change were easier to make (not limit, but alter our info on offer), then I'm probably on your side. But do we?
 * A quote of yours: "...For uranium that would be [Rn] 5f3 6d1 7s2; 2, 8, 18, 32, 21, 9, 2. This is an appropriate and meaningful way to show the information, and it is what real-world sources would show. The Bohr diagram; well, what do you think it adds..."
 * It's visualizing. To understand what's going on in the 2, 8, 18, 32, 21, 9, 2 notation, you should know that it means that two electrons revolve around the nucleus on the first energy level, 8 on the second one, and so on. But what if you don't?
 * Remember how you were taught physics. Air resistance became vital only in the uni, even if it's not the real world without the air.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You appear to not like the diagrams because they are not an accurate portrayal of what is going on. That is very true, and is a reasonable stand if we are writing a work for people who already have a strong background in chemistry already. However, we are not writing solely for such people. In spite of their major flaws, the Bohr model does have very good pedagogical value. If you don't give a diagram of the info, you may well render it incomprehensible to those who do not already know what the string of numbers 2,8,18,19,9,2 means, much less the string of symbols [Xe]4f15d16s2 which Sam Kean described as "what looked for all the world like computer error messages" in The Disappearing Spoon. But with the diagram, you have a visual representation of the shells. It is not an accurate one, but it is a representation no less. In the Poincaré disc model, straight lines in the hyperbolic plane are represented as looking curved, and the entire infinite hyperbolic plane is compressed into a circle. They do not really look like that; if you were wandering around in a hyperbolic plane, you wouldn't see this. But it is still a very good representation of hyperbolic geometry, and is very commonly used. Similarly, if you could see what is going on at the atomic scale, you would not see electrons orbiting the nucleus in shells. But these electrons do have distinct energy levels, and the shells are just a way to represent it visually. Of course not everything can be represented well with a diagram: just try drawing a quantum-mechanics-included model of a cerium or uranium atom. (It would most likely end in a mass of messy scribbles.) But the Bohr model is not too far off (although things are not represented as they really are, the main points are sound and the representations have a consistent relation to reality). Finally, the pedagogical value of such a simplified (but still correct in a weaker way) model isn't to be underestimated. Ever wondered why teachers start with such models before progressing to accurate quantum-mechanical models? These are easier to understand and the basics "click" into place neatly. When the time comes that they have accumulated enough understanding to move on, their basics are sound, and now they can be told what really happens. And if the model is good, the difference between reality and the model is often just changing of details (like how things are represented) and not changing of main points (if I introduced a model where the nucleus revolves around an electron cloud, I doubt it would be accepted widely, simply because it is not a good model – the entire basic points are different from reality. But in the Bohr model, only how things are represented are different.). This way, the students do not unlearn, just learn more stuff. But if you remove the entire basic model, they now are plunging into the deep end, and can reasonably expected to come out of it not having a clue what they have just seen or read depicted. This is not really a desirable outcome, to say the least.
 * tl;dr: It's fine to remove the diagram for people who already know what we are talking about. Yet not everyone does, and we should help them with a more basic simplified diagram. When such a diagram is only different from reality in how it represents things, and not its concepts, then it serves as a good entry point to learning reality. The Bohr model is one such diagram. For those who already know what we are talking about, the electron configuration is right there above the diagram. Having the diagram does not hurt anyone; not having it does. Double sharp (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, Double sharp. Thank you for clarifying. -DePiep (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Even better: already the first google page for The Disappearing Spoon Madness Periodic Elements (sic) made me laugh. "Why did Gandhi hate iodine (I, 53)?" -DePiep (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a rumour, which was perpetrated because the introduction of iodized salt to India (spurred on by the West) was regarded in India as having a whiff of colonialism (cf. the salt tax). Details in the book. Double sharp (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Radon picture
There is a discussion here on our radon image which I participated in (and it got me to go around looking for a radon picture again. My findings are listed there.) Double sharp (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Predicted alkali metal colour
The current colour, while a reasonable choice, is not that similar to the basic alkali metal colour. zh.wikipedia uses, which is more clearly related, and still readily distinguishable from transition metal. Should we change it? Double sharp (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have put #ffa1a1 for predicted alkali metalin the WikiProject Elements/Legends/sandbox. Note: current color settings are at hand in project page Guidelines. -DePiep (talk) 11:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * zh: uses the darker color, same as en:, here: Uue. Where did you see the lighter one? -DePiep (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is my opinion: better not change it. The proposed color indeed is more nicely associated with the red for alkali metal. But as a color, it is too close to the transition metal color. Remember it is a legend color, so the reader must be able to connect the color to the legend (explanation). Since these colors would be very similar, the reader might mistakingly end up at the wrong legend definition (with noone and nothing there to warn or prevent that). First and foremost, we must prevent such mistakes. -DePiep (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I found the lighter colour at zh:Template:擴展元素週期表. Double sharp (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're too concerned with that 119 will be taken for a TM. An almost as red cell under a row of red cells is normally taken for continuation of the row, and the same is true for TMs. That said, if you can distinguish them, good. No, then no, okay, nobody will mind or have problems with that, I assume. Our current future (yeah) AM color is not any good. The Chinese choice is reasonable. (why do all East Asian Wikis use terrible fonts for Latin characters?)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

'Ask the historian'
If you ever had the pleasure of reading one of Bill Jensen's 'Ask the historian' columns in The Journal of Chemical Education, e.g. 'Why Helium Ends in "-ium" '; 'Why Tungsten Instead of Wolfram?', he has published them all (and a few that didn't make it into print) in a free e-book. Sandbh (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yay! (Why didn't I notice this sooner?) Double sharp (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL! Ditto! Sandbh (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Time to mine these juicy sources. ;-) Double sharp (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop spoiling my fun. Already Double sharp told the Ghandi thing. Book has not arrived yet. -DePiep (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Occurrence 'natural radio'?
Many of our periodic tables show the occurrence of an element (in the border pattern). The wording "natural radio" seems incorrect. My question is: are all the texts and links correct?
 * From decay link: Trace radioisotope
 * Also used: natural radio (to set this border type). There is no link to Natural radioactivity, which does Redirect to Background radiation.
 * It looks like "natural radio" is a shortcut, and is not the right word. To set the border this may be OK, but the text also appears in the title (mousehoover) text. Should we abandon this, and use from decay only?
 * Adding: let's link to Element from decay, that now redirects to Trace radioisotope and can evolve into whatever. Redirects are cheap (and useful, this way).

The two other options are less problematic:
 * Primordial link: Primordial element, R to Primordial nuclide
 * Should we link directly to page Primordial nuclide?

-DePiep (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Added the Element from decay link as part of the proposal. -DePiep (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Synthetic link to Synthetic element
 * Here's what I think of when I hear "natural radio." "From decay" is better.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making me laugh. I expected this. -DePiep (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I have added new page Element from decay as a logical link, and for now it can redirect. The name fits the pattern a bit with the other two links. This is what redirects are good for. -DePiep (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See Alkaline earth metal: radioactive natural element links to Radioactive decay. All fine? -DePiep (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No. I think "natural radio" probably refers to naturally occuring VLF radio waves from lightning strikes. What makes whistlers in HAM radio. . Probably should redirect to lightning as WP has no article on the natural production of radio waves by terrestrial sources, other than the note in lightning that lightning makes a huge amount of ELF and VLF radio waves. S B Harris 01:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Natural radio": we should also consider it meaning radio as it was meant to be, being an elementary part of the success of radio broadcast. We could link to here. -DePiep (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Nuclides at Wikidata
Did anybody discuss a transfer of nuclides data to Wikidata? This should be done sooner or later, and there are not so many nuclides to deny one Wikidata entry for each of them. Since Lua can read from Wikidata, it would put the end to clumsy tables in “isotopes of … ” articles. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I dunno. I would prefer having the tables here, actually. We need to give this sort of info about the isotopes here – it's rather important data for an isotope, isn't it? Also, there is way more content that could be put in the "Isotopes of X" articles. They should be more than just lists. The table should be there for reference, but there should also be content about the isotopes of X in general and some individual important isotopes of X. Double sharp (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Cite doi
For our articles this template seems to be really nice. Nergaal (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Names in basic PT

 * See Periodic table and Periodic table/sandbox

A feedback remark (can't find it right now, but trust me) said something like "the periodic table should show the element name". That is a useful thing. I have made a sandbox version for this, trying to show the name without making the template too wide for a wikipage. See Periodic table/sandbox. Any comments? (todo: positioning of name in the cell to top; check smaller user screen, I am on a wider one). -DePiep (talk) 12:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This was the feedback: . -DePiep (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks quite good, noting your to-do's. Educators would appreciate. Sandbh (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not just use mouseover text? It can be readily explained ("Hovering over a cell in the periodic table will cause [insert desired information] to be displayed, etc.") and doesn't require people to click on the element names, and yet is not as cluttered. Double sharp (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Mouseover text is only a supporting means, not a primary information thing. (see WP:NOSYMBOLS: Do not use techniques that require interaction to provide information, such as tooltips or any other "hover" text.). And this is not just a WP-link to block off your argument, but because all screen-user interaction these days has subltle differences and meanings. The whole topic is under WP:ACCESS. That includes taking care of variant situations such as printing, mobiles, or disabled readers. As for priorities, I thing a reader might expect the full name to be there. -DePiep (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd build in a switch that switches the normal PT and the extended one (i.e., with names), but I don't know if this is possible for the wiki code. Is it?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 07:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, not possible in the way you imagine. First, it would require a readers action to show main information (bad. see wp:access prev reaction, above). So the high-end WP interface designers here do not like that, with reason, and so they have not build such a thing. That is why we (editors) do not have that option. Even the show/hide button in a table is advised to be in (secondary!) navboxes only. (I tried it somewhere else, about Unicode strange characters, to no effect). Second, there could be a javascript extension or so for this, but that is not generally (for all readers) available. Maybe I'll ask around once more. -DePiep (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Todo's: I set up a smaller screen size (regular flat: 1280-1024; old tube 1024-768). Had to squeeze squeeze out more pixels in the width (the height is no problem), even dropped the occurrence cellframes (4px per cell), but still could not get the 18 cols within the page. Not solved yet. -DePiep (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have worked into this version: Periodic table/sandbox. These are the compromises (costs): 1. remove frame (border; occurrence) to save px width. 2. Reduce name font to 80%, about smallest aceptable legible. 3. Introduce hyphenation in the names. (I think the names are more important than the frames). Still, it is too wide for small screens: at (old tube) 1024x768 group 18 is off the page (requires horizontal scrolling). Will ask at WP:VPT what to do. -DePiep (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not really like the way you reduced the frames to single lines, as now it is unclear to the reader whether a frame is applying to Te or Po (or any two elements directly above each other), for example. Double sharp (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As it is now, it is experimental (just trying). It can be left out, and it can be tweaked (away from the bottom?). One fact is certain: if we add the name, there is no width enough for the border-code (in 1024x768 screen). Now the occurrence is a descriptive property, the name is a identifying property, so I made the name(-argument) prevailing. Remember, very very few of our readers are that familiar with the PT that they know where to find "gold". Also I ask to consider that WP:ELEM editors are very familiar with the PT as it is, but that is not a good guidance ('liking' or 'why change at all'?). -DePiep (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, that vertical separation has been changed. -DePiep (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * At the moment, it looks do-able. That is: not even a compromise needed (such as: "allow table being too wide for small screen"). I repeat: not. Yes there are changes to our habitual view, but I hope ELEM-editors here can see and approve the improvement. See Periodic table/sandbox. -DePiep (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The lack of a complete border makes it a bit difficult to tell which element the border code belongs to, even with the extra space added between rows. Maybe have top and bottom borders?  Or even partially restore side borders in the lower half of the cell.  What I have in mind is a big cell with a top border only and two lines of text, then an interior single-celled table with left, right and bottom borders, something like this:


 * I believe the way I have set this up, the vertical space for the margin is still taken up and so there are no extra pixels for the element name. However, I believe that you could use a nested table for the lower half of the cell so that the pixels for the left and right border would not take space away from the element name.  YBG (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * First I think that there is no confusion left on which cell the border belongs to, and so that is no reason to change. Then about your proposal. Indeed it could be constructed within the cell, horizontally. But horizontal inter-cell space is only 1px, which is unpleasant small between two such borders. Visually too less separation. Also, the U creates visually a break within the cell. As if adding a horizontal cut halfway (strengthened by there being a row of such cells). The basic cell structure is very powerful for the eye, because one recognises the structure easily without having to look twice. That visible structure would be distracted from. So I do not think that is an improvement over the bottom-bar. -DePiep (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of your comments. However, for me there is still a bit of confusion – I find that I have to look carefully at the top row and the bottom row to figure out for sure whether the colored line is on the bottom or on the top of each cell.  It doesn't jump right out at me.  The following I think is a bit of an improvement over the previous one; admittedly, this only partly rectifies the problem of the U creating a visual break.


 * Notice that there is background color in the margin outside the two U-shaped borders; I couldn't figure out how to get rid of this. The two U's visually pull the cell together, but the horizontal band of a borderless region will still tend to break things apart.  If you still think this is visually distracting, then I would suggest that you at least have both top and bottom borders and increase the whitespace between the rows.  Thanks for your hard work trying to include the element names.  It is much appreciated. YBG (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * re, details: Thanks for the written appreciation, well received. The pink outer line you mention we can get rid of, but then you get two 2px wide borders (dark colored) with just a 1px white vertical between. With me (in my eyes), these borders then tend to flow over (or mix up, or flicker), a visual effect. See the current periodic table. Another detail: this layout changes the vertical sequence into number-name-symbol, while most other templates have sequence: (name, if present)-number-symbol. So putting the name in between would break that similarity over our templates. Such similarity is great to get first-glance recognition. As a third, I think the (interrupted) border adds too many details in a tight space. Not cluttered maybe, but 'bizzy' I'd say. And indeed the optical line over cells that is not part of the PT structure. The bottom whitespace can be 3px from 2px now, I found it a bit too much. I will give it a try. Doing both a top and bottom bar as you suggest: see my questions below. One more point: in the end the legend should show the same border pattern, of course (todo).
 * re, in general. Now my question to ELEM editors is, how important is the border-information (natural occurrence), and how important is it that it should look like the known border. The importance, of course, is no problem since we can add the info to the cell. Question asnswered: it can be there for almost free. Second question: how then? My proposal is the single bottom bar. Trying to create a sort of old style border, as all around as possible, is visually cluttering or distracting (into details, into optical non-structures). So my question is: why is the square border form an aboslute requirement, or can I ask you to step over a habit, and see the elegance in the proposed solution. Of course, if you editors are all going to protest in front of me here, we should get as much squares as possible. But please do only after consideration. -DePiep (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is benefit in maintaining a consistent order of presentation between the different PT presentations. I'm not sure whether I'd prefer bottom-only border or a top & bottom border ... it may be that with the wider white space between rows, the single bottom row would work OK.  An interesting side note ... having the border only on the bottom makes the border lines visually run together, which at first sounds like it would be a negative.  But on the other hand, it does accentuate the fact, for example, that there is a long string of naturally occurring elements broken by the single exception of Tc.  So over all, I think I'll give up on the idea of trying to use a U-shaped partial border.
 * In addition to comparing the bottom-only with top+bottom, I'd like to consider yet another way of representing this information. What about putting the border just around the atomic number or atomic symbol? Like the partial border, it represents a departure from the normal PT representation, but I think it is one worth at least considering.
 * Thanks once again. The element name is a rally important piece of information and it is worth the effort you are putting in to make it more easily accessible. YBG (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not favor the double line (top+bottom) nor the boxing the atomic number ideas. Too many visual elements that do not really add informatiion or clarification. And I too noticed the bar series that pop up clearly, which is a nice extra. I can shorten the bar horizontally (away from cell edges). Whitespace below now is 3px (I think 2px was OK, but alas).
 * Now I am not unwilling to try your suggestions in the sandbox. It's just that I try to react here first. Most of the ideas have gone through my mind (and keyboard) too, earlier in the process. That is why I can formulate my reasoning here, mostly about visual effects. The only reasons for using some kind of box so far is that we, project editors, are used to it. And of course it is our standard. Only in this one it is too crowded. -DePiep (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, sounds good. Thanks for being patient with my ideas.  It is patience like this that helps develop consensus at WP.  YBG (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Observing patience is an excercise for me too. -DePiep (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

May I conclude that we have a consensus to add the names as is done in Periodic table/sandbox? -DePiep (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I still don't like it.
 * Not every PT has names. The version of the PT we show our readers on the first page, IMHO, should have only the things every PT has: atomic numbers and symbols. The PT article itself states that some PTs include more info, while some don't. IMHO there should be links from the template (transcluded to the article) to PTs containing more info, but such PTs should not IMHO be in the main article, as they may have too much info, may scroll off smaller screens, and may distract from the text in the article. Double sharp (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. The standard table gains nothing as we already have three other tables with the names. Instead, the proposed change adds to much height (especially with narrow screens), and it doesn't make it any easier to spot an element by name; it's quite hard to spot one out of 118 names with this small font and wrapped words. It also breaks consistency with the other tables in terms of presentation. This is the basic table; it should retain it's basic layout. —  Edokter  ( talk ) — 13:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all: this periodic table does not exceed page width. -DePiep (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Periodic Table (sandbox) on 1024x768 screen.jpg.
 * Yes, and it achieves that by splitting the words, which reduces readability. Double sharp (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes you say: then please do not bring it up repeatingly. -DePiep (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Took a closer look. I now see two things to look at:

1. Cells' widths are not equal. Moreover, illogically unequal, not matching lengths of the elements' names. While it's OK on my laptop the way I normally view it (1600x900, Google Chrome), it gets much worse on lower resolutions. For example, if the word "osmium" can get split up ("os-mium"), "vanadium" somehow manages to stay unbroken (1024x768, Safari). In both versions, groups 8 and 9 are unexpectedly thin, esp. compared to 5 and 10.

2. I'd also suggest moving the abundance line a little higher, so it could be easier distinguished from the cell below. I initially failed to recognize ununoctium as synthetic just a few mins ago.

I'd also give the period nums just a little more space, but I don't insist. Pretty decent anyway.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh please. However good your intentions R8R, let it go. I claim that the sandbox, as it is today, is a great improvement to WP:periodic table. But both User:Double sharp and User:Edokter spoiled weeks of my designing and work just by saying "I don't like it" or "It is not what I am used to" or "a pixel too much on the left". Whatever I do, they keep finding a pixel wrong (without getting the picture). It still makes me angry. Just workshop-enclosed technicians who cannot understand that we need to communicate the PT to outsiders. Ten months I am a guest in this WP:ELEM community, and I learned this: those scientists do not know the diff between their own happy bathroom and the WP reader's mind. "I don't like it" as an argument. Sure. -DePiep (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the thing's good. I already said that a few times and still feel so. If we replaced the current scheme with it just now, I'd be happy. I myself remember a few things you changed I was uncomfortable with (but kept aside discussions), but now wouldn't want back as I was unable to see your things were superior then but not now. I like your designing and stuff. I just think there's one step to perfection left. But if we're having a discussion of approval, I'd vote for it anyway. Just hoping you wouldn't forget to think about those if the decision were on your side.
 * I like the lines (was originally thinking they were poorly designed, now think they're essential to your scheme's minimalism), I like how it suits into a screen (I think that unun- (break) octium initially reads better than if the cell didn't suit into the screen at all), I like that it is still simple and not ugly (still easy to read out info, amazing given it has much more).
 * tl;dr we had a 6, you've made a 9. I think I know how to make it a 10, but 9 is a lot greater than 6 anyway.
 * Opponents, please comment--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is OK now except for the occurrence line, which is hard to recognize. I still think that the basic PT should show the basic layout, but would not mind a change to this. (But we should really show both, perhaps with a click to flip between them if that is possible or allowed, just in case readers start thinking that every PT has names...) Double sharp (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, User talk:Double sharp, for this opening and inviting reply. As one could sense & read, I have refrained weeks & days from replying here. I will write more later on. -DePiep (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * However clumsy I wrote it: appreciated. And we'll be ok, talk ahead. -DePiep (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be happy with it if only the occurrence lines were easier to distinguish. Can we turn it back to a border? Or at the very least border both the top and the bottom of the element cell? This way there won't be errors in readers' deciding which cell the border applies to (the one above, or the one below?) Of course they will come to a realization in the 1st and 7th periods, but that assumes they do look at the 1st and 7th periods. What if they are checking what element "Rh" is? It's far from the edges, and is in a sea of transition-metal colour (making borders even harder to distinguish, seeing as here external visual clues are few and far between). Double sharp (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll add the same line to the top of the cell. A vertical border (left, right) takes up pixels (width) in the horizontal direction, in which direction space is scarce. Ideas for an incomplete border, like horseshoe for example, have been demo'ed and discussed above in this talk. -DePiep (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Double sharp (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Like a cutaway pie :) Don't want to insult anyone, just an association--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Need to fix the border in the legend at the bottom. YBG (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Will be done, promise. It's just we want my the great plan done: element name in the basic PT. ;-) -DePiep (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. It even looks nice to me. See below for the use of "natural radio". -DePiep (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * One more hiccup: in my Safari browser the widths do not line up well. So there are not 18 equal distances. That is bad. -DePiep (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Cell width problem looks solved (please check Chrome, Safari, ...). Some internal cleaunup left to do. -DePiep (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Please check the Periodic table/sandbox once more. If there are no prohibitive issues, I suggest we put it live. Note that tweaking is always possible. -DePiep (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Final checks
 * Cld 113 be shown as unun-trium rather than ununtr-ium? Sandbh (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. -DePiep (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

✅. Element names in periodic table: live now. -DePiep (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Etymology
I have added etymology=... and etymology link=... to the standard infobox element. See Gold for a first example.

On can set the link: etymology link=pageX (to produce: |Etymology . The etymology could be a verbose entry, not just a simple fact. -DePiep (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC) tried to clarify -DePiep (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice! Double sharp (talk) 02:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sweet.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But not neat yet ;-) Infobox ununennium. I think we can find a better link & phrasing. -DePiep (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Which pattern(s) to use?

 * Historical, translated:
 * (h1): Krypton &larr; from κρυπτός kryptos "the hidden one" (uses lang-el; currently in the lead)
 * (h2): Krypton &larr; from κρυπτός kryptos meaning "the hidden one" (uses lang-el)
 * (h3): Krypton &larr; from κρυπτός kryptos, (uses Language with name/for)
 * (h4): Krypton &larr; κρυπτός kryptos, (uses Language with name/for)


 * From places:
 * (p1): Berkelium &larr; after Berkely, California where it was discovered (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) (no language template used)
 * (p2): Berkelium &larr; after Berkely, California
 * (p3): Berkelium &larr; after Berkely, California where it was discovered


 * From names:
 * (n1): Einsteinium &larr; after Albert Einstein


 * From systematic element name:
 * (s1): Ununennium &larr; IUPAC systematic element name
 * (s2): Ununennium &larr; Systematic element name
 * (s3): Ununennium &larr; "one-one-nine-ium" as per IUPAC Systematic element name


 * Other:
 * (o1):

(I fixed changed the numbering from "#" into stable "(h1)" etc.) -DePiep (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC) (added details, -DePiep (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC))
 * Talks

Both language templates show: only the non-English words are italics. -DePiep (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I like the wording of (h1), but the language template mucks up the formatting. Better IMO to use normal formatting:
 * from Greek κρυπτός kryptos "the hidden one"
 * No template covering the Greek text, not even fwow? And I miss the word meaning (or equivalent). Even in an infobox. -DePiep (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I like (s1) better than (s2), as it's more explicit. For (p1), I would drop the parenthetical, since that info's in the article anyway, and it's a bit long with in the box. — kwami (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox data
Is there currently a centralised way of monitoring changes to element inforbox data? I generated a feed, which may be useful.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 00:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is template WikiProject Elements page lists, that is on various WP:ELEM pages. Clicking the right RELC shows edits to all PT templates (not just infoboxes), plus their talkpages. It uses . -DePiep (talk) 11:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Main decay modes of isotopes
Previously I have noted that there is some contradiction in the Isotopes of ruthenium on the main decay modes of isotopes. The text states that lighter isotopes are mainly decay via electron capture, while the tables states no or only some EC and mostly beta-plus decay. Now it seems that this is a more general issue affecting several other articles (starting with Isotopes of scandium, and based on a quick search it occurs frequently). I am not sure what is the source of either information, but the table looks more reliable to me. Any thoughts on this? Szaszicska (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Quick explanation: whenever you have β+, you have EC. But having EC is not a guarantee for having β+. So whenever there is β+, we mention it alone without EC (which is implied). Only when there is EC but no β+ do we write "EC". We do this so that the table in the infobox doesn't get too large and also because since most isotopes have enough decay energy to go through both decay modes, it's quite uninteresting to write both all the time. It's easiest to explain it in a central article – although Positron emission is probably not the best possible choice.
 * If you want to know more about the relationship between β+ and EC, read the last paragraph of the section Positron emission. Double sharp (talk) 11:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a thought: if it's not obvious to anyone, let's state it somehow. Plus if EC is implied, do the energies of decays match? And a mode half-time? It bears too many questions to the unaware to simply imply it.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Different DE, AFAIK. Otherwise this wouldn't be much of a problem.
 * Half-life should be the same, but I'm not sure.
 * But you're going to have a hard time searching for a source that gives both... Double sharp (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Writing a disclaimer "we're missing EC" would be fair at very least.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And yet that is also not really accurate: when EC is the only decay mode, we include it, so we are not completely missing EC. It would have to be something like "when β+ occurs, so does EC/ε" (and same for the much rarer pair β+β+ / εε). (What's the equivalent EC-style symbol for double electron capture?) Double sharp (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "We may be missing EC?", then? (I think there's no ECEC)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that there is no ECEC symbol or that there are no isotopes decaying by ECEC? If the latter, there is one (and only one known!) example: 130Ba, which decays by ECEC to 130Xe (discovered in 2001). Double sharp (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

References: new error messages
The cite book and cite web templates have been changed into Lua script. Many error messages are added. They show up below, in the reference section (like here, before I corrected). All our articles might need a check & cleanup. -DePiep (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Please change this overview table: set a page aq=B (to green) when you have checked & cleared any ref errors.
 * Note: errors may be suppressed, depending on your skin setting. See Help:CS1_errors. -DePiep (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * blue: see below

All cells are marked green, thatis all articles are cleaned.
 * Note: to speed up page loading, the table is changed to nowiki text. -DePiep (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

(Note: Groups 6 through 9 have 0 citations, not even a single one, group 10 has 1 (a bare url), group 11 has two. --R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC))

(Note: the script barks at the non-systematic unused_data parameter. Articles with it remain orange. All elements have been checked.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC))
 * Do you mean: all those elements still orange have error(s)? -DePiep (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Todo: Rubidium has an incorrect doi, with no hints left. -DePiep (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: an error can also be in the infobox. -DePiep (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest deleting the ref (can't be completed as there are no correct info about it, there's another ref at the very same place in the article). That's a lazy way, but it seems to be appropriate in this case.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've managed to trace the edit to Stone here. No correct DOI was erroneously turned into this; it just appeared. Therefore I have deleted it, and with that the corresponding information. Princess   Parcly   Taxel  10:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I rolled the edit back and put in the right reference. Was easy to find with google. The wrong doi is still on the page.--Stone (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I must say, I liked it better in the past when the code was more forgiving. Double sharp (talk) 10:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * These errors mostly are ambiguous info, if not plain wrong. Esp. for outside connections (doi, authors, COinS, ISBN, ...) these corrections are an improvement. And solving them helps me understand the cite-templates & how to cite correctly. -DePiep (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Much of the sixth period has been fixed. For lead one of the errors was in a cite doi template. Princess  Parcly   Taxel  11:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The transactinides seem to be the hardest pages. The papers written to announce discovery of new nuclides are often huge collaborations, and as such easily exceed nine authors. I think the focus should be shifted to those pages, before going to the actinides and four remaining elements (arsenic/selenium/bismuth/polonium). Princess  Parcly   Taxel  17:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To this I say: every CS1 error resolved is good. I do no see any argument for ordering. -DePiep (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to force the articles to be resolved in a certain order. I am merely pinpointing the elements which would need a little more work than the rest. We're aspiring towards the same goal here, and I'm only setting an order for myself. The others are free to clean up the articles in any order they choose. Princess   Parcly   Taxel  01:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Huge lists of authors indeed (~20). I try to use cite doi when they are used in 2 or more pages (heavy elements). Is there any guideline on how many authors we show out of 20? For now, I do not restrict. -DePiep (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Even 33 authors here (used six time in the element pages!). -DePiep (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * todo: Polonium : dead link OSTI. -DePiep (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The 5/3 (or 12/12) rule
When it comes to citing papers that have a lot of authors, such as that used for announcing ununseptium, deciding on the number of authors to use can be rather hard. Therefore I propose the 5/3 rule:


 * If there are five authors or less, show them all.
 * If not, display only the first three and leave six authors in the wiki code (to show that there were more than five authors).

I believe this strikes the right balance between conciseness and proper attribution: many papers I've seen in full use at most three authors when doing inline citations, and it would be unfair to leave out one or two authors when three are shown. Princess  Parcly   Taxel  01:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Three is a bit low, given that we come from 8+et al. in the previous version (and the non-edited refs do show more). Also, it is not "3/5" any more, because te number of authors is unlimited (and reaches 20 or even 33 in the heavy elements). Then to change its into "3/30" is a bit off I'd say. And please stop adding this rule while it is not accepted. -DePiep (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You have deleted author names ? That is bad. Authors undisplayed still are used by external processes like COinS. -DePiep (talk) 09:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go. But still, having a long string of authors in a single citation can be quite an eyesore. How about 12/12: displaying at most twelve authors (but leaving every one in the wiki code)? It's over the nine authors that the old template could carry, but still not a lot for a modern paper. Princess   Parcly   Taxel  10:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, a capping is good. I don't know what is common sense in science, would like to hear. For now I stayed near the old numbers, 8 or 10. (And it's just a bit disappointing to see only three when I have just added another 20 names ;-) ). -DePiep (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I have put the question here at WP:VPM for broader input. -DePiep (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW, what's the significance of that picture? Double sharp (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It came with this reaction to my earlier request: pls reinstall authors. -DePiep (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Latest edits I have kept the rule: show 8 or 9 max + et al. That does not change the page compared to before, and the error is gone. -DePiep (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Idle speculation re the structure of astatine
I wonder if astatine might form a diatomic molecular crystal with an orthorhombic structure. The basis for my speculation is that (a) solid chlorine, bromine and iodine form this structure; and (b) high-pressure iodine undergoes metallization at 16 GPa, through band gap closure, with no change in this structure. Noting (b), it may be that bulk astatine has the same structure but with a band gap smaller than that of the 1.3 eV of iodine. Although there is no evidence for the existence of diatomic astatine, this might due to the instability of such molecules in the gas phase whereas in the solid phase, there might be sufficient intralayer bonding, just as occurs in iodine, to stabilize a diatomic molecular crystalline structure.

As I said, pure speculation on my part that doesn't attempt to account for any relativistic complications. Sandbh (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * For amusement, a simple extrapolation based on the orthorhombic unit cell parameters for solid chlorine (a = 6.24 Å; b=4.48; c= 8.26; bond length = 1.98), solid bromine (a =6.68; b = 4.49; c= 8.74; bl = 2.27), and iodine (a = 7.268; b =4.797; c =9.797; bl = 2.69), gives a density for astatine of 6.2 g/cm3, which is about the same as tellurium (= 15 per cent less than iron); and also gives a packing efficiency of 34.6 per cent, which is comparable to that of silicon and germanium at 34 per cent. @R8R Gtrs: Using information theory, Bonchev and Kamenska (1981, p. 1182) give a density for astatine of 6.2–6.5 g/cm3. This is the first time I've seen a reliably published value for the density of astatine. Sandbh (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Bonchev D & Kamenska V 1981, 'Predicting the properties of the 113–120 transactinide elements', The Journal of Physical Chemistry, vol. 85, pp. 1177–1186,
 * I added this value to the astatine and halogen articles. Double sharp (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It occurred to me today that the orthorhombic structure of (solid) bromine, and iodine, is isomorphic with that of gallium (Waeber 1969, p. 883). And gallium is a metal, in the sense of having no band gap. Now, there has been speculation that bulk astatine, if it could ever be condensed, may even be a metal. This always stuck me as an odd notion from the point of view of trying to guess what kind of crystalline struture a halogen metal could possibly adopt. But now that I've remembered the stuff about the peculiar (for a metal) structure of gallium—which has been described as a 'metallic molecular crystal' made up of Ga2 entities held together by metallic bonds—asatine as a metal becomes less weird a proposal. Sandbh (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Waeber WB 1969, 'Lattice vibrations of gallium metal I. Group-theoretical analysis ,' Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 882–902 (883),


 * Thank you for this interesting reading. The "astatine is a metal" claim seemed so weird to me back in 2012, you're changing that (now can be considered as a nonzero-probability event). Inserted the density figure into the article. Also a question re density: when calculating it, how did they actually conclude they should check orthorhombic astatine? Did they just decide it could be a real one (with reasons like those you're giving, which are good indeed, but aren't a scientific proof really), or they also came to this decision by calculation methods?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the thanks. They got the density purely via calculation. As I partially understand their paper, they did it via mathematical modelling of (a) the electronic structure of atoms; (b) groups; and (c) periods; and then correlating those models with the known properties of the elements; deriving multiple "information equations" for each property; and then selecting the one with the lowest mean relative error. They don't say anything about the expected crystal structure of astatine. I may write a letter to the editor at the Journal of Chemical Education about all of this since I haven't been able to find anything anywhere discussing the possible structure of crystalline astatine. Which is odd given how relatively simple the jigsaw pieces are. Or maybe not, since it's only taken me as long as I've been researching metalloids, to come up with a plausible answer. If I get published I presume that means we could add something to the astatine article about its possible crystalline structure? Sandbh (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Do give it a try. I think if they missed that point, than you're okay to ask them. If you get published, than surely I could add something, just send me the pdf first :)
 * I'm not sure if they rules are okay with it, but a) we're discussing something about facts and not opinions, and b) if the peers are okay with it, than why wouldn't I be (for Wiki purposes), and c) don't do it yourself, just to avoid the conflict of interest, and I would be good with it, and probably everyone else then also will. If there's still any rule against that, we've got a trump card.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've submitted a short article to the Journal of Chemical Education about this. Strange (but liberating) experience not having to write within the contraints of Wikipedia; I had to keep reminding myself I was writing to a peer-reviewed journal rather than within the constraints of a WP:NOR encyclopedia. Sandbh (talk) 08:46, 18 May 2013‎ (UTC)