Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements
Main talk | Templates RELC | Articles RELC Stats | Periodic Table by Quality other PTQs | Pictures | Isotopes | Periodic Table Graphics (PTG) | Participants WikiChem IRC | Links |
![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Archives: Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Redirects for discussion
- 01 Sep 2024 – Iodine facts (talk · edit · hist) →Iodine was RfDed by 1234qwer1234qwer4 (t · c); see discussion
Featured article candidates
- 02 Jul 2024 – Lise Meitner (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Hawkeye7 (t · c); see discussion
Good article nominees
- 26 Aug 2024 – Terbium (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Reconrabbit (t · c); start discussion
- 15 Aug 2024 – Radium (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Reconrabbit (t · c); start discussion
Good article reassessments
- 23 Jul 2024 – Zirconium (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c) was closed; see discussion
Requests for comments
Articles for creation
- 13 Aug 2024 – Draft:Red phosphorus (talk · edit · hist) submitted for AfC by Pygos (t · c) was declined by Reconrabbit (t · c) on 14 Aug 2024
Click to watch (Subscribe via
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/43/Feed-icon.svg/14px-Feed-icon.svg.png)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/43/Feed-icon.svg/14px-Feed-icon.svg.png)
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | B | C | Start | Stub | ![]() | List | Category | Disambig | Draft | File | Portal | Project | Redirect | Template | NA | ??? | Total |
28 | 0 | 97 | 104 | 122 | 96 | 34 | 0 | 172 | 305 | 3 | 3 | 116 | 1 | 22 | 3,893 | 227 | 10 | 0 | 5,233 |
Template:NUBASE2020
[edit]The article on Erbium the section on Isotopes uses NUBASE2020 as its sole reference. Then it makes statements like:
- Naturally occurring erbium is composed of 6 stable isotopes...
However, the NUBASE reference contains nothing but tables of isotope properties. It seems to me that we could cite the table for facts about specific isotopes, but nothing about the collection of them. That is, the entire isotopes section is original research based on analyzing the tables. Since this is a template reference it seem like the use may be widespread. What do you think? Johnjbarton (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- NUBASE includes detailed decay data, and for primordial isotopes, gives their fraction of natural abundance. Indeed it is widely used as a reference, though in exactly the same context (citing isotope data), and pages that contain data more recent than 2020 or describe applications or properties in detail have additional reference. I wouldn't say that identifying precisely six primordial (and stable, as it happens) erbium isotopes from the table, given that they have abundance fractions, is WP:OR; arguably it's simple counting as permitted under WP:CALC. However, if you feel that adding additional sources would be helpful, feel free to do so. Complex/Rational 17:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Cropping gas discharge tube images
[edit]I cropped a few of the gas discharge tube images to make it more clear which part was the noble gas (specifically krypton, argon, and xenon are currently cropped) but this has been contested by @Zzzs (pinging here), so I'm putting up a talk page section.
- Why I cropped the images: With the strong colors from both parts of the tube it's hard to tell which part is the gas; cropping it makes it obvious and makes it easier to compare them. It also makes the images less overly wide, which is good generally. Mostly it makes the image dominated by the important color. I reverted hydrogen because that one doesn't have very strong colors not coming from the gas, so it doesn't really need it, but I think the other ones do.
They are featured pictures, but it's still a featured picture if you crop to the important bit for ease of understanding & comparison. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Zirconium has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
RfC: On discovery of the 23 nonmetals
[edit]Should this content on the discovery of the 23 nonmetals be removed from the nonmetal article?
RfC is here. --- Sandbh (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Neptunium
[edit]The infobox image for neptunium was recently replaced by File:Neptunium_metal.jpg because the old image didn't show the pure metal. It will need to be reassessed for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Elements/Pictures. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Probably it should be a C, given the low resolution. But it's likely difficult to find anything better. Double sharp (talk) 06:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- The infobox image for plutonium is being discussed at Template talk:Infobox plutonium#Infobox image and may be changed to File:Plutonium ring.jpg, so it may need reassessment too. HertzDonuts (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
"the"
[edit]@Grendon84 has been systematically changing the first part of elements like:
- Selenium is a chemical element; it has the symbol Se and atomic number 34.
to remove "the":
- Selenium is a chemical element; it has symbol Se and atomic number 34.
The edits are marked minor and have no edit summary.
If there is an agreed form this it should be cited in the change. If not these changes should not be made, they are just annoying and to me they read like a word is missing. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- To my understanding, the form without "the" was initially approved, though I prefer using "the" as it reads as a bit more natural. 108.160.120.147 (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Paper accepted for publication that updates various nuclei
[edit]While cleaning Isotopes of silver (updated to NUBASE2020 in 2022), I uncovered a paper, which has been accepted to Physical Review C and is available as an arXiv preprint, that updates the masses of various nuclei.
- Jaries, A.; Stryjczyk, M.; Kankainen, A.; Ayoubi, L. Al; Beliuskina, O.; Canete, L.; de Groote, R. P.; Delafosse, C.; Delahaye, P.; Eronen, T.; Flayol, M.; Ge, Z.; Geldhof, S.; Gins, W.; Hukkanen, M.; Imgram, P.; Kahl, D.; Kostensalo, J.; Kujanpää, S.; Kumar, D.; Moore, I. D.; Mougeot, M.; Nesterenko, D. A.; Nikas, S.; Patel, D.; Penttilä, H.; Pitman-Weymouth, D.; Pohjalainen, I.; Raggio, A.; Ramalho, M.; Reponen, M.; Rinta-Antila, S.; de Roubin, A.; Ruotsalainen, J.; Srivastava, P. C.; Suhonen, J.; Vilen, M.; Virtanen, V.; Zadvornaya, A. "Physical Review C - Accepted Paper: Isomeric states of fission fragments explored via Penning trap mass spectrometry at IGISOL". journals.aps.org. arXiv:2403.04710.
This updates the following nuclei and their isomers: 84Br, 105Mo, 115Pd, 119Pd, 121Pd, 122Ag, 127In, 129In, and 132Sb. In particular, I have updated 122Ag in the table — for this nucleus, the 3− state in NUBASE2020 is declared nonexistent. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Appearances of elements we have no data for?
[edit]Of the known elements, we know for certain what ninety-seven look like at STP (the first ninety-nine less astatine and francium).
It's predicted that astatine is silvery metallic, and I assume francium would be the same. But I'm not sure if relativistic effects kick in - caesium is a bit golden - why shouldn't francium be, or is francium likely silvery as well? I'm not sure. Wikipedia does not make any assumptions to what francium's color might be in its article. Silvery like most? Or golden like caesium?
I presume fermium onwards are all likely silvery, I note Wikipedia says roentgenium is likely silvery, so I assume that all past fermium are at least to tennessine, maybe oganesson? I'm not sure what oganesson would probably look like if it's not a gas, as Wikipedia says it's probably a solid.
Is there any data on what these elusive radioactive elements might look like if we were to theoretically get a macroscopic sample of them and have the result not be instant destruction and death? 108.160.120.147 (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Einsteinium is a decent measuring stick. There are a lot of folks who postulate that the post-astatine elements will be silvery gray or metallic white but the sources do not look great. Reconrabbit 19:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Francium is probably somewhere between Rb and Cs in colour (I answered why here). But so far no RS; that's just applying the physics behind alkali metal colours on my end. In most cases the electronic structure is less simple (and also the predicted structure is sometimes not cubic, leading to anisotropic optical properties) and it will be a good deal harder to work it out. I suspect that not too much thought went into most of the "silvery" predictions and it's just that this is how most metals look. Though it's not even clear if Cn, Fl, and Og are metals or not. Double sharp (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)