Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Elements - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Double sharp (talk | contribs) at 04:53, 22 June 2012 (→Affected words). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:53, 22 June 2012 by Double sharp (talk | contribs) (→Affected words)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconElements Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing this page, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

General messages

Noticeboard
(edit · history · refresh · watch · article alerts · old notices · recent changes)

Alerts

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Requested moves

Talk page archives

Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
Archive 5
Archive 6
Archive 7
Archive 8
Archive 9
Archive 10
Archive 11
Archive 12
Archive 13
Archive 14

Talk page topics

Project steering, again

Now (as at the time of writing) there are NO current GAN/GAR/FAC/FAR/PRs, which is bad. Hence, we need to discuss what things we should be working on now. The best bet is with the article about group 12 elements, as it looks like it has the most potential for improvement. The next thing on the roster would be silicon - a great material but an underdeveloped article on Misplaced Pages (it's only a C-class, and there are a lot of references to silicon in external sources). Start-class lanthanides like holmium are another possible candidate - maybe we should aim for all Cs? Whatever we decide to do, make sure it's sustained, as this project needs to get back on its feet - fast. FREYWA 16:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Since last time we had this topic we lost several productive editors and others are far less active than before. Most of the activities were focused on the GANs and the one FAC we had in the last weeks. The other two active spots are Silicon and Sulfur. As there is already activity we should help there.--Stone (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated alkali metal for GAN now, but after I finish with that, I was planning to work on Sodium, in order to make alkali metals a good topic. Maybe we should try to work on nitrogen as well in order to get period 2 elements to GT. I guess we could also try to convert all the stubs to start-class? Yankeesrule3 (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Stubs to Starts seems like a good idea. Since both nitrogen and sodium are very important elements in the real world we should work on sodium first (alkali metals are more important than period 2 elements). FREYWA 07:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
How about bringing Al and Cl back to GA? (There's some interesting material about superatoms with Al.) Since Uuq and Uuh were in the news someone might want to work on those too. Double sharp (talk) 08:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
And indium has interesting material about quantum dots! Double sharp (talk) 11:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm interested in getting In up to speed. Or perhaps Cl or an alkali metal. There are plenty open though...don't hold back!TCO (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Group 12 seems to be getting close to B. We could improve it to GA using the same template of the other group GAs Alkali metal, Group 3 element and Group 4 element and using the comments on its talk page. Double sharp (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Periodic table also has comments on the talk page one could use to bring it to GA. Since this is the representative article of this WikiProject, it really needs to be improved from its current C-Class. Double sharp (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
We now have 2 PRs and 1 GAR. This project is not as active as it was last year, but we now have things to work on. Double sharp (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
"lost several productive editors": At least one of them (me) has since returned. But a lot more could have been done by those editors this project lost (such as barium improving to A-class). Double sharp (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, looking at this, we really did lose a whole bunch of editors, and the only consistently active members now are really me, Double Sharp, and Stone (sometimes R8R). StringTheory 15:25, 6 March 2012‎ (UTC)
Keep calm and carry on. This is the slogan I will follow. There will be new editors coming in and others will retire.--Stone (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
And a few returning retirees. (When will the Elements report be revived?) Double sharp (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
You need a few hours of spare time and good knows why - my account of spare time is running low.--Stone (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, that virtually guarantees that it won't be revived until Cryptic returns. Double sharp (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey wait, there might be slight chance to find some time this sommer.--Stone (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes at TFD

There's a bot going round Special:Contributions/Thehelpfulbot tagging element infoboxes for TFD. As yet, no TFD discussion has been started. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Another stupid mass tagging

A bot is tagging all the infobox templates. Just get it over the discusion at Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_April_11 for promethium might end the thing. --Stone (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I have left the runner of the stupid bot (user:Thehelpfulone) a message. Hopefully he'll undo them. I don't see that the bot (user:Thehelpfulbot) was ever authorized to go through and add PROD or deletion tags of any kind. This is most unhelpful.SBHarris 22:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The TFD has now been raised, comments to Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 3#Periodic table infobox templates please. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The bot request is at Misplaced Pages:Bot requests/Archive 47#tag a large number of templates for tfd. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Yes, apologies, there was a delay for Mabdul to create the TfD nomination. Per my reply on Sbharris' talk page, the request was made at Misplaced Pages:Bot_requests#tag_a_large_number_of_templates_for_tfd, and the bot is approved - Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Thehelpfulbot_12. The Helpful One 22:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
We had the discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements/Archive_10#Template:Infobox_.3Celement.3E_-_why_do_these_exist.3F --Stone (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Double sharp's "solution"

<tongue-in-cheek>Why not transition to the WikiProject Polyhedra database system at Template:Uniform polyhedra db? It would have the benefits that (1) there's only a single line of code in the article for the infobox and (2) there are only two templates being used: {{Elementbox}} and the database, and that would conserve server resources! Never mind the fact that this is quite incomprehensible when you see it (it took me years to figure out how to use this and I honestly don't know how Salix alba thought of it) and nobody will understand how to edit it during transactinide article upgrades; we must think of the servers first! Besides, the sheer incomprehensibility of it all will help evade even the smartest of vandals! :-P</tongue-in-cheek> Double sharp (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Naturally occurring isotopes of transplutonium elements

See User talk:Nicholasb07 for further discussion.

Does Nature's Building Blocks (2011 edition) mention which isotopes of Am, Cm, Bk and Cf occur naturally? See Talk:Periodic table#Naturals and Primordials for the discussion. Double sharp (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes, it does, here are the isotopes:
    • Am - 241 to 245 (5 isotopes)
    • Cm - 242 to 249 (8 isotopes)
    • Bk - 249 and 250 (2 isotopes)
    • Cf - 249 to 253 (5 istopes)

Hope this helps, if you need to know anything else, just let me know. Nicholasb07 (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If Cf-253 exists naturally, shouldn't its decay product Es-253 (with a similar half-life) do as well? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
That seems logical, but I'm not sure. (An extremely lucky U-238 atom might just manage to swallow 17 neutrons, becoming Fm-255, so it might even be possible that fermium exists naturally, but not in concentrations high enough to detect. No heavier element can be produced by neutron capture due to the fermium wall.) Double sharp (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm quite sure, if WP's information on Cf-253's decay is correct: Such an atom would almost certainly (99.7%) decay to Es-253, it need not be "extremely lucky" like the U-238 atom you mention. Maybe the experiment detecting the Cf-253 had no means of detecting present Es-253 as well, or the isotope is just erroneously listed in the book... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure which is correct, but there are some errors in the book regarding isotopes of At and Pu; see User talk:Nicholasb07#Naturally occurring isotopes of transplutonium elements. Cf-253 might be another error, but the first possibility (the experiment that detected the Cf-253 couldn't detect Es-253) nevertheless seems quite logical and possible. (The Cf-253 atom would most probably have been produced by neutron capture by U-238, right? So it would be a U-238 atom swallowing neutrons over a large interval of time, and not all at once like in the Ivy Mike test.) Double sharp (talk) 09:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
U-238 would not be able to swallow >4 neutrons "all at once" in either case, since no U isotopes above U-242 are known to exist. So it has to swallow some neutrons, beta-decay, then swallow some more, etc. But the rate of "neutron swallowing" was likely higher at the Ivy Mike test, so that even short-lived decay products could swallow more neutrons before decaying, resulting in higher elements. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Then the nuclear reactions shown in einsteinium and fermium need to be corrected, as they mention isotopes like U-253 (which aren't known to exist and would likely be too unstable to be reached without any β-decaying along the way). Double sharp (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Right, those reactions need to be fixed IMO; they are not (properly) referenced anyway (the einsteinium ref. states the possibility of U-253 production as a "dream", not that it was actually achieved). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the dubious reaction claims in those articles; I don't know if the actual reaction chain has ever been deduced, since it was of course no controlled experiment.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Roentgenium111, I think you are wrong. Absorption of several neutrons is highly nonlinear vs. intensity; it is only possible in a nuclear explosion, and can't be reproduced in a lab "even" today. Also, the product is unstable, and thus support for this chain can only come from theoretical estimates. At that time, Fermi merely speculated . Materialscientist (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Compounds of berkelium article

It seems to be an almost exact duplicate of the section Berkelium#Compounds. Double sharp (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure. It was a split by Neergal, with an edit summary "splitting info from main article before trimming there". Materialscientist (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The compounds section in the main article doesn't seem to have been trimmed much. Maybe we should merge the articles back together. Double sharp (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Don't merge back. A further trim would be better. An abnormally enormous section in an article is never good.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
So you'd prefer trimming the compounds section in the berkelium article? I don't find the section enormous; the "Synthesis and extraction" section is longer. Double sharp (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd leave as is. My point is don't merge. Even a trim would be better: the info would be covered in another article. Merging would result in an enormous section. There's no practical need to trim it. If there was a need to differ the two, then a trim would be better (or adding new info)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The compounds article has extra information on stuff like crystal packing which is very much out of the scope of the main element article. If the Bk article would be put up for FA it would still need a bit more trimming in the compounds section. Nergaal (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Originally, when I was GA-reviewing the article, I was left unsatisfied about how it was cut. Thought, more could be done. Now, I'm not that sure. Given the level of detail in the article, I'd leave as is. Maybe a little cut on californium bromide. But only if FA reviewers won't like the size of the section just like you (nothing bad is implied). This is a well-detailed (but not overly-- sometimes it's better small but good) article in all aspects, including the questioned section. In fact, the whole thing is not very far from FA. Want it to remain so.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
What other articles do you think are not far from FA? Double sharp (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I know I'm not R8R, but here is my opinion anyways: I believe that many of the transition metals are farily close to FA, such as osmium and molybdenum. Fluorine, of course, is very close to FA (nice job R8R!). No other element articles seem that close, but alkali metal and group 3 element seem to be nearing FA. StringTheory 17:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me about alkali metal nearing FA! I intend to get this to FA before the end of the year, and then go down improving the main groups to FA in sequence. I would love to see a periodic table with all the main groups at FA and the transition metal groups at least GA (the period and group tabs on the image PTQ are smaller and so don't receive as much attention). Double sharp (talk) 07:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I think At is an A-class article. Nergaal (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, let's open A-class reviews for At and Bk. (F never received one, but is obviously A.) Double sharp (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're into the idea, you can try the latter (as I know, nobody's working on it). Notice that you may be likely the one to address the issues found (you started (well, maybe will have started) the thing, it's fair). Also, given the lack of popularity for the reviews, don't be afraid to attract others manually by writing on their talkpages. If you think that you can do it, go ahead and do. The project will benefit. Also, about other possible FAs. Berkelium is the easiest target, a few other GA actinides have the potential (although all have a place where I would add a little (only a little) info). And Neergal's rutherfordium. Radon, take a look too. (or you wanted something stable? sorry, without the possibility to read each article, it's too difficult for now) --R8R Gtrs (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with the radioactives. :-) Thanks. Double sharp (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Article alerts

We still have one up from 18 December, and it's getting quite hard to read. Should we do something about this? StringTheory 16:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Now it's so ridiculously bloated that it is longer than the TOC. Double sharp (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Documentation being added to periodic table templates

User:DePiep keeps adding documentation and changing the look of the periodic table on many periodic table templates and lists. However, the documentations are empty (because there is really nothing to document) and their content (usually just {{Periodic tables footer}}) could easily be encased in <noinclude> tags. The changes to the look of the table either don't look very good (e.g. Template:Periodic table, where the period numbers were changed to have the same background as group numbers, which might cause readers to confuse the groups and periods) or don't make sense (Template:Compact periodic table was changed to have a legend with larger text because it would be illegible when nested, but this template is never actually nested). Double sharp (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding /doc documentation to a template is serious and always an improvement. /doc is not empty. For example, it has the interwikis and categories, and it does separation from main code very well. Also it introduces sandbox and test pages. Great! Especially for a scientific template as PT's are, one could appreciate this. Apart from this, please check my recent edit in PT template (including the edit summary). Other edits by me re PT should be discussed indeed -- soon in this theatre. -DePiep (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
To be more precise about my edits in {{Periodic table}} before, after. What did I change, and why?
1- From Group# and Period into Group → and Period ↓ with arrows. Note the asymmetric used # before.
2- Use same background color for both Group and Period. Because vert/hor are similar. I cannot understand what "confusion" could occur. And after all it is a Table really. Column and Row are alike.
3- f-block had two linked words (e.g. Lanthanides (Lanthanoids)), quite possibly in two rows. I reduced it to one linked word, because having two would suggest there are two different links.
4- I put the footnote text into the table, with the same background color, because it should not confuse with the plain article text. -DePiep (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
IMHO, if the /doc does not contain any real instructions for template usage, it is practically empty as its content (just interwikis and categories) would not appear in the /doc. The same effect could be achieved using <noinclude> tags, which I think are a better solution because then you don't have an ugly black green space that doesn't appear to contain any information. I don't think these templates even need sandbox and test pages - they don't even have any parameters, and it is very obvious how to use them.
I think that asymmetry in the groups and periods in {{Periodic table}} should be better, as it is a very easy way to ensure that readers will understand. "Group" and the group numbers are all shaded, while "Period" and the period numbers are all unshaded. This seems to be a more obvious solution. Keep in mind that this PT template is probably the first PT on Misplaced Pages a reader who doesn't know anything about the PT but wants to learn about it will encounter, and so we should keep it as simple as possible to understand. (I like the arrows, but I don't find the new colour scheme as useful as the old one.) I don't have any problems with the two linked words for the f-block. (I'm not very sure if we really need both the -ide and -oid terms in the table, but that's a different issue.) The text in {{Periodic table}} is, in fact, usually supposed to flow as part of the article as some commentary on the layout of the table. Double sharp (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
"asymmetry in the groups and periods" is not the issue (I used that word because only one had the #-thing. That is assymmetric). The issue I point to is: Groups (horizontal) and Periods (vertical) are alike in the PT. In the table, they are the same. End of my point. So, in an PT Group and Period should have a presentation alike. (for those who do not understand: group=column-number corresponds to period=row-number). -DePiep (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I am surprised again. Really, so there is a template named: {{Compact Janet periodic table}} and some PT template named {{Left Step Periodic Table}} or whatever. None are available by click. -DePiep (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and if anyone wants to know about Janet & Left Step: I say thay should be in view. -DePiep (talk) 00:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I just moved two templates. Really, there is just one PERIODIC TABLE. All here is variants. Note: they were not even in the "footer" (navbox). See: {{Periodic table (Janet)}} and {{Periodic table (left step)}}. -DePiep (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Double sharp. The new color scheme for {{Periodic table}} is not as pleasing to the eye as the original. I'm not sure in fact why the column and row numbers need a special background color at all. Oh, and the down arrow should go after 'Period' not on top of it. Sandbh (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
The group numbers would look slightly odd floating freely in the middle, but the period numbers are all right next to their respective periods and so they don't really need any background colour. Besides, colouring the groups and not the periods helps distinguish them. While the rows and columns may be of the same importance in most tables, they are certainly not in this one: group trends are quite a lot more important than trends across periods (with some notable exceptions, such as in the f-block). Speaking of the f-block, let's not even get started on the poor wording at the bottom "...the lanthanides (lanthanoids) and actinides (actinoids), which together comprise the f-block..." I thought lutetium was a d-block lanthanide? Similarly, inner transition metal is not always a synonym of f-block element, and should not redirect there, especially if there is no mention of the term inner transition metal on the f-block article. Double sharp (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
All good. I posted an edit to the template to try and address some of these other issues. Sandbh (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

One Periodic table, many variants

Can someone explain to User:Double sharp that there is only ONE Periodic Table, and there are Many variants? Thank you. -DePiep (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Look at Alternative periodic tables. IMO, all the "variants" are in fact different tables, and your "ONE Periodic Table" is the standard periodic table. Double sharp (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Answered broadly elsewhere. And telling that the "standard" standard periodic table is ... a redirect. -DePiep (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Double sharp is right. Although we call the standard layout "the periodic table", there are, in fact, other periodic tables that attempt to look at different trends in the elements. See periodic table#Alternatives and alternative periodic tables. StringTheory 03:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I can get that, but still what you call the standard layout has dozens of variants here at WP (clearly). I am perfectly fine with naming & specifying by Periodic table (layout X). And if I am correct, Janet's is called "... Periodic table" too right (the layout is just through other dimensions, Helium has still 2). Oh, and don't you think this is a hilarious name: Template:Compact extended periodic table? DePiep (talk) 05:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it sounds totally hilarious, although my intention in using that name was that it is a compact-style extended periodic table. (Yes, I created that template, using one of my former accounts, now abandoned.) What do you think of moving all the "Compact xxx periodic table" templates to "Xxx periodic table (compact)"? (Consistency would be desirable, so we would need to move them all.) Double sharp (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
We're closing in, but not yet OK. Now I'd say: (1) every PT template should start its name with "Periodic table". (2) Then a content specification should follow: "Periodic table (Allen scale electronegativities)" (with brackets). (3) Then, the format of that same PT content (wide? left-aligned?). So it would be: "Periodic table (Allen scale electronegativities) wide".
My meaning also implies that we split up the PT-navbox top group in {{periodic tables footer}}, because it mixes up formats and contents. E.g. I think "inline f-block" is mixing format & content. Must say, once we agree content and format could be split, we can make suggestions. -DePiep (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I may have missed something but what do mean by saying 'One Periodic table, many variants'? There is no such thing as One Periodic Table, only many different ways of depicting periodic relationships amongst the chemical elements. One of these, the 18-column form periodic table, has come to be referred to in the Western literature as the standard period table, simply on account of its popularity. But that is not the same as being such a thing as the 'One Periodic Table'. Sandbh (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I tried to say that earlier, but you've expressed it much more clearly. ;-) Double sharp (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
It is all variant presentations of the periodic table. One can add details per element, zoom in/out, use different colors to mark things - the same PT. It's just elements and their relative position. Like one can describe and depict the solar system in many ways, but it's still singular. -DePiep (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I also think there's one table. The "standard" form is a variation. All of the tables have the same info, show the same relationships between elements. Even can be derived from each other with introducing no new info (other than the scientific rationale for the whole table). Look at the ideal gas law: pV=RTm/M and pV/T=const are treated as the same, as they describe the exactly same from an exactly same point.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Just think about hydrogen. When placed above the alkali metals, it shows its relationship to the alkali metals (both H and the alkali metals have one electron in their outermost shell). When placed above the halogens, it shows its relationship to the halogens (both H and the halogens have one electron short of a full outer shell). When placed above carbon, it shows its relationship to the carbon group (H and C have similar electronegativity, and both H and the carbon group have half-full outer shells). When placed freely floating in the middle, above the transition metals, it shows that H does not fit completely into any group. Each of these show different relationships between elements, and you can't derive them from each other without introducing new info. Double sharp (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I like the solar system analogy as it shows the difference between the two concepts. The solar system is governed, as I understand it, by a consistent set of laws of planetary motion. In contrast, there is (so far) no such consistent set of laws or best set of criteria that govern which groups elements such H, He, Al, La, Ac etc belong to and, consequently, their relative positions. Given this situation, whilst there is such a thing as "the (concept of a) periodic table of the elements" I would argue that there is no such thing as "the periodic table of the elements." Mind you that hasn't stopped the expression "the period table etc" being used as a loose expression of convenience. Sandbh (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Two periodic tables? No law behind PT? Publish it. A Nobel prize ahead for you, and we won't have to share. -DePiep (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Is there really a law behind the placing of the elements? IMHO, no. For example, there are arguments for placing La and Ac in two positions, and they are both equally plausible! But placing La and Ac under Sc and Y shows the relationship with Sc and Y, and placing them in the f-block shows the relationship with the other lanthanides. Double sharp (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Coming from physics: The only indisbuted law behind it is the number of protons in the nucleus, but this only gives you a long row of elements. The fully occupied electron shells might be a good point for a carriage return, but even this is disputed. Coming from chemistry: You make groups of similar elements and order them roughly by mass. --Stone (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there is a need to publish; Eric Scerri has already done a good job, and continues to publish work in this space, although there is no Nobel in sight. See The periodic table: Its story and its significance 2007, Oxford University Press. Here is a relevant extract from one of his papers: 'Chemists, physicists and philosophers of science continue to debate the relative virtues of different forms to display the periodic table itself. Some even question whether a two-dimensional table is the best way to arrange the elements. Chemists frequently express the view that there is no one best representation and that the question of representation is a matter of convenience and convention. More recently this view has been questioned by philosophers of science, some of whom believe that there may be one best way to arrange the elements in groups of columns. They argue that disputes concerning the placement of certain troublesome elements, such as hydrogen and helium, in the periodic system have one correct solution, even if this is not yet apparent to current-day science. (2008, 'The past and future of the periodic table', American Scientist, vol. 96, Jan-Feb, pp. 52–58.) See also, for example, Michael Laing (2009, p. 1184) in the Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 86, no. 10: 'I conclude that there is no perfect ideal periodic table; you choose the periodic table that shows the most patterns and relationships and is most useful for your purposes; you get back from your periodic table what you put into it.' Sandbh (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Some more food for thought. Jensen WB 2009, 'Misapplying the Periodic Law,' in Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 86, no. 10, p. 1186: 'The simple fact is that the periodic table is based on idealized electronic configurations rather than on actual configurations and in this fashion functions in chemistry much as the ideal gas law or the concepts of ideal crystals and ideal solutions.' Lavelle L 2009, 'Response to misapplying the Periodic Law,' in Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 86, no. 10, p. 1187: 'Regarding my sentiment on flexibility towards the periodic table, in my letter...that Jensen cites, I wrote, "Perhaps our university chemistry textbooks should include brief mention of the difficulties on having one form of the periodic table." To be clear, my position is that we use well-established forms of the periodic table (IUPAC, NIST, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics) in chemistry textbooks and classrooms, and authors and educators can discuss alternative placements of elements, as well as discuss the limitations of these widely used periodic tables. To suggest otherwise may result in a Pandora’s box of a never-ending multitude of different periodic tables.' Sandbh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC).
The last two are closest to my views on the matter :) But the elements ordering, the elements' law should be existent. We can already calculate the properties (we may never check) of the elements (we may never synthesize). We can calculate energies for each electron in any position for any given Z, and energies of them all together. We then will (if not already) calculate electron affinities, ionization energies, and then (somehow) energy released after forming covalent bonds to O, F, etc., and then study on and on (chemists around here...right?) Extended periodic table already says about that element 139 may be not in the f-block. Seems like we'll get a law of the ordering, which will state all tables to be "variants"; seems like we won't get a second table, with a principal difference from the first (although we can invent the differentiating -- like the La/Lu position disagreement). The Solar system is not so complicated, thankfully--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't quite understand what you mean by "invent the differentiating"; could you explain it more clearly? Double sharp (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Again: User:Double sharp (btw am I tailed?) changed the columm header colors back into full bright as a minor, no explanation edit, after I used toned down color (with es of course) . Whatever a single editor says (reading just one post), Double sharp is not communicating. For them, it is "no changes from what I am used to see". -DePiep (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not tailing you. Secondly, if you tone down the background colour for the groups, you lose the contrast between the groups and the periods, and I think that might be somewhat more desirable because the groups and periods are very different chemically and we ought to show that difference (I've explained why I wanted the "asymmetry" above). (BTW, I accidentally hit "Save page" before finishing my edit summary, but the above is what I was planning to write there.) Double sharp (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
See also Is it the periodic table or the periodic system? Sandbh (talk) 09:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Periodic table templates

I have recently created {{Periodic table templates}} to start a (WP-backoffice) overview of PT-related templates. When sweeping WP for this issue, I found some more related pages/templates. For now, they are in the "group:related" (of that overview template).

If there is a better position for them into the main template {{Periodic tables footer}}: please write. -DePiep (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I think most of the templates in the "Related" section (except the compact and nav ones) could enter the "Layouts" section. (Incidentally, that section really needs to be retitled; it has, for some time, contained PTs with different information, but which aren't layouts.) Double sharp (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Move from "Related" (parking area) into the footer template: pls go ahead.
About splicing "Layout" into "Layout versions of standard PT*" and "Content & detail versions of PT*" I agree. The proposed names here, marked with an asterisk*, are descriptive only. It's just that I support that splice. -DePiep (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Bad hardness data

Hardnesses_of_the_elements_(data_page) includes a very incorrect dataset (third column) for brinell hardness, that seems to originate with Wolfram. I have sent feedback on Wolfram alpha. I post here because the incorrect data is replicated all across the elements articles. The numbers are miles off, showing things like tin and silver softer than lead. It is kind of amazing how this single set of very wrong data has bounced around the web, gaining credibility with each republishing. Gigs (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

See also Talk:Hardnesses of the elements (data page)#The third column is completely wrong. Double sharp (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Element discovery

Now the JWP is considering the claims for Z = 113, 115, 117 and 118. (Any guesses on which elements will be recognised as having been discovered? I think Uut and Uup are quite likely. However, given that the report last year was based on data collected before 31 July 2008, we'll probably have to wait until about 2015.) Double sharp (talk) 09:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The thing reads more like, "Build your own nuclear plant model" rather than "We'll see again the last year's." The claimers'll have to re-claim, and given how little time they have or whatever other reasons, they may not want to. (Don't extrapolate dates: new people are in. Also possibly the IUPAC has more (or less) work than before). Let's see who'll re-claim: before that, we're only watching a crystal ball.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

For those interested to keep our FAs up-to-date

Iridium has been oxidized to IrO4, and a IrF7 report is to be released soon. TcF7 has a chance to be synthesized. Proof. See also the earlier infos) --R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I've updated Template:Periodic table (valence) with the IrO4 info. It was already in List of oxidation states of the elements. Double sharp (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. This is good too. Although I originally meant the other thing-- the element articles... Will take a look mb later--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No squeezing

Re this edit in {{Periodic table (Pyykkö model)}}. This is about handling wide tables in general. So the displaced element symbols are unbolded, to make the template a tiny bit smaller to fit onto a page. I think this not a good way.
First, the scrollbar is there when the template on the article page is wrapped like this:
{{Wide template|Template:Periodic table (Pyykkö model)}}
So we have to add that by editing. Ths scrollbar disappears on screens wide enough (see {{Wide template}}). All in all: when we use that enveloping template, we do not have to worry about width any more. We don't have to squeeze the template itself: some tables it will not fit in a small page ever, and there is this better solution.
Second, removing bold from symbols (Pyykkö model) in the defies the purpose of the template! The template is about these elements, it's legend is even in the title (strangely enough). And then making them less visible, to save a few pixels? A bad compromise, and not needed.
So I propose to put those symbols in bold again, and forget about the "squeeze pixels & text width" argument in general. -DePiep (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Use {{Wide template}} for wide tables

I've introduced using {{Wide template}} to take care of tables that are too wide for the page (this page width depends on a users screen width and zooming level). The template (which envelopes a regular template) does this: when a template (think: some periodic table) is too wide for a users page, it adds a scrollbar below and limits the width (window) to the users page width. See: before and after.
Now User:Double sharp has reverted this, , with es: "(2) it's better to be able to see the whole table at once". This is a self-defying argument. Because: when the screen is too small, one still cannot see the template in as a whole. One still has to scroll (this time with the browser bottom scroll bar), thereby even moving regular article text out of view! Apart from this, I get the impression that the same user is blindly reverting most of my edits without even looking at the merits. Has it been discussed somewhere that the current version of the periodic table tables here are finalised and cannot be improved any more?
I propose to use {{Wide template}} as a standard for any wide periodic table template. -DePiep (talk) 09:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, but for the one on periodic table (large version), there is a slight problem: the legend is so bulky that you may not see the scroll bar. So I would rather that one not use the scroll bar there, since the periodic table is the most important thing there anyway. The article text doesn't move out of view all the time, even: sometimes it's just the sidebar which moves out of view. But on period 8 element, I say the wide template is a lot better than on periodic table (large version). Double sharp (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll try to find a solution for that non-overview point. -DePiep (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Layout improvements: some other layout improvments can help to keep/improve the overview of periodic tables at WP. I propose:
1. Each PT should have an outer border that wraps up all parts (title, table, legend). Think a 1px black line. This way there is no visual mixup with regular text. Especially with wide tables: it gives another visual clue about the page outbreak we are talking about (the right-side border would miss) Example:{{Periodic table (alkali metals)}}.
2. Each PT has a title (bold, top line, possibly linking to an article).
3. This title(-bar) has the V-T-E box. (But note: Show/Hide button is not appreciated in Article space, many readers do not get that idea).
4. All legends are positioned below and left-aligned, not centered.
Comments? -DePiep (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Done: with wide templates, the legend box can be kept outside of the sliding table box. See for example Periodic table (large version) and the documentation with {{Periodic table (large version)}}. -DePiep (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Templates Ununquadium and Ununhexium at TFD

I have nominated the templates {{Ununquadium}} and {{Ununhexium}} for deletion; see Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Template:Ununquadium.  --Lambiam 03:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Fl and Lv pronounciation

See {{Infobox flerovium}} and {{Infobox livermorium}}: can someone change or add the IPA pronounciation? -DePiep (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

My guess is /fleɪˈroʊviəm/ (flay-roh-vee-əm; the respelling currently given seems somewhat implausible) for flerovium and /lɪvərˈmɔːriəm/ (li-vər-maw-ree-əm) for livermorium, but I'm not sure. Double sharp (talk) 05:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Denoting Bplus-class on the PTQ

I have a suggestion for Bplus-class on the image PTQ that doesn't involve creating a new colour: simply use the GA colour, but don't add the + sign. This seems to fit, since Bplus is almost GA, but not there yet. What do you think? Double sharp (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Compositionally, a bad thing. The plus sign is not as easy to take a notice of as the color. Dunno what to recommend, although I find the wiki-PTQ scheme OK. A plus on light green is better than no plus on lincoln, anyway. Is the whole thing problematic?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
What would be gained by doing that? At least when there is a GA confirmation we an aim for topics, while B+s are jsut internal ratings. Nergaal (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Please undo. B+ (sometimes called Bplus, while speaking quality) is a grade at WP:ASSESS, but only non-standard (there is a color, btw). Why deviate from a standard? -DePiep (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
@DePiep: B+ is quite old here...it was officially adopted here in June 2011 (see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 11#A-class), but before that, we were hijacking A-class for it, on the grounds that there was in fact a rather large gap between B and GA (which you can see by comparing some B (e.g. nitrogen, phosphorus), B+ (e.g. arsenic, bismuth), and GA (e.g. antimony) articles (I've chosen examples all from one group)) that needed to be bridged. However, there is also a large gap between GA and FA, and we need A-class to bridge that gap. So we inserted B+ to bridge both gaps. And it works well with it. B+ isn't just a transitional status while the article is at GAN: as you can see from the PTQ, some articles at B+ have been there for some time without a GAN. So, since we have A, why not B+? It satisfies our needs, as it does for the other two projects that use it (WP Maths and WP Statistics). Double sharp (talk) 03:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
In addition, did you notice that the colour for B+ on WP:ASSESS is exactly the same as the colour for GA? Double sharp (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps useful for addition of content

On the German Misplaced Pages, (As, Ba, Pb,) Ga, In, Yb, Cl, Au, Na, P, Sr are FA or GA, but aren't at least GA here (the three in brackets are B+). The corresponding articles here are all B, except for the three in brackets (which are B+) and Na and Sr (which are C). Double sharp (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

However, the articles there are rather low on refs. Double sharp (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments on placement of the historical section?

If there exists a very good lede for the element (which is nearly always the case), the reader will have been exposed to the basics of the properties, appearance, occurance, uses, and so on, of an element, and will not be side-tracked by starting immediately with human history as #2. Unfortunately these guidelines suggest shoehorning "human history" between occurance and production, which is a bad place, since occurance, as minerals, leads very naturally into production. Nor is there often any other good place to put human history. It was stuck near the end of the bismuth article, where it interrupted the flow nearly any other place I put it, except to start the article after the lede.

Where do you begin an article? At the beginning! That's (after overview) history and etymology. Although this suggests beginning with the history of human knowledge of the element, then properties and chemistry. Rather than leave human history till after the "natural history" of the element in the universe (what made it after the Big Bang, etc). There's a reason not to delay human history and etymology, since once you start with the "natural history" in nucleosynthesis (and isotopes), that leads inevitably to abundances (and isotopic abundances) in the solar system and Earth, occurance discussion, minerology, ores, production, uses, and so on. Where then to interupt for the historical record, then? So, I think best to get the human history out of the way, before we start on the properties and chemistry, or at least right after these, since the rest is almost inevitable once you start with the natural history in the universe.

I would suggest that we change our guideline policy in this matter. I don't think any of these rules should be really firm, since elements differ in how well the sections naturally "segue." But for most, we still have the problem I encountered in bismuth, where the human history is left till way toward the end, before we get to biology and toxicology.

Comments? I have put this in the style TALK at GUIDELINES , but have gotten no feedback. SBHarris 00:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

cool idea. would you also have occurence before charactersitcs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.27.249 (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The properties should go first. They explain what the element is. They also make easier to understand the next parts, e.g. why sodium never occurs in nature. If one had read a text on its reactivity before he made it to occurence, it's getting easier to understand (really understand, i.e. being able to repeat in a day) why there is no sodium metal in the nature. Characteristics could also make clear why the metal was synthesized only that late and not by the Romans or in the Middle Ages. Apply to a selected element.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, characteristics and chemistry can go first, if you like. Then history of discovery. THEN Big Bang and nucleosynthesis and solar system abundance, minerology, production, uses, and off you go into the rest in natural order. SBHarris 03:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
That's good. I agree--R8R Gtrs (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Tc,43.jpg

Why is the deletion request taking so long? It's been open for nearly three months now. Double sharp (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Periodic table by article quality

Shall I add the 14 articles in the range {{alkali metal–noble gas}} (including superactinides) to {{Periodic table by article quality}}? -DePiep (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

We discussed this before (somewhere in archive 11) and decided that it was better not to, although I personally don't mind. (Some are already there as groups, like alkali metal, alkaline earth metal, halogen and noble gas). Double sharp (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Discovery details in infoboxes?

I haven't managed to find any of the element pages with the 'discovery date', 'discovered by' data in the infobox. It would be great if this was included for each element as standard as it's a very interesting key fact. Any thoughts on this?Nozzleberry (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit the idea is great (more important to an average reader than (say) speed of sound of a thin rod), but also it ruins the scientific numeric spirit (little a loss) and it's something I would be too lazy to do myself. More opinions?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Like it.
Bit of a segue, but why not get 28bytes to make some periodic table gif (like he wanted to for phase change versus temp, but is already done), but for date of discovery? Would get him out of the gnomey shit and mallcop patrol. I know the kid has a content creator buried in there...
69.255.27.249 (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Can someone cut the crap out and explain what this is about? So: leave out the personalisations I ... too lazy and get him out of something: not helpful. As I understand it, there could be added parameters for these two, and no opposition so far. -DePiep (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, Mr. Toughguy. We're havin' some serious bizzness here. I'ma be gettin' straight to the point, alright? We could add the parameters for discovery, dammit, year and people. Gotta be clear, crap be cut outta here. No opposition in here, no expected. Are you with us or are you 'gainst us? Reply fast, don't press on my balls, man!
To your wondering: "he" is user:28bytes. What do you have against people suggested as being useful? And I have a question (to everyone): If the system is applied, what date would be shown? For example, fluorine gas was synthesized in 1886, while the element fluorine (the fact there is an element "fluorine") was shown three quarters a century before. The gas synthesis was rather a proof than the idea in first place. May we need four parameters (suggested man and year, discovered man and year), opinions?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Date of isolation. Moissan. 1886.69.255.27.249 (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I think my question has arrived. Oh, and now that we have some content related talk: a gif is worthless in this. -DePiep (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of places to use it. History of the periodic table. History of chemistry. Chemical element. Right now, "History of the periodic table" has two different graphics with colored by date of discovery. A gif would be nice there. Also, do a Google search on "element" AND "history and you will find timeliness of the element discoveries are of interest to others. 65.199.61.220 (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The four parameter system suggested sounds good (predicted and discovered, person and date). Using 'Isolated' instead of 'discovered' is probably more scientific, although 'discovered' is easier for the layman to understand. Which do we think is best? Other interesting headings could be 'first use' and 'oldest sample', for elements known since ancient times (got this idea from here Timeline of chemical elements discoveries).Nozzleberry (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
"Isolated" specifies that it was the pure element that was discovered, but that's somewhat obvious (it is the article about the element, after all).
For ancient elements, just ignore the predicted man and year. Just put the discovered year, and then some explanation.
(I think we should have the year before the man, but that's a minor issue, except for the ancient elements, where it ensures that the year doesn't get buried in mountains of text.) Double sharp (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Good point - so "discovered" is definitely better here and I also agree that the date should come first. Any thoughts on having "oldest sample" but leaving blank for more non-ancient elements?Nozzleberry (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


I remember there being a consensus a couple of years ago on adding the discovery year and discoverer into the template, but I think nobody got around doing it. I think isolation is the least ambiguous choice. I worked on Discovery of chemical elements a while ago until I gave up due to too much work. Nergaal (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't you mean Discoveries of the chemical elements? Double sharp (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Yep. Nergaal (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd really love to see a phase change vs. temp gif, as I would a discovery gif, on WP, but both have been created on other websites already. Double sharp (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to start doing the job of inputting the discovery/suggested dates/people for the elements but wouldn't want to mess with the Template:Infobox element as I'm very new to all this. Can anyone here edit the template?
By the way the phase change vs temp and discovery gif sound great. Personally I think they should be on WP even if they are available elsewhere.Nozzleberry (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

FAC for periodic table?

I think the article is quite close to go to FAC (imo it is A-class). Anybody interested in chipping in to tidy it up so we can get it there? A-class review or something? Nergaal (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me that! I just need to finish writing up a serviceable history section for alkaline earth metal (which I am currently doing at my sandbox), and then I can work on this article again. StringTheory 14:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to unify spelling in elements articles

A comment by VMS Mosaic brought me to this proposal: use US spelling in all articles on chemical elements (off course, retaining aluminium and caesium names per IUPAC). {{Elementbox}} uses "vapor ", "vaporization", "ionization", thus to preserve US/UK spelling we need to duplicate the template. While this is quite possible, only phosphorus (maybe one more, I forgot which one, anyone knows?) uses UK spelling. Our replication of rarely used templates is often opposed by template-wise people, thus unifying spelling is a more practical solution. Please vote
(same problem actually exists for all chemicals using {{chembox}}, which contains odor, vapor, etc.; if you wish to discuss it, please start a separate thread at WP:Chemicals - I have no slightest idea about the number of UK-spelled articles on chemicals, and most of them have more serious issues than UK/US spelling). Materialscientist (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support uniform US spelling. Materialscientist (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, this is the English Misplaced Pages, not the American Misplaced Pages. A template does not enforce the spelling preference on the rest of the article, and this is likely to end up in edit warring for certain articles - not to say that when an article is written in UK English where the article name has an element in it in the British spelling, and then changing over the rest of the article to US because of this bureaucracy (that this suggestion will create) will further enhance the discussion on changing the spelling of the element names on Misplaced Pages, away from our long-standing consensus to follow IUPAC. I am afraid this will bring more discussion then resolution. --Dirk Beetstra 05:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
    Consider this: our IUPAC conventions will stay unchanged (the proposal is about article text, not names). Only about 1% of elements articles use UK spelling. Materialscientist (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
    Only 1% of the element names are specific UK, that is also true the other way around, only 1% of the element names are specifically US. Guessing that sulfur- and phosphorous-compounds are equally distributed throughout the compounds, that percentage will also go for the total articles titles. The rest of the articles (98%) is language non-specific by title. Some will talk about sulfur or phosphorus compounds, but that is not going to be major only. So the only reason to change the language to one preference would be because the templates are, almost by definition, using a single language. Man, I would like to see the possibility of '__SPELLING_UK__' vs. '__SPELLING_US__' magic words (to be used in the article, which you could use to enforce a language in a template via a parser function ... --Dirk Beetstra 06:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
    Dirk, this thread is not about names of elements and compounds - they will stay unchanged - it is about spelling of prose text in elements articles. I don't mind it be UK or US, but it just happened so that only 1% of articles use UK spelling, and this conflicts with the rigid US spelling of templates (infoboxes). We didn't care about it before, but elements articles are close to GA level now, as a group. Materialscientist (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
    That is easily solvable, we just make the template bilingual US English/British English. Pyrotec (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, I know. And they should be in the language where the article was originally written in. There are two options for confusion: templates in one language - articles in the other, and a couple of elements where the IUPAC name of the element (which gets extrapolated when it is a constituent of a compound-name - Trimethyl aluminium/Trimethyl aluminum) conflicts . I disagree to the point that ALL articles should be in US English, or in UK English, we simply follow WP:ENGVAR - i.e., the language of the first major revision, even if that results in a 'conflict' with the infoboxes.
    Moreover, this sets a bad precedent - if something like the {{Infobox Royalty}} would display parameters in US English, we would consider to rewrite the FA article Elizabeth II to use US English? Do note, that the UK English article-name Caesium (FA-status) seems to be written in UK English ("golden-coloured", not "golden-colored"), and has an US English infobox ("Heat of vaporization", not "Heat of vaporisation") and now it is a problem for GA status? That is simply ridiculous. --Dirk Beetstra 10:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
    I could extremi(s/z)e this - create a generally useful template which displays text in either US-English or UK-English, transclude it on many pages, and then say that because that template uses one variety, all the articles that use the template should use the same variety otherwise it would not pass GA status (and now I did not even start about articles who use both a template that uses US-English, and a template that uses UK-English ... like a UK-English infobox and a US-English navigation template). --Dirk Beetstra 12:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I guess I caused this, so I should weigh in. I just want articles to use an internally consistent spelling. If the only (i.e., likely to succeed) way to do it for this article, phosphorus, is this proposal, then I support it. I did look at modifying the templates, but decided that poking a stick into a bee hive was a very bad idea. Been there, done that, won't do it again. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose to the death Moves like this undermine the spirit of WP:ENGVAR by marginalising British English. If you favour US English for the sake of consistency in a subset of all the articles on en.wiki, sooner or later someone will propose all the articles should be converted to US English. To me, the neatest solution would be to tag words like color/colour with some sort of markup so that the reader can select either British or American English and the article will be displayed accordingly. Is this possible? --Ben (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Could a parameter not be added to the infobox to display UK or US names for words where there is a difference, something like {{#if: {{{UK|}}}|vapour|vapor}}? That would fix the internal inconsistency without needing to ignore WP:ENGVAR or create two templates. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 11:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose I started to expand the article a few years ago. It was started in British English and I continued using British English, with vapour, etc, so WP:ENGVAR should apply. Some of the more recent additions have been in US English and the article has suffered the usual vandalism. I have no real problem with Sulfur, but I prefer Sulphur, however the Royal Society for Chemistry adopted the use of Sulfur so we must accept Sulfur. Pyrotec (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Terrible idea. This insistence on US spelling is a form of parochialism and cultural hegemony, not that it is intended that way. The result would be proclaiming to the world that the biggest chunk of Misplaced Pages is mainly for Americans and that others should submit or bugger off. Already we fight a battle where some editors assume that the (US) FDA is the ultimate authority on drugs and that a law in some California city is supposed to be gripping news. Also, I think that readers being exposed to various spellings is healthy, like eating diverse foods for the brain. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Of course, by consensus we can always change an ENGVAR style per article, so that first edit rule can be overcome. On top of this, we could be bright and apply the essence of ENGVAR to all periodic table articles (or WP:ELEMENTS scope), to create a single overall language style. That would be an Übercool ENGVAR application. -DePiep (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
    WikiProject Elements does not own the articles and some of these articles were created and expanded by editors that are not members of WikiProject Elements. They don't own the articles either, but this proposal seems to be more about this project grabbing ownership and overriding the principles on which wikipedia was built. Pyrotec (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Grabbing ownership? No more than the first editor of a page who uses a specific ENGVAR, and so owns the page (not). ENGVAR is explicitly about uniformity of language, and I am free to propose extension to a group of articles. Introducing the words overriding the principles ... wikipedia is not based on what I wrote here. -DePiep (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
No, you would need a Misplaced Pages-wide discussion to override on a specific subset of articles a long-standing consensus (even on one article). A local consensus does not trump a community consensus - you can have local consensus to violate a policy/guideline, but that does not mean that you can violate the policy/guideline and apply the change. --Dirk Beetstra 06:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
You too, Beetstra, stop accusing me of violating a policy or prove it.
And well, I did not say we'd find it here. And long standing is not an argument really, and consensus it is not, because it is just the rule (ENGVAR). Anyway, it looks like there are nationalistis fears involved ("until death", "parochialism and cultural hegemony", "burocracy", "grabbing ownership" -- laughable to me). Gives me an idea how IUPAC has to work. I stand by my first support post here. -DePiep (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2012 (U
I agree. Consensus in this case applies only to this article. That is what WP:ENGVAR requires, no more, no less. I was the cause of this, and my preferred solution would be to 'fix' the template to allow UK spelling, but if no one (I'm a cripple and no longer up to the task; these types of often friutless arguments are very life force draining) is willing to take the effort to fix the template, then the only other alternative is to fix the article. If someone steps forward to fix the template, then I will fully support them. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose – straight-out flat "No!" Are we even discussing this? If fixing a template so that it can handle ENGVAR (long-standing guidelines with the vast weight of consensus) is "poking a stick into a bee hive", this idea, this can of worms, this Pandora's Box would be like taking your stick a wacking a grizzly bear with it. It would set a terrible precident. Just fix the template: we'd have saved a lot of effort if that had been done in the first place. JIMp talk·cont 10:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    Then fix it already or find someone who can. I'm a cripple and no longer up to such a task. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Another example of not knowing the word consensus when it is a step higher than just a page. -DePiep (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean, DePiep, sorry, but what I'm trying to say is that the way ENGVAR works and has been working for years is on a per-article basis. It didn't have to be like that but this is the rule we've adopted. It's accepted and rarely challenged (this discussion is one of the rare examples), that's consensus. That's how consensus works. Consensus can change but I doubt that this rule is changing any time soon. JIMp talk·cont 01:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Affected words

Please list here which words we need to differentite, and in which template (infobox element presumed). It is only US or UK spelling, right? Or is there a GB page too? -DePiep (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  • UK: "vaporisation", US "vaporization"
  • UK "ionisation", US: "ionization"
  • UK page: Phosphorus
 Done
For the basic {{Infobox element}} (so available for all element infoboxes). Note: there was one vaprorization to edit, and four times an inization (where to check these?). No other changes. Default=en-US (no visual change then, check an element page). One actual UK page altered: added engvar=en-UK in article page Phosphorus as the editor should do. Any questions? -DePiep (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Oops, each individual element infobox must be edited to use en-UK. I only did the i'box phospohorus, see . Any more infoboxes to be prepared for en-UK this way? - DePiep (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Why not use "vapour" (and "vapourisation") in the British version?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't ask me. I don't know anything about the difference. So, is there UK-word and an US-word? Write it down here crisp & clear, and I'll make the Infoboxes bi-lingual. -DePiep (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
OK. Vapor and vaporization are US, vapour and vapourisation are UK. The endings -or/-our are like -ize/-ise when it takes to the words coming from Romance languages, esp. French (such as color, vapor, tumor, humor, glamor, etc.), which is almost always the case (there also exceptions like hour or razor, spelled the same in both versions, the -ize/-ise exceptions also exist, such as seize or raise).--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I get it. Will take a look shortly. Oh, those English. What they have done to the French language. Before, it was all Oc and Oui , -DePiep (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Please listen. We do not do grammar here. Just tell me what words differ in en-UK and en-US, and I'make the templates show that in en-UK / en-US article pages. Right? -DePiep (talk) 03:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"Ionisation" vs "ionization" is only half the story. There's also "colour" vs "color". It gets complicated when you go and combine these. It's not black & white "vapourisation" in the UK vs "vaporization" in the US. There's a grey area (or a gray area if you prefer) in which it's "vapourization" which is the spelling prefered in Canada and by the Oxford Dictionary. I mentioned above that I'd fix it if someone else doesn't beat me to it. Well, I was beaten to it but as the point I'm now mentioning wasn't actually taken into account (in fact -our varients were completely overlooked) it isn't actually fixed. Thus I'm taking the liberty to impliment the fix I'd had in mind. Note that my idea was to determine the output spelling by the spelling of the parameters rather than by a new engvar parameter but there's no reason we can't have our cake and eat it too here. I've designed a version which incorporates both options. JIMp talk·cont 00:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

So you are going your own variant afterwards? Thank you for understanding me. But don't you spoil a working solution. -DePiep (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
eh, you jimp already did change a working thing? That is NOT the way we work. -DePiep (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
User:Jimp, you are disrupting working templates and pages. Stop it. And you have no backing for doing so. If you want to improve {{engvar}}, for example, you come over and TALK. -DePiep (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Well jimp, looks like you were beaten to it. Now cooperate or shut up. If a 'point ... wasn't actually taken into account then write it here or on my talk, clearly. That is exactly what this section is about. Now, any words to be specified UK/US, jimp? -DePiep (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me be clear. If there are words or terms that are ENGVAR-specific, then write that down here. How else could I know? -DePiep (talk) 03:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW, is phosphorus the only en-UK element article? Double sharp (talk) 04:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Post-transition metals, poor metals, and aluminium

In the current classification system of the elements, we call the elements between the transition metals and the metalloids, the 'post-transition metals'. We also count aluminium as post-transition metal. Does anyone know why (a) we count aluminium as a post-transition metal; and (b) why we deprecated the use of the term poor metals? I would argue that: 1. aluminium is not a post-transition metal; 2. what we call the post-transition metals would be better termed poor metals; 3. the poor metals include aluminium; and 4. post-transition metals are a subset of the poor metals, not including aluminium. Grateful for other views on this. If memory serves, the post-transition metals used to be called 'other metals', which I do agree is a less than desirable term. Sandbh (talk) 08:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This whole classification thing seems to be a bigger deal in Misplaced Pages than in the real world where few care deeply how it is classified. It is however not a transition metal because the d-orbitals are not involved in the bonding. Yes, it acts a lot like ferric ion. And even the exact classification of a transition metal raises some people's blood pressures. Chemists by and large ignore these classification as a form of bean counting. We even ignore IUPAC unless it suits us.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Table background colors

Proposal overview

In various periodic table forms, we use many background colors to specify element (cell) properties. These colors are (or should be) in the legend. Apart from these, there are table background colors, like group column headers. These are used only to support a structure of the table, but have no individual meaning (no need to be in the legend). In this post I propose using grey colors for these background colors. When there is interference with current grey legend colors (like for "Unknown chemical properties"), we should change these to a non-grey color (white proposed). Examples before {{Periodic table}} and after: {{Periodic table/sandbox}}.

Colors in periodic table

In periodic tables, we use multiple background color schemes to show element properties &tc. These are explained in a legend (ideally). Also we use background colors to support or strengthen the table structue. For example, the yellowish column headers in the standard {{Periodic table}}. Such colors have no meaning by themselves, and are not in the legend. But colored table backgrounds, like the yellowish mentioned, are distracting from the main, significant colors. It is confusing. I may note that this effect is subtle, not even recognised by the reader (such a reader might not realise what is confusing them).

Proposing grey backgrounds

I propose to use grey colors for table background colors. They can be used in a standard way. When done so, the meaningfull cell bg colors are showing better. Also, the main table structure is strengthened (a periodic table itself being more of a tetris game halfway). Please compare this example in this, before and after the background was changed into a grey: before and after.

Grey cell color now in the legend

Clearly, some legend colors are grey, often when "Unknown". To shift these legend colors away from (new) meaningless background grey colors, I propose to use a non-grey color. When meaning "Unknown", I propose bg color white #ffffff;, which has no association with a rainbow color, and is easily recognised as "unknown".

Periodic tables affected

Changing into grey bg will affect the yellowish tables we have (example below), but also those who have a transparent background. A opaque bg, however light, already serves to structure the table. Any existing meaningfull grey bg should be resolved into a suitable color. No content changes.

Standard grey colors
Proposed standard grey colors
I have created a standard set of grey bg colors, see Template:Element color#Table background. Colors can be enterd like {{Element color/Table|colheader}}. The range has five shades. Template:Element color/Table/Overview
Examples

-DePiep (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC) minor addings -DePiep (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC), -DePiep (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I really like it! It's very nice and has a clean look to it. (A minor note: putting "unknown chemical properties" in white would conflict with "unknown", in which the element itself is unknown, as in the compact Janet periodic table. That's a rare situation, and only occurs once anyway IIRC, but what do you propose for that case?) Double sharp (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. And well, hm, yes. So both grey and white now are rightly in the legend at {{Janet}}. We can always break this new rule "no greys in the legend" (like I do not intend to change this grey either:   Post-transition metals).
For this situation, we can introduce a second color for say "Unknown element", from the rainbow (i.e. not white-grey-black). For example this pale yellow. This is only to be used in this issue-tables like Janets. Detail: a pale color is close to white and off the hue (yellow) color, so color-associations are steered a bit in the right direction. -DePiep (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

TfD: Template:Periodic table by article quality (compact)

Deletion proposed. See the TfD entry for the discussion. -DePiep (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Categories:
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Elements Add topic