:Updated FA [[Periodic table]]. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 13:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
:Updated FA [[Periodic table]]. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 13:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
::[[File:Dmitry Mendeleyev Osnovy Khimii 1869-1871 first periodic table.jpg|right|thumb|upright=0.25|Mendeleyev's PT (1871)]]If you really want a new version of the historic one, why not translate the german version to english? The reason I do not like the change are that I would be expect to find the original PT in the history section and not a reconstruction, especially when it claims that it is Mendeleyev' PT. [[User:Christian75|Christian75]] ([[User talk:Christian75|talk]]) 14:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
::[[File:Dmitry Mendeleyev Osnovy Khimii 1869-1871 first periodic table.jpg|right|thumb|upright=0.25|Mendeleyev's PT (1871)]]If you really want a new version of the historic one, why not translate the german version to english? The reason I do not like the change are that I would expect to find the original PT in the history section and not a reconstruction, especially when it claims that it is Mendeleyev' PT. [[User:Christian75|Christian75]] ([[User talk:Christian75|talk]]) 14:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This page is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this page, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements articles
Hi! I've been working over at WikiProject Chemistry on adding occupational safety and health data to chemboxes, and in that process have come across exposure data for certain elements. Is there a place for this in elements articles? I know there is a very specific format for elements and I don't want to step on any toes, hence asking here first. Thanks! Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As we both know by now ;-), the NIOSH hazard data PEL, REL and IDLH are added to {{Chembox}} eg ethyl acetate. {{Infobox element}} though is a different beast. It has little real-life chemistry data (so far that is; it's a culture too of course). It has the science & chemistry facts.
I don't know what to do with the scores of other chemical data that {{Chembox}} handles. Hazards, medical issues: not in this element box now (while phosphorus and lithium are great and interesting candidates). For now, I'd say No to this --US-specific-- detail. I do foresee the need of a "data sheet" template, taking it's unlimited and useful space at the bottom of the article page. For all chemical articles (elements, chemical substances, drugs, illegal drugs).
Thanks, @DePiep:, for fixing the Neptunium chain in conjunction with your work on Astatine. Any chance of you finding time to fix the others? I have added the Uranium series to the gallery above, not because it references "Poor metals" but because it is the 4th in the series, and it has a somewhat different format which might be improved by converting it to match the other three. YBG (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, why not try yourself? 1. download teh file. 2. in a simple text-editor: search for wrong text like "poor metal" and edit (texts like "#poormetal" are internal identifiers; may be changed too). Then upload. Must say, the scheme is not very clear to me, because of the upward arrows (to keep same-element in one row apparently). Maybe that should be horizontal, so in thorium flow we see Pb → Bi → Po horizontally. -DePiep (talk) 11:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats. In general, png-copies should be abandoned & deprecated. As in: don't worry about them. Sure we will not use them in enwiki articles. svg is preferred always. -DePiep (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
About {{Infobox element}}. I have made changes to have the "(at x °C)'" qualification show the same over multiple parameters (= rows). Changes were done in: Speed of sound; Thermal expansion; Electrical resistivity).
In general, the (SI) pattern is: 1140 µm·m−1·K−1 (at 25 °C)[61]_comment.
Just niticed: the cell-padding in tables has been increased (more whitespace around text). In the infoboxes, the isotopes-table is pushed wider. Now the whole infobox is wide-body. It appears to me that there are fewer line-wraps needed in the infobox, which seems OK. Any comments? -DePiep (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently been following the Dawn and Opportunity missions and have now returned. Of course, with all the formatting changes and style tweaks going on now, one thing's been left out: the period 3 elements (excluding argon, of course). I plan to work on one of these in the near future – calcium with its recent RFC may be the first target but sodium and sulfur look more appealing to me. ParclyTaxel19:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What, I didn't actually pose any question, I was just seeing if the group was still alive (which it still is). All the period 3 elements except argon are C-class – in some sense "critical" – and I want to see which one of these is most in need of improvement. Looking at the book report for the entire gamut of chemical elements the clear loser is aluminium with four maintenance tags. Maybe that should be our next project? ParclyTaxel07:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Parcly Taxel, you first posted a lot of illegible stuff here, then after I questioned that you cleaned up [3] and then you play dumb saying "what was unclear?", as if I am the one distracting. Next time, do better and don't smear others. Come on. -DePiep (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The main two avenues of yellow running through the PTQ are period 3 and the halogens. I think period 3 would be nicer for most people; it's less monotonous. K will be a good model for Na, and F will be a good model for Cl. Mostly I've been working from the bottom of the table upwards, so periods 6 and 7 are getting tantalizingly close to all GA and above; the only problem is that that isn't going to get me very many famous elements, whereas period 3 contains celebrities. (Gold, radium, thorium – uranium and plutonium were brought to FA long ago).
P.S. If anyone still wants a goal from me; I think that while the goal for any randomly considered heavy element should just be GA, if it's not a celebrity like Au, the first 20 elements should be stuck with to the FA: they are just that important. (Thinking of doing Li or Be.) Fair shall the end be, though long and hard shall be the road! Say farewell to yellow! But say farewell also to ease! Say farewell to the starts! Say farewell to your transactinides – more still shall we make! Journey light. But bring with you your refs! For we will go further than [insert editor], endure longer than [insert editor]: we will never turn back from article improvement. After the stars to the ends of the 'pedia! Copyedits shall they have and reviews undying. But when we have conquered and gained the blueness we have long sought, then behold! We, alone, shall be the lords of the pure blue Table, and masters of the building blocks of the Universe! No other FAR shall oust us! (as Fëanor absolutely did not say). XD Double sharp (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Double sharp. When I showed that quote to my 18yo son who thinks what I do on WP is a total waste of time and in general disparages the sciences in favor of lit - especially certain favorites, he actually appreciated it! YBG (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! One day I might actually bring Fëanor to GA; that would be cool and he is definitely notable – AFAIK he's the second-most-mentioned character in The Silmarillion, behind only Morgoth, and just above Túrin, Eru(!), and Sauron. I kind of cheated by only including the part I could make relevant: we are not (Let's not swear any oaths, though. That rarely ends well. That is rather a pity because I could make references to "transactinides yet unsynthesized upon the particle accelerators".) Double sharp (talk) 06:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, Double sharp, but in my template-space-time continuum there are no FA stars to be earned. I cry. btw, here it is. -DePiep (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
atomic weights, box format
A question/opinion for the box format:
first format:
|atomic mass=4.002602
|atomic mass 2=2<ref name="IUPAC">[http://www.ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm 2013 Standard Atomic Weights]. [[Commission on Isotopic Abundances and Atomic Weights]]</ref>
second format:
|atomic mass=4.002602(2)<ref name="IUPAC">[http://www.ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm 2013 Standard Atomic Weights]. [[Commission on Isotopic Abundances and Atomic Weights]]</ref>
|atomic mass 2=
Result for both:
Standard atomic weight 4.002602(2)[1] like in the Tamplate helium box
What can be the prefered format?
If we prefered the second format, so we needn't the atomic mass 2 parameter.
Alchemist, I'd prefer using |atomic mass 2= for the precision-number (as it was), because this allows us to use and format that number for its specifics. Also, bot readers do not have to break down the all-in-one number. I note that there is |atomic mass ref= which is specially added for the reference. So for {{infobox helium}} it would be:
|atomic mass=4.002602
|atomic mass 2=2
|atomic mass ref=<ref name="IUPAC">[http://www.ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm 2013 Standard Atomic Weights]. [[Commission on Isotopic Abundances and Atomic Weights]]</ref>
|atomic mass comment=
... so your first format would produce the wrong result: 4.002602(2[1]); well you already rejected it. Another advantage for the split input is that the reference is not entered together with the number. In Lua, it is impossible to strip off the reference to get the plain number(s) for whatever extra usage. So preferably not mix it in the first place. I propose you apply this input format in future additions. Of course sourcing this is a great addition. -DePiep (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make this description complete: |atomic mass comment= can have any text you like, including reference(s). This is to solve any remaining situation as is needed. If in hydrogen you want to write "(1.00784–1.00811)[1]", then you can enter |atomic mass comment=(1.00784–1.00811)<ref>... the reference text here ...</ref>. The comment always has a space prefixed, and no further formatting. -DePiep (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But ... the atomic mass of hydrogen has a range of "(1.00784–1.00811)". The IUPAC or CIAAW don't prefer a average value. Similar to a lot of other elements, like boron, carbon, lithium, ... And now? What can I do? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep going, I guess. I only meant to inform that you can position a reference in two places: 1.008[1] (1.00784–1.00811)[2] (in |atomic mass ref= and in |atomic mass comment=; the comment is an anything-goes input field). Depending on which data you want to source, you can pick one. (if I understand this topic right: the IUPAC reference better follow the range because that is what it sources). I won't edit that unless you ask me to. -DePiep (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alchemist-hp and others, a side topic. Do we have a good link or explanation for this "(2)" addition we use? I'm working with it a long time, but I still don't know what it actually means. More so for our Readers, I guess. -DePiep (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That (nonsigner) would be me. Thank you for assuming the best, it is much appreciated. I usually remember to include ~~~~, but I guess I forgot. No surprise to me, as I'm a fully self-aware mortal. Sinebot, however, assumes that that since I have >800 edits, I must know what I'm doing. Well, I don't, at least in this case. But it just goes to show you that the bot also knows to AGF for experienced users. Anyway, I've manually added above what Sinebot didn't, in a Coltonesque form of flattery.
I think we can choose between two options for the uncertainty link, see the demos. Notes: I kept the link to uncertainty bracket notation, we can fill & redirect that as we like. The brackets are underlined too. The label-side link will not appear when the (#2) number is not present. All other input is unaffected (mass, ref, comment).
I can add variants if you like. Votes & notes?
Opinions
label-side. To follow SI rule, derived: a quantity specifier belongs with the quantity (lh-side here), not in the value itself. -DePiep (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ambivalent. No strong opinion. I do think in would be nice to also include something that would cover the case when the entire mass is in parens -- a note to indicate that it is the mass of the most stable isotope of elements that do not occur naturally. Not sure how that would be accomplished in terms of parameters and the like. After you've cogitated on that a while, if you figure out a way to do it, that may lead me to have a more definite opinion. Thank you DePiep for your hard work on these picky little details, it is very much appreciated. And I am truly disappointed that there are no FAs to be earned in your template-space-time-continuum. YBG (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The comment parameter is there for all non-standard input inclusive references and wikilinks. Any situation where this is would not be enough? -DePiep (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, one other thing. Why does it say 'standard atomic weight' but link to 'relative atomic mass'? No big deal about standard/relative, but I don't you think it would be better to use 'mass' than 'weight'? YBG (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In {{Infobox element}}, there are four parameters for atomic mass:
|atomic mass = 4.0026
|atomic mass 2 = 9
|atomic mass ref = <ref name="IUPAC">[http://www.ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm]</ref>
|atomic mass comment = The comment can be any text, and have its own reference.<ref>[www.example.com]</ref>
The first three are treated systematically for what they are. For example, brackets are added always around param #2. The fourth param is for free text. This one is added with a preceding space, and no further formatting. Technically, one can use the first one |atomic mass= with any text, and it will show OK. However, following the pattern can help future handling. Also, external bots prefer the structured input. And as said, the comment (fourth parameter) is unstructured and free. This together should allow every situation. -DePiep (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. One detail not explicitly mentioned is that using all four parameters as they are intended will make it much easier to convert things to get all the information from wikidata. YBG (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I only invite alchemist to use this all (invite, not command ;-)). His contribution (adding sources) is way more important, whichever way. Bonus link: this picture :-) -DePiep (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine. One note: I'd leave the link (2) out, just have (2) there, because we will probably add that in the template (for all). See section above. -DePiep (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We should also include something to explain the other use of parentheses. I've offered one suggestion; others are welcome. At this point, I'm thinking only about appearance, not implementation. YBG (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: the only ones with articles are E119 and E120, both of which have a "predicted" note after their standard atomic weights ([315] and [320] respectively, per Fricke). Double sharp (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be fairly established that navboxes belong at the very end of an article, after all of the notes and references. This works quite well for most WP articles. However, WP:ELEM articles tend to have a huge volume of references -- sometimes equaling the size of the rest of the article and requiring 6-8 clicks to scroll through, even on a wide monitor. We do make extensive use of infoboxes at the top of our chemical element articles, but this doesn't completely fulfill the same function as navboxes.
When an article has a massive list of notes and references, I think it would be helpful to put the navboxes further up. I'm thinking of suggesting a change to the MOS to allow this. The general rule stays the same as it is now, but it would allow some flexibility, specifically, when there is a massive quantity of notes and references, navboxes are allowed to appear in the See Also section, but only in a collapsed state.
What do others think? Is there any support for this in WP:ELEM? Any comments or suggestions? If there is support here, I'd like to take the suggestions given here and then see what interest I can generate over at Village pump and then over at Village pump. YBG (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. I'd like to read what the page-designers think. I've always found it hard to understand that a navbox does not belong to article content (e.g., a navbox is not printed, and does not show in mobile view). -DePiep (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there are others, in fact I've seen a short discussion that I can't find now. Sigh. All in all, most of the discussion is not related to the issue of long lists of references. I also note that if the standard practice in WP is to place navboxes after the references and the like, then general WP readers who want to see navboxes will look there and now the long lists of references actually argues against putting them in See Also. Also worthy of note is that at some point the use of navigational infoboxes came into use and I think this eliminated some of the pressure on making any changes to the placement (horizontal) navboxes. Having briefly scanned the above lengthy discussions, I'm a bit less inclined to pursue this proposal. But we might consider expanding our use of infoboxes and developing a couple of vertically oriented navigational infoboxes -- one to go after {{infobox element}} in element articles and another to go in articles that don't have {{infobox element}}. This could take the form of the "Part of a series of articles" infoboxes that I see in other areas on WP. YBG (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand you r reason to think of this change. I myself can not promise to spend much time on this (motivating my opinion), mostly due to lack of means (energy & time). Page design is a huge topic, and it takes a lot of reading & thinking to be able to add a new thought. So it will be difficult to improve that. Your second note, extending vertical (sidebar?) infoboxes/navboxes: Difficult topic too, but we could manage that within WP:ELEM. There is a third topic in the back of my mind: the element articles do not have data that is commonly added with in {{Chembox}} and {{Drugbox}} (medicine regulations, hazards, external database links). Takes another year to find a solution for adding these. -DePiep (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since trans-Pu and transactinide (yes, I have seen that term used by IUPAC) are all subsets of trans-U, why not dispense with creating short stubs and instead have a single picture with different colours or backgrounds for trans-U alone, trans-Pu (but cis-actinide – I wanted to say "sub-actinide", but I got worried about keeping the cis-trans pair from Latin), and transactinide? Double sharp (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see. That would be three colors then, beyond U. Would remove the An color (while we use the cis-An description ...?). A 32-column PT is most useful here. Looks obvious we can add the symbols for U and Pu in the cells. Maybe also add arrows, from X to the right? -DePiep (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a fourth colour should be added, for the actinides: Ac, Th, Pa, and U aren't transuraniums but are often discussed together AFAICS. Don't use "cis-An", I made that term up. It's a correctly used Latin prefix, but nobody uses this combination. I like your ideas re symbols and arrows. Agree that 32-column is most useful, although we might want to show how it folds into 18-column (as that fold unintuitively places the transactinides above the lighter actinides). Double sharp (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any advantage in deconstructing this to a 18-column form, indeed that being "unintuitively" does not explain anything. It is simply a linear issue, with some stations (elements).
Todo: let's get a good form (graphics) to show what we want to say. Do not worry about micro-fixings (such as fontsize). I don't get the four-color solution, because it would overwrite the actinide color (purple) - we'd throw out existing crucial information. OTOH, throwing out all other bg category colors can be done, if that helps.
Here's my idea as a table (with just the last row):
Adjustments needed to change this table to what I really have in mind:
Ignore the horizontal white lines
The blue/green/red lines should be replaced by colored arrows that span a series of cells, starting with a dot in the left side first applicable cell and continuing to an arrowhead on the right edge of the final cell. The trans-uranium arrow goes at the top so that it is above the Pu; the trans-plutonium arrow goes in the middle, and the trans-actinide arrow goes at the bottom, below where the symbols would be. (By the way, DePiep, the middle line makes it better to only include U and Pu symbols in the PT)
The colored arrows (→→→/→→/→) should be replaced by short, medium and long colored arrows
Thank you, Double sharp, for your idea of having a pic that shows all three; it is MUCH better than my lame idea of having different stubs with three different pics. YBG (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, three-stubs-in-one is better. I note that somehow/somewhere the keys like "Trans-uranium elements" must be written in text (with the arrow, or below). YBG, should we enlarge the period 7 row (make higher)? The whole PT? -DePiep (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it needs to be expanded; there should be enough room above the Pu to fit the trans-uranium arrow and provided we don't try to show all of the symbols, there should be no problem displaying the trans-plutonium and trans-actinide arrows. I had to make the cells in my demo bigger just cause I was trying to do it with table markup. With long, narrow arrowheads (like MS-Office arrow size 3) I think we can avoid having to expand the rows vertically, but I reserve final judgement until after I see an example. Another trick would be to use a shortish squat font for 'U' and "Pu'. But if we are forced to expand the row to fit in the arrows, I think I'd prefer to expand just the period 7 row rater than all seven rows, but again, I'd reserve judgment until seeing an example. In summary:
First, I'd like to see an example with standard row height, the standard font and narrow arrows. If it looks OK, fine; otherwise
Then, I'd like to see an example with standard row height, short-squat font, and narrow arrows. If that looks OK, fine; otherwise
Next, I'd like to see four examples, (all tall rows -or- only row 7 tall) × (standard font or short font)
Somewhere in there I think we'll find something that looks good. By the way, I laid out the legend so that U, Pu, and the Actinides are on separate lines, each one lined up vertically with the corresponding area of the PT. I'm also open to giving up this vertical alignment if they all would fit on a single legend row, but I do rather like the vertical alignment. YBG (talk) 07:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought of another idea. Mark each of the trans-X groups with concentric elongated ovals. With the right color chice, it might even be possible to include the atomic symbols in the PT. Then a legend at the bottom would indicate the names of each of the groups. YBG (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This I like less. Ellipses do not have a starting point. While we want to say somehow: from Uraium ...'. That is what arrows can do, greatly. -DePiep (talk) 06:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that a complete set (all those known: Z ≤ 99, with a few exceptions) is available at commons:Category:Atomic spectra (the ones ending with "visible": note that they used the old spelling protoactinium for Z = 91). Can they be added into our element infoboxes? (As an example, promethium is done). Double sharp (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why not if they're free? (I do remember some years ago you wanted them out, remember ;-) ). Let me know if somewhere a third image is needed. Any central formatting? -DePiep (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hardness of elements
In the infoboxes, we quote Mohs, Brinell and Vickers hardness from webelements, which supposedly use the 1968 book by Samsonov. The book seemed obsolete, and the some data significantly contradicted to newer sources. This has long bothered me (I couldn't find a single source covering the whole Periodic Table like Samsonov did), and this post was the last straw.
I've downloaded Samsonov's book ([4] in Russian), and found that it is actually very detailed and reasonable, and its values are listed by many recent books (often without mentioning the source). Samsonov did understand that hardness of pure metals depends on many parameters (sample preparation, structure, purity, etc.) and is always a range of values. Unfortunately, webelements and many others don't understand that, and have cherry-picked single numbers. Their source for Mohs hardness is uncertain (Samsonov does not list Mohs hardness; I guess webelements interpolated Brinell and Vickers tendencies onto the Mohs scale) and this is our unresolved problem. I went through the infoboxes and Hardnesses of the elements (data page) and changed Brinell and Vickers values to ranges. I know that Brinell and Vickers values are often given in HB and HV, but Samsonov and many others convert them to MPa, thus I'd bear with that. Materialscientist (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the astatine infobox, the oxidation states are noted this way: "−1, +1, +3, +5, +7": the "+" plus-sign is added. Shall we make that standard for all infoboxes? (I like it for stressing the essence, but is it best practice?) -DePiep (talk) 07:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like it too for clarity. What's the downside? All I can see it that it consumes more space. Is it significant that −1, +1 are bold but the others are not? YBG (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only downside I can think of is it being non-standard or confusing. Is why I ask this. There is a reason for the bolding, but being Good Encyclopedic means we should describe/note/clarify that. Maybe legend or footnote or labeltext. Suggestions? -DePiep (talk) 07:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty standard to write cationic charges with the sign in many contexts (of direct relevance for the infobox field, that's how oxidation state does it). The bold ones are the most common values. I agree that if we retain that sort of detail, we should somehow have a note about it (maybe an on-hover popup would be less intrusive than an actual footnote or other symbol/word that takes up space). DMacks (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think its standard too. Just checked, Zumdahl and Greenwood/Earnshaw does it too. (When G&E counts d electrons they doesnt add the + e.g. oxidation state: 4 (d1), but otherwise they do.) Christian75 (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quick conclusion: 1. yes we can add the + in "oxidation states +1" &tc., (so, all elements then); 2. bolding stays (none asked otherwise), but still unclear if & how to clarify that. -DePiep (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about sourcing the bolding, it is about explaining the bolding. As it is now, the Reader is left with the question: "Why is this number bolded?". -DePiep (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about "most common, most common, +3, +5, +7"? {{H:title}} is documented as not being WP:ACCESSIBLE, but it's a start...better than no explanation for anyone (I don't see an alternative that is similar to this result). Alternative would be a <ref> in the label that says "bold ones are most common". List of oxidation states of the elements uses the same convention for formatting the most common one(s) for each element. DMacks (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We can add the bold ones are the most common ones in a small font size next to the very name of that row of the infobox, smth. like "oxidation states <br> (the most common ones are in bold)".--R8R (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re R8R, along that line yes. Then (because infobox font already is reduced), bold/normal like: Oxidation states (most common ones are in bold). Q: Is "most common" the crispiest we can be? It's a bit open ended imo. -DePiep (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC):[reply]
"Most stable" is more like it, closer to what we want to emphasize. I don't think I could do better than that.--R8R (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why not use {{abbr}}, as it is docuented as being accessible? I know that't not what abbr is intended for, but it's worth considering. YBG (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
{{abbr}} uses <abbr>, a w3c defined HTML option (that is: high level of definition). Its /doc says: only use this for abbreviations and acronyms, not to add a title (mousehover) text. So we must confirm. DePiep (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think they necessary have to be the most stable to be in bold, and if it changed to most stable a lot of oxidation states needs new references. Christian75 (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can agree & decide here that the numbers should be ascending (I propose). I don't understand what you mean to say with the zero. -DePiep (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the ordering. A lot of infoboxes are descending, which indicates a habit (in science). I'd like to hear from Sandbh, R8R Gtrs, Double sharp about this ascend-or-descend At ordering:
I don't think there's a real difference between the two. It could be done either way. None will get hurt.
Or we may say both versions may be defended with arguments of kinda the same level: Numbers should decrease, because they show an increase of electrons we have (IOW, more electrons = lower oxidation state, since electrons are negatively charged) and that looks cool, or we can show them increase because, you know, they increase and that looks cool. (In both cases, "that looks cool" is a simplification, but is actually the very essence of what it stands for.) But I can't really figure out reasons any more sophisticated than these, and since both mean little, and it's a question of personal preference. If others know better reasons for either version, I'd be pleased to listen.
Since they're both basically the same, I'd go with the ascending order if we decide we should standardize this. (I raise my doubts on if the effort will be worth it, though. However, standardization is a thing... I just don't want to do it myself, because it seems mostly pointless to me to spend time on this, but I am fine with any decision as long as I am not in.) Just a personal preference, no actual scientific reason, since I can't think of a very good one (or maybe I'm underestimating those we have, who knows). Or you can say the ascending order is more intuitively correct, which I will go with.--R8R (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another alternative would be to choose between ascending and descending based on which one puts a given element's most common states earlier in the list. YBG (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something along the same lines, since I expect to see the most important information listed first: Hydrogen, metals and metalloids = positive to negative. Nonmetals = negative to positive. Thus:
The ongoing FAC has raised a question whether we really need the pronunciation part of the infobox (like /ˈæstətiːn/ or /ˈæstətɪn/ as-tə-teen or as-tə-tin). I don't really know, I'm fine with this either in or out. I'm also not sure if there is a place for a wider discussion... what do you think? Whatever the decision, the best would be to apply this not to the infobox astatine, but to the whole infobox element. (Which is easy to do, but some agreement first would do us good.) --R8R (talk) 09:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course changes must be applied infobox-wide.
See WP:PRON, eg #Placement. It is not absolute in this, but it says: "Several info boxes, such as many of the biography boxes, provide for a pronunciation entry. In such cases there is generally no need to repeat it in the lede, as at Alice Liddell." I myself find IPA in the opening sentence distracting (at least), so I prefer having it in the infobox. {{Respell}} may be added 'legally', which doubles the argument to put pron. in the infobox. -DePiep (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not really "lead or infobox," it's more of "do we need it at all." I checked some articles with titles, just like in this case, meaning a very certain thing and not being real English words, but still not starting with a cap letter. Maglev, laser don't use it, but maser does.--R8R (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get all of this. Sure, if pronunciation is unambiguous the pron can go. Would there be five elements for this? Your statement plus its examples are unclear. The examples may be wrong (in that, they could use a pron. key). What does the cap/noncap mean in this? -DePiep (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I picked three articles with technical names. Maser does feature a pronunciation key ("A maser (/ˈmeɪzər/) is a device..."), while the other two don't. "Cap" is "capital," I was just too lazy to type down the whole word, English is relatively flexible at that; those titles are words not requiring a capital letter. When there are differing pronunciations possible, we do feature them all, astatine is an example. (So are, say, antimony, molybdenum, and surely others.) So, I guess, we can let it go and abandon the pronunciation parameters altogether, but let's wait another day to see if there are any objections.--R8R (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. No, we keep the pron in the infobox. No changes are concluded here. 2. I understand capital=uppercase first letter, but again, what has that to do with pronunciation? 3. The examples do not define whether we should add the pronunciation, they are useless for this. 4. Not only should we mention multiple pron options, we must also mention the pronunciation when there is only one good pron, but wrong others (eg, bad stressing). This is why I expect no more that five elements that would not need a pron at all (only one unambiguous single pronunciation possible). 5. Pls be clear, you want to remove the pron completely, or move it to the opening sentence? -DePiep (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I see you already answered #5: remove completely. Well, up to you to prove that pronunciation is not needed at all. That would mean IMO: pronuncuiation is clear & unambiguous. For individual elements or maybe even for all. Go ahead (proving, that is). -DePiep (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Such words, names of things but not proper names, probably may pose some difficulty with pronunciation for those who are not common with them. At least, they and astatine (and most other elements) are in equal positions at this. That was why.
3. And I didn't mean to say the opposite. Was showing the fact there are different approaches, that's it. This doesn't define anything, but is worth noting anyway.
4 and 5. Aha, I got it. But really, five would be too easy (tin, lead, mercury, gold, silver), and differences where they arise (as it seems to me) mostly come from where the speaker lives, or, in the case of non-native speakers such as myself, how they learned it. There may be no correct way as in "this way and no other for all of the Earth" for some of them. Wiki does seem to neglect this, for example, the Americans are prohibited to say "aluminum" (the word written in their dictionaries), and the British are not allowed to use the "sulphur" spelling (written in their dictionaries), but that's clear overdoing things, let's not follow this path. I am sure all of the British (or a vast majority) will pronounce the name of any element in the same way, whether it's nitrogen or praseodymium, and will not have an unbearable difficulty with this. I clicked on the names of around 15 elements in the lower half of the table, pronounced it, and checked if I got it right. I always did. It's easy for me (a non-native speaker) and it should be easy enough for anyone. Those IUPAC unun- names may make an exception, but well, there may be difficulties with those synthetic elements (like you need to be able to pronounce German to know the "s" in "darmstadtium" is actally pronounced as "sh"), but among the more natural names (at least the first 100) things should be fine. I'm still okay with them either in or out, but I need a rationale to defend either position (I need it for the FAC), and this one seems easier to defend. And in return, it makes me think that maybe that's what we should follow.--R8R (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
re re 2: we can not use the capitals for pronunciation, let's end this subtopic.
re re 3: background illustration then, but not leading to an outcome in this.
re re 4, 5: I'm not native en speaker either. As a reader, no IPA/Respell at all makes me insecure. For people like you and me, there is hardly an intuitive knowlegde, esp in English (Finnish is better in this ;-) ). More reply at John's post, below. -DePiep (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who raised this at the FAC. I am not against some elements having a pronunciation guide (astatine, darmstadtium and the like); I think that there are also many elements (gold, silver, iron, tin, zinc, mercury (element), oxygen, carbon etc.) which absolutely do not need one. My point was that there are no elements which need two rival pronunciation guides side-by-side as in /ˈæstətiːn/ or /ˈæstətɪn/ as-tə-teen or as-tə-tin and this seems to have stealthily become the default on element articles. It looks ugly, achieves nothing and I think we ought to change it, unless (which I doubt) a positive rationale and consensus can be established for it. Having carbon glossed as /ˈkɑrbən/ KAR-bən is ridiculous. --John (talk) 10:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just replied on the FAC page. In short: Respell is by MOS: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation; and no they are not "rivals". As for removing obvious pronunciations (IPA and so Respell): this might be possible, and I can imagine that tin is a candidate. However, this should be done based on IPA & pronunciation knowlegde (let me ask kwami). So far, R8R and John have mentioned individual opinions/impressions of options. Simple example to show an error effect: mercury (deity) and mercury (element) differ so a pron is needed. I claim that if there is any chance of mistake (include stressing syllables), the pronunciation should stay. -DePiep (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could have asked about things that are not clear to you. I note that, after the 'discussion' you performed on the tempalte talkpage, again you resort to dismissives, non-reading, zero-effort to understand and evasion. Next time, if and when you take an effort when contributing to a discussion I might engage. But this unhelpful behaviour does not deserve an answer. -DePiep (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. Well, close the door behind you, I guess. Opining about how best to describe pronunciation in the English language when you are clearly not a native speaker and clearly do not have a clue about how words are pronounced in that language is likely to elicit dismissal. Bye. --John (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is what I wrote. Well read. That is why I proposed to invite someone who knows about IPA and respell. Someone who knows what is prose, and what not. -DePiep (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here by invitation. I added (or at least corrected) IPA in many of these articles. We don't generally give English pronunciations on WP, per WP:DICT. There are two major exceptions: Names, which you will not find in many dictionaries, or which may differ from another name of the same spelling; and new or obscure technical terms that also may not be found in an average dictionary. Another common exception are counter-intuitive words, whether they trip up native or L2 speakers of English.
However, since many elements probably deserve a pronunciation, and we have them organized so that we can navigate from one to another, why not include pronunciations for all? Granted, "tin" and "gold" may not be needed, but it's a matter of consistency: readers can depend on having a pronunciation for any element, without argument over where the dividing line should be. We do something similar with astronomical bodies: "Pan" and "Atlas" and pretty obvious, but it's nice to have the IPA regardless, just so you don't have to worry about them being weird. — kwami (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I discovered this discussion through Kwami's talk page. On Mercury, this word does not actually have two different pronunciations: the pronunciations given in Mercury (mythology) and mercury (element) are variants of the same pronunciation. /-kjʉr-/ and /-kjər-/ are different pronunciations of the cure sound. This is called the cure–fir merger, a type of vowel reduction.
As for DePiep's intelligence, there is no reason to call it into question. Even native speakers won't necessarily know about this merger, though they might pronounce it. DePiep clearly acted in good faith when he said that Mercury had two pronunciations. He was correctly reporting the differing IPA transcriptions in the two articles. — Eru·tuon21:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's create a new article, List of chemical elements by difficulty of pronunciation. Then we can pick a point -- and list the list the pronunciation for every element from that point on. In all seriousness, if we include pronunciation, it should be in a standard but unobtrusive place, so it is easily found by those who need it but also easily ignored by those who don't. My first thought is to only include it where it is really needed, but if the standard place is unobtrusive enough, I wouldn't mind putting it on every element. YBG (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a detached observer, but from my glance at element articles, pronunciations are included under the heading General properties in the infobox, along with appearance. This seems odd, because pronunciation is not a property of an element like appearance. Pronunciation needs to be placed somewhere more appropriate.
An option for unobtrusiveness is to make pronunciation collapsible, like the Chinese infobox in the article on Beijing. (Look below the main infobox and the notice about Chinese text. The pronunciations are found in the middle of the template, below the Chinese characters and the translation, under Transcriptions, with a show button that you click.) But some readers may prefer to have the pronunciation display automatically with no clicking. Just a possibility. — Eru·tuon04:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
re YBG better in an "unobtrusive place": Worth pondering. Could be under the "Miscellaneous" header? Would be further away from the lede then, which is the other natural place where readers expect it to be. IOW, when it is out of first sight, the reader might think it is not there at all (should read guidelines in this). btw, I am very pleased with the fact that pronunciation (IPA, with or without the respelling) is not in the opening sentence, as other articles can have. I think we all agree it should not be there indeed. This is no point, except that it is good to note a worse situation for reference.
re Erutuon make it collapsible (show/hide button). Unfortunately, we should not design a page with that option. In the article body, no extra click should be required to get information (navboxes are out-of-body). This is a WP:ACCESSIBILITY guideline. An other reason is, that the mobile view does not have a show/hide button at all: mobile viewers see it always uncollapsed ("show" status). For example, see Beijing in mobile view (check the transcriptions in infobox). -DePiep (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should this be read as a proposal to move the pronunciation data row as is to "Miscellaneous", say top position in there? -DePiep (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further thought, I think I'm fine with leaving pronunciation in its current position in the infobox, on the assumption that it will only take a single line except for a few outliers like Aluminum/Aluminium. By generally consuming only a single line, having it appear in a consistent and expected location outweighs any residual concern for unobtrusiveness. But the criticism that pronunciation is not a 'general property' is valid. This could be rectified by changing the label from "general properties" to simply "general". Or perhaps as it is the very first category, the colored label-bar is not needed at all. I think I'd be happy with either, though I acknowledge that I've only looked at a couple of sample infoboxes and very easily might have missed a significant problem. YBG (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That presumption is not warranted. And, its best position should not depend on this (text size?). But since I picked up the repositioning-idea from your earlier post here, I won't read is as a propsoal. -DePiep (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to remove obvious pronunciations
From the above discussion, I propose: remove from the element infobox pronunciation when it is not confusing (both IPA and respell form). This would be: gold, silver, tin.
Note 1: More elements could be added to this list, but so far no candidates with obvious pronunciation are mentioned.
Note 2: this does not prejudge any other pronunciation dicsussion, like "remove respell pronunciation", and "remove all IPA & respell pronunciation". That is: these discussions are not intruded upon and they can be started/continued separately (in a different place).withdrawn
I think the majority of elements do not need to have pronunciation given. Only those which would cause a native English speaker of average intelligence and high school education level difficulty need to be glossed in this way. --John (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That not the proposal. Not to play a game, but IMO this topic deserves its own discussion (-thread). They are two independent decisions (one does not say about the other). -DePiep (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the majority of elements do not need to have pronunciation given. Only those which would cause a native English speaker of average intelligence and high school education level difficulty need to be glossed in this way. --John (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These intrusive and dumbed-down pronunciations were added to (almost?) every element. Was there a proper consensus to do so? If there was, it needs to be revisited. If there was not, they can be removed on sight. --John (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The status quo is the consensus. Where did you find that other process you mention? Oh, and for a revisit I'd like to read better arguments than "ugly" and "dumbed-down", as a "try [it] another way". It's been explained often enough to you, recently. -DePiep (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stable isotopes in infoboxes
A long time ago I tried to suggest this but nobody had the energy to do much about it. Currently, the infoboxes are a bit on the too-much info for (usually useless) unstable isotopes (like DE and DP). On the other hand, there is essentially no info other than abundance on the stable isotopes. I think for elements past lead a status quo is fine, but I would prefer some improvement on elements like carbon. Nuclear spin would be a must (instead of say DE) and perhaps more? Also, isotope of X tables should really have some more fields like this. Everybody seems to care about DE of atoms they will never even touch, so how about actually useful stuff? Nergaal (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on this, but I'd like to support this discussion. Nergaal, when you write "isotope of X tables" do you mean tables in article isotopes of carbon? That could be in a different (sub)thread imo. -DePiep (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC) no comment -DePiep (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
VERY few people checking the article on carbon would care about 11C, and only a few about 14C, and the 0.96 and 0.156 numbers are 100% useless here. 14N is possibly the only remotely interesting DP in all the infoboxes before Bi, while 11B is not really useful. Saying 12C and 13C have 6 and 7 neutrons is not particularly useful either. However, having their nuclear spins (useful for both EPR and NMR) and possibly their gyromagnetic ratio (which gives the Lamor precession for NMR) and the quadrupole moments would be much more useful IMO. Nergaal (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think if 13C would look like this would be much more useful:
iso | abund | spin | quad mom | gamma | hl + DM |
12C | 1.1% | 1/2 | 0 | 6.73*10^7 | stable with 6 n |
We dont know why people come to the page. But I think that carbon-14 is very important, and maybe more people know about carbon-14 than about carbon (because of Carbon-14 dating). But that said, I like your sugestions about new data. The current "12C is stable with 6 neutrons" sounds like 12C could have more or less neutrons. Christian75 (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that earlier iterations of the elements contained this material and I would have no objections to its return. My only qualm is that it may beg the question of what "stable" means in this context. --John (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At last
A long time desired improvement I have added: the ubiquitous category background color we use now has its legend connection in the {{infobox element}}.
Recently, a hatnote was added to astatine, saying as of now:
The chemical symbol for astatine is At. It is not to be confused with arsenic, As.
Can someone possibly mistake one for another, or is it just overthinking the problem? If the problem is real, then we may have to rethink iridium/iodine (Ir/I), californium/calcium (Cf/Ca), all of elements that start with a "C", "O", "N", etc.--R8R (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any problem for any of them except Mg and Mn (which is a common beginners' mistake, because both of these elements are reasonably common). Double sharp (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Saying this is "rediculous" is a rediculous remark. The addition makes sense. Now my opinion is: as symbols, As/At are just as confusing as Mg/Mn (confusing element names is another issue). -DePiep (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think an average reader could confuse As with astatine, but not At with arsenic (no t in arsenic). C, O and N are very common elements which "everybody" knows, but its common to confuse Co with CO. Christian75 (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Zumdahl is the authors of the book "Chemistry" which a lot of chemistry students have read. So if the images are changed, pleaes dont call it Mendeleevs PT, but a reconstruction of Mendeleevs PT, because all chemist (and like) knows how his PT looks like. Christian75 (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its a table, not a painting — for Higgs sake. Could these chemistry students read that Zumdahl copy? If not, what did they learn from it? If yes, that's exactly what we want to achieve here too. It is the table as Mendeleev published it: structure & textual content. We stay close to its original style, that's a nice bonus. -DePiep (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Higgs sake? I just say, dont call it Mendeleevs PT, and I have given you one source which use the original. Zumdahl didnt coice to remkae it, so I think we should not either, unless you have a source which did. Christian75 (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why would Zumdahl define this for us at in the first place? I answered your Q "Why make a new version of the original?". Should do. -DePiep (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At a first glance the re-rendering of Mendeleev's 1871 table looks superb and even manages to retain a similar style. I'll print them out a bit later and do a side-by-side comparison. Good work that. The text attached to the image file could note that it is a cleaned up rendering. Sandbh (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment! Please do let me know if I've misread any of the symbols; the clearer version here might be more useful - it was only found after my first attempt. NikNakstalk - gallery11:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. The rightmost superscripts for RH4, R2O5, R2O7, R2O4 need to dropped to be in line with the top of each O. In Gruppe V., ==73 should read ==72. Rest is fine. Sandbh (talk) 04:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest to replace the "==" with regular "="? I myself mentioned "==" to note the extra-length equal sign used in the originals. But reproducing those as "==" is misleading I guess. "=" is fine, the old style is not available. -DePiep (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced all instances of == with = and fixed the 72/73. However, I cannot understand why the superscript for numbers higher than 3 is so off; they are all the unique unicode characters for those indices, so they're not really superscript in the file itself. There's no reason why some should be higher than others except that the MediaWiki renderer has it wrong. Opening the file directly in Chrome has them placed all at the same level, where you'd expect. I'm baffled. I've tried using a new font to fix the issue and it seems to have helped. NikNakstalk - gallery13:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mendeleyev's PT (1871)If you really want a new version of the historic one, why not translate the german version to english? The reason I do not like the change are that I would expect to find the original PT in the history section and not a reconstruction, especially when it claims that it is Mendeleyev' PT. Christian75 (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]