Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

wikiversity overwrites our FA (defacing the FA star)

See FA lead. It now has an extra link (image of an open book, see topright next to the FA-gold star). That wikiversitary link is a horroR, and would not a deserve FA star. Que pasa? -DePiep (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't how you could conclude the WJS article would not have a star when it was, in fact, copied and pasted there from Wikipedia after the Wikipedia article had gotten its star. There, it was professionally peer reviewed and then the changes made there were reintegrated back into Wikipedia (and the journal emblem appeared soon after that). What remained in the WJS then was officially published. I am happy to have had the WJS review and I think their journal emblem rightfully belongs. That is to say, everything is perfectly fine.--R8R (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Magic nuclear numbers

I started to add a table to Stable nuclides § Physical magic numbers and odd and even proton and neutron count like this:

Number of protons	Number of neutrons
	Even	Odd
Even	146	54
Odd	48	5

Unfortunately, when I counted up the nuclides from the chart at the end, I got 146 even-even, not the 152 listed in that section. Probably some bonehead error on my part. Does anyone else think such a chart would be helpful? If so, could someone else double-check my count? Thanks! YBG (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this question, but I did remove the ""-quotes from the word 'magic number' [1]. -DePiep (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

About Sidebar periodic table

About Template:Sidebar periodic table(edit talk links history) Currently, it has as top section:

• 18-column (detailed cells)
• 32-column (detailed cells)
• Alternative forms
• Janet's left step
• Beyond period 7 (Aufbau Fricke Pyykkö)

I'd say: this is not systematically consistent.

It mixes graphical presentation (18-column, 32-column) with scientific statements. List by scientifical statements:

• Mendeleev 1869
• Mendeleeev 1871 (table was transponed after 1869; Reihe not periods)
• ?1900 (aka 'long' version, A/B groups not Reihe; added group 0/noble gases)
• current periodc table (118 elements)
• categorisation? (as we do at enwiki)
• Janet's left step
• ADOMAH (4D, by the 4 quamtum mechanical identifiers)
• Beyond period 7 (Aufbau, Fricke, Pyykkö)

Also possible, more detailed: group 3 issues, H position, ...

I'd prefer to move any graphical variants to way below (if present at all). Graphical variants:

• Mendeleev 1869
• Mendeleeev 1871 (table was transponed after 1869; Reihe not periods; BTW, the 10-column form)
• 'long form' (189x/190x?): Reihe into A/B groups
• adding lanthanides/actinides as sub-table (Seaborg etc).
• 18/32 column forms

Disclosure: wrt the periodic table, I am a long-time advocate to keep graphical forms apart from scientific claims. Especially on this page. -DePiep (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@DePiep: Granted that your two lists are distinct, they are, nevertheless, both lists of varieties of periodic tables, and as such, I would advocate for keeping them adjacent. Much as someone might like to educate the general reader as to the distinction between the two types of varieties, IMHO a template simply doesn't have sufficient bandwidth to adequately address what arguably would appear to the general reader as a subtle and esoteric distinction. The best one could hope for in a template would be to contrast the two and leave the reader to infer the distinction. This purpose would best be served by having the two lists adjacent to one another so that they may be compared and contrasted.

It would help me understand what you have in mind and form an opinion if you would provide a mock-up of what you have in mind. YBG (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Template links in navbox

In this recent edit, the links to template space were removed from {{navbox periodic table}}. Seems a shame to me, but perhaps others disagree. I don't feel quite strongly to invoke WP:BRD. Comments? YBG (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

That edit is correct: navbox is in article space, and should not link to support space. If say Pauling scale is useful in the navbox, it should lead to an article(-section) like Electronegativity#Pauling_electronegativity (or data page Electronegativities_of_the_elements_(data_page)#Electronegativity_(Pauling_scale)). These two parent articles are already in the navbox BTW, so we could make it look like "Electronegativity (Pauling scale, data)". -DePiep (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas everyone! Put your presents under your Chemis-tree, celebrate with your friends and family, and wish for all the best to happen next year (and maybe a new element?)--R8R (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas! Double sharp (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to everyone! Indeed, let's hope for a new element in 2019! ComplexRational (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, one and all. Bounteous holmium-holmium-holmium to all in Am & Ru and all points between. I see that Sandbh's homeland has pride of place at the top of the chemis-tree. YBG (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

but, but, there's no place in the periodic stable! BTW, I expect those three wise men to study the primordial stars and arrive with Au. -DePiep (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Belated thanks to all for your friendship and contributions. Best wishes for you and your families, friends, and colleagues. Down here the Xmas cheer is continuing and I’ll be spending another day catching up with family and friends over the end of year break. Many folks take their holidays now and many won’t go back to work until after Australia Day, on 26 January. Sandbh (talk) 22:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Greetings! - I'm a new user interested in helping here

Greetings, Wikipedians of WP:ELEM! I'm new to Wikipedia and I decided that out of interest, I would like to contribute to this WikiProject. I already started making a handful of edits, and I would like to know what's going on/what the priorities are right now and how I can help. I've had some experience already with research writing but not on the scale of a project such as Wikipedia, so I would also greatly appreciate starting tips. ComplexRational (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: Here are some ideas of where you could help

• History of the periodic table - we'd like to improve it so it can be featured next March for the 150th anniversary of the PT.
• The various articles listed under Article Alerts at the top of this page
• Check out the various discussions in progress on this page and add your 2¢ to any that strike your fancy.
• Watchlist this page for new discussions and appeals for help

Welcome aboard. YBG (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, @YBG:. ComplexRational (talk) 02:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: By the way, I was not notified by your ping because when it was not correctly formatted it when you signed your comment. Later, when you corrected its format, you did not add a new signature. For pings to be sent, the correctly formatted ping and your signature must be added in the same edit. I mention this because it took me a long time to finally figure it out myself. And I still get messed up by confusing : and |. My best defence against this (and a lot of other mishaps) has been to use both "Show preview" and "Show changes" before "Publish changes". But I tend to forget. Especially when it would have been most helpful. Sigh. YBG (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

UtopianPoyzin stresses out (I hope not) our most recent member

Hey @ComplexRational:, just thought I'd drop by because I see that you, too, are a new user here. I've been active here for a little over a month, and figured I'd tack on to some of the points YBG made to see what I can do to help you get acquainted here. Here are a few things to note...

• For one, I figured I'd plug my project real quick. You say that you have been lurking around for a while, so in that case, I'll take it that you are aware of the different classes of articles here at Wikipedia. As a sort of initial project, I decided that I wanted to elevate an article to FA status. So, with the help of User:David notMD and Stone, we are in the process of getting Chromium up to the rank of Featured Article. I'd love it if you could help out there.

• We have a peer review at Chromium going on at the moment, so if you don't feel comfortable making substantial edits, it would be very appreciated to instead leave a review in the likes of what R8R is doing. Anything there would be helpful. I have been very busy, and I don't have time to thoroughly review R8R's review, but just completing a review for yourself it would be great.

AHEM. Sorry about that. Now I'll get into the parts that are very much recommended here at WP:Elements for all of the members here.

• YBG recommended that you put the Project Page on your watchlist, and I will as well. However, it might also be helpful to find the frequently edited articles here and add them to your watchlist too so you can also monitor the progress being made around here.
• Make sure you participate in any community discussion that require the input of a group of people. I'll mention the FAC going on over at History of aluminium. R8R would love it if you could review the article he has been working on over the last month, and he's getting pretty close to FAC. Same thing goes with the Chromium peer-review. Maybe a bit of bias, but it exists.
• Talk to the primary editors in WP:Elements to gain more insight on the works here. They might offer more ideas for areas of editing focus, or they can recommend users that are enlisting help with editing the article they are working on. The article for Gold is the most infamous article here for quality, and albeit ambitious, that is an article that will require boosting in quality at some point. You can try your hand at Phosphorus and Sulfur as well to raise them to GA quality.
• To add to the previous point, you can always just ask other editors about their project; they don't even have to be the most active out of everyone. Just see if they need help with a project. I can name Sandbh as someone who is working on the very broad article of Metal / Metals, so you may want to ask him if he needs assistance. If you want to do your own thing and work on your own article, that's fine too.
• Refresh yourself on the quality rankings. I'm not saying that you don't know them all ready, but you should have a good idea about the criteria an article must meet for A-Rank, as well as GAs and FAs.
• Give the WikiProject goals a read. Not much to be said there.
• Relax. This is a goal-based WikiProject, sure, but it is also a rather laid-back one as well. Everybody here has a goal that they have in mind from a single article, to maybe a few that they would be working on simultaneously. I hope I didn't scare you away with the massive list of things to do, but just know that we'll be there if you need any guidance around the WikiProject. Literally all you need to do is find something you want to work on, and then just work on it whenever you get the chance. All my list was doing was giving you some ideas of where you want to start working, and what needs the most help right now. I, too, am a student, and I have a lot of stuff going on as well. There isn't any rush to finish fixing an article's quality (unless otherwise stated), and because this WikiProject focuses on a closed set of articles, there shouldn't be a need to create new articles for now. Just fix the ones here. Get C-Classes to GA. If you want to do what I'm doing, take a GA and get it to FA. It doesn't have to be Chromium, but it can be. Try Beryllium or Nickel as suggestions if you want to raise a GA to FA. Up to you in the end. Hope I didn't scare you away... I'm new here as well, and I, too, am learning how to properly go about this Wikipedia ordeal... UtopianPoyzin (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your tips, @UtopianPoyzin:! I already am watching this page, and I may check out the other editors' projects soon. I still need a few days to familiarize myself with the GA and FA criteria before I can attempt a review of History of aluminium and/or Chromium. In the meantime, I started a userspace draft of unbibium to work on and maybe try to bring to GA - this should be a comfortable stepping stone before moving to the much greater challenges of Metal, Gold, etc. ComplexRational (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, nice! I actually really appreciate you doing that! Unbibium was also my beginning project too; when I started last month, it remained only as a redirect page. I started to make a draft article for Unbibium, and after getting a preliminary "no" to move the article to the mainspace, it was recommended that I start an RfC for whether the article should exist, and it ended up passing! It was at that point that I was able to edit the article directly rather than the draft, so I left the draft as it was and developed the main article. During the RfC as I waited for the results to trickle in, I ended up going to Chromium to work there instead, putting Unbibium off to the side as the next project I'd work on. What I will do for you is this; back in late September, I began working on Unbibium in public draft space, where it still exists as of now. Because I see that you borrowed areas of the article that I had up to use in your article, I will add everything that you implemented into your draft article, and copy it into the public draft article. Draft:Unbibium will then be yours to keep and edit. From there, you will be able to edit the official draft article rather than a prototype in your user sandbox. I'd recommend that you work on the Draft article rather than the User page article; I plan on dropping by to help you along your way. It is a suitable undertaking, and figured I'd join you to finish the job. I will not make any edits without your approval though. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@UtopianPoyzin: In the past few days, I continued work on the public draft; feel free to make suggestions at the draft's talk page - I'd be glad to collaborate on this project. I did have one other question, though: when I will start work on more articles, when is it more appropriate to make substantial changes over days or weeks in a) userspace, b) public draft space, or c) main article space? ComplexRational (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• @ComplexRational: Working in the userspace is all fine and good, however, your own userspace is usually where you would work on developing an idea that you would like to implement into an article without the input of any outside helpers. If you believe that you have a better idea on what an article's lead should entail, your personal userspace would be the place to go to get it written up. From there, as an extension to the example, you could go the talkpage for that article and post a link to your userpage with the lead idea, and have the community see if they want it. A userpage can also be used as a personal sandbox, which many are. However, userpages are just spaces to test out editing ideas, comparing a previously written paragraph/section with a self-written one, and a place to evaluate a text written by 1-2 (maybe 3) people.
• Having a public draft page is the place if you know that many people will want to collaborate to rewrite an article or add a significant expansion (like what you are doing). Because the work that you will be doing will more than likely go straight into the article itself, its best to have a public draft that is easily accessible to everyone than a draft isolated on a userpage, where only you and those aware of it will be able to see it. A userpage draft would be suitable if 2-3 people will be working on the draft, but if there is an expected volume of people working on creating a draft, the public draftspace is the best place to keep it. That way, changes can be made as a group, easily accessed, and edited without touching any of the base text on the main article. Even if there aren't that many people that end up working on it at the end, at least there is easy access just in case somebody wants to view it.
• Editing the article directly usually happens the most out of these options. Edit the article directly if a consensus for change was made (in a talkpage or direct message), or if it is a small change that will not affect the overall readability of the article (such as a typo, grammatical error, or stale reference). However, these rules fluctuate based on the quality of an article. A rule of thumb that I myself follow is never edit a Featured Article without asking to do so on the talk page. If it is a FA, it's there for a reason. I don't touch those, and it is best not to do it without permission from the community. Good Articles also follow a similar guideline. If a GA doesn't have all that much content in the article, its probably fine to add more references to go along with a new section you wrote straight into the article. However, it is still best to ask before substantially changing GAs. Once you get into the C-Class articles and Start-Class articles (that are not receiving daily edit attention), it is fine to ignore the rules for draft spaces. If they aren't receiving consistent fixing, then any edit that you believe is for the better most likely is. Still, vandalism is bad (however I doubt you would vandalize articles), and there is a level of common sense that goes into editing a base article off the bat. Creating a draft edit would not gather enough people to provide feedback in a reasonable amount of time. Good edits are most likely good edits for c-class and start-class. However, draft spaces are recommended for GA articles, and practically required for FA articles. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Figured I'd say a small bit more. If your are elevating a Featured Article to a WikiJournal, or if you are elevating a Good Article to an A-Class or a Featured Article, you can edit the article directly; that's fine. Also, if a GAC or a FAC are occurring, any edits suggested by the reviewers are almost always required to go into the main article before passing onto the next rank; the reviewer will decline your candidacy if you fail to do so. Same thing goes for a Peer Review; if edits are suggested by someone, they don't often need to go into a draft space before going into the main article; they just go straight into the article. Ref-fixing is a very common occurrence here at Wikipedia, and you can ref-fix any quality of article; as long as you are fixing it right. Finally, if an article has an semi-protected or extended-confirmed-protected, just because you have the ability to edit, doesn't mean you should. Those edits should go into a talkpage or a draft article before implemented into the article; it got protected for a reason, I wouldn't go making edits there just because you can.

@UtopianPoyzin: Thank you very much for clarifying these guidelines and procedures. What is your take so far on Draft:Unbibium? ComplexRational (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll talk there. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

RfD: Element 185+ Redirects

Currently at WP:Redirects for Discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_December_26#Elements_185+ (96 pages). -DePiep (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Now reposted, here -DePiep (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Orbit images on enwiki

I thought we dissed orbiting electron images years ago (2012?). Still they are in Period articles (like Period 4 element#Properties). Remove from all? (Category:Periods (periodic table) (11))- DePiep (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that they should be removed. At the most they might just be acceptable for the first 3 periods, where they are not as wrong. (I remember from school that we only used such pictures until Ca, although those showing the outermost shells only were used for some heavy main group elements as well.) Double sharp (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Remove all, I say. Might be ok in somewhere is not good enough to help readers. And it introduces the wrong suggestion for heavier elements, (>~Ca?). (Of course those like us went to school before 1930 must forget things and learn the newer stuff. Hope a QM graph becomes available soon. Computer 3D?). -DePiep (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Removed the orbit images from all periods (from 1 through 4, ₃₆Kr). -DePiep (talk) 12:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles E124, E126 revived

Apparently, these two articles reappear in main view recently:

	Unbiquadium	Ubq	E124	{{Infobox unbiquadium}}
	Unbihexium	Ubh	E126	{{Infobox unbihexium}}

We are invited to check them. -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@DePiep: These two articles were only recreated after incubation in userspace for two months by myself, R8R, and Double sharp, having started with a discussion on this page. ComplexRational (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes. -DePiep (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

new: PT graphics (WP:PT-G)

I have started WP:task force "periodic table graphics" (WP:PT-G). -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Infobox element: 'Natural occurrence' added

I have boldly added to {{Infobox element}}: "Natural occurrence" (primordial, decay, synthetic). It shows right in top of the "Other properties" subheader.

My thoughts are: if we already mark this 'natural occurence' in our main basic {{periodic table}}, then it is important. So in the infobox, it should be there. Examples (all four situations):

• H: primordial-wl, uc, debug>primordial
• Tc: from decay-wl, uc, debug>from decay
• Am: synthetic-wl, uc, debug>synthetic
• Uue: -wl, uc, debug>

Open questions:

• OK to add this to the infobox?
• Position, right below "Other properties" is good?
• Label (lefthand) "Natural occurrence" is not wikilinked. Suggestions?
• Predicted elements, like Uue (E119): what to show? Today it is blank (does not show).

-DePiep (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I support the addition, though I would prefer placing it under general properties (where atomic number and other basic properties are listed). The link is a bit more difficult, as Natural abundance and Abundance of the chemical elements are both possibilities, though the former focuses more on isotopic composition (which is given in the isobox) and the latter makes no mention of synthetic elements. For undiscovered elements, it would be ideal to hide this parameter or transclusion altogether, though I'm not sure if that's technically possible. ComplexRational (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks ComplexRational

re "placing it under general properties": Better not, I say. We editors have a natural attitude to declare everything we add is important. So 'put it in the infobox'. That's not a good guideline. Asking: why do you think this info is worth being in top? -DePiep (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

It really is hard to choose the best location, though I suggested the top because:

1. Natural abundance does not fit under many of the categories (physical, atomic, miscellany, isotopes) because it is not hard numerical data that describes properties of the element itself, but rather it is something that we make note of when talking about elements. In other words, properties such as melting point, atomic radius, etc. are exclusively descriptive of a particular element, whereas natural abundance may vary and is irrelevant when determining the scientific or practical significance of any other property. Also, many of the properties in the infobox require more than a superficial understanding of chemistry and physics (as do their applications and significance), whereas natural abundance is easier for most readers to grasp than perhaps some of the categories. Regarding your initial suggestion of other properties, that seems to more often than not list properties of the same nature as physical/atomic properties that define the nature of an element.
2. If natural abundance is a "basic" property such that its inclusion in {{Periodic table}} is merited, wouldn't it also be "basic" enough for inclusion in the top (though probably at the bottom of that section)?

ComplexRational (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

re "not fit under miscellany" why not? Just put it there. No requirement that this info should be hard values. Very theoretically it could be under History too, but that would be too much of a stretch.

re "natural abundance is easier for most readers to grasp": I disagree, it requires basic knowledge of isotopes & decay, and even understanding of creation of elements in the universe ("how are the heavier elements created?"). This is what I would call "superficial knowledge".

re "natural abundance is a "basic" property" - as an editorial choice, not a scientific rating of importance. Usually, in wallsized PTs more and other info is added: File:Periodic_table_large.svg. This editorial choice does not qualify for listing in top.

To choose a position, we should weight its importance against (all) other data points in the infobox. For me, it does not top other, immediately relevant, data like atomic weight, appearance, phase, some PT aspects, electron configuration, main oxidation states (not all in top right now BTW). A 'put everything a bit relevant in top' is no good approach, it leads to relevance-creep. It still is an infobox, not a datasheet. -DePiep (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

On that account, miscellany is probably the best idea (after all, it is not immediately as relevant as atomic number, atomic mass, symbol, etc.). ComplexRational (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok then re presence & placement. -DePiep (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Linking 'Natural occurence'

Maybe we can find a good wikilink for the infobox label "Natural occurence" (now unlinked). Above, ComplexRational mentions:

Natural abundance, Abundance of the chemical elements.

Ideas? -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Electron config: data central

I have made {{Infobox element}} to use data cental {{Infobox element/symbol-to-electron-configuration}} (and its options /comment, /ref). Checked: no change in infobox (data is the same per now).

One property more, we can use everywhere from a single data source. -DePiep (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Atomic weight notation

About Standard atomic weight, formally "Relative atomic mass (A_r)" (with qualifications):

In the infobox, I have made the lefthand notation look like this (example Yb)

Standard atomic weight A_r, standard(Yb) 173.045(10)

This follows CIAAW notation, in general A_r(E) [where E=element symbol]. -DePiep (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Possolo, Antonio; van der Veen, Adriaan M. H.; Meija, Juris; Hibbert, D. Brynn (2018-01-04). "Interpreting and propagating the uncertainty of the standard atomic weights (IUPAC Technical Report)". doi:10.1515/pac-2016-0402. Retrieved 2018-09-23.

"General properties"

I have, boldly, changed {{Infobox element}} to make say the first header "Tin" not "General properties (boring)". -DePiep (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

IUPAC agreed Periodic Table of the Elements

Back in 2009, Jeffery Leigh from IUPAC said there is no such thing as an IUPAC approved periodic table.

I’ve been upholding that line for quite a while.

What Leigh seems to have overlooked is that there is an IUPAC *agreed* form of periodic table. You can find it on the inside cover of the IUPAC Red Book. It makes reference to the status of this table at page vii: "(That on the inside front cover is the current IUPAC-agreed version.)", and at page 51: "The groups of elements in the periodic table (see inside front cover) are numbered from 1 to 18." It's the same as the one appearing on the IUPAC web site.

I presume I should write an article for Chemistry International noting this apparent discrepancy between Leigh’s 2009 article and what IUPAC has actually published (and copyrighted). Sandbh (talk) 06:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Then when you write, please consider this. The Leigh [2009] publication says two things to be criticised.

Point one, about long/short PTs:

• Short form [1871] = Mendeleev's OP (note the horizontal Reihe and the Latin-numbered groups)
• Long form [early 1900] = rearranging Reihen into periods. Includes: repetition of Reihe numbers like 'III'. Two Rehenmake one period. => required some "A/B" distinction.
• Then Seaborg came along [1945]. He added the An's and broke the old "long PT" format. He said, like: "Forget about PT lengths: add an f-group. Don't matter how you do it". I (DePiep) blame scientists like Leigh that they still use the "long PT form" wording in 2009 (64 years after 'Seaborg').

Let me, DePiep, conclude/state: "short PT" and "long PT" are pre-1945 concepts. Seeing people (serious scientists) struggle with the "extra long PT" concept or whatever. To make a statement: after Seaborg [1945], the long/short issue is outdated. It does not clarify anything. Also, and not irrelevant: it does not change the concept of the PT.

Point two, Leigh writes this (bolding added):

The periodic table was developed from considerations of chemical properties and atomic weights and even then the latter arrangement was not without inconsistencies. Once the significance of atomic electronic configurations was realized, the table was adapted to be almost completely consistent with them

— Leigh [2009]

Leigh, why did you miss M's crucial tellurium/iodine swap he made, years before we knew atomic numbers? That was M's brilliance!

And also: whenever was the Periodic Table defined by electonic configuration? The ordering is: by atomic number. -DePiep (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The ordering is defined by atomic number, but ordering alone is insufficient: decisions must be made concerning the circumstances under which (1) a new row of the PT should be started and (2) a gap should be inserted for vertical alignment. Atomic number by itself will not help anyone select between group 3 alternatives, much less those for period 8+. YBG (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes that is what the current PT does, but no: that is not what Leigh says in [2009]. Leigh does not mention "atomic weight atomic number (Z) in 2009, while Mendeleev boldly assumed it. Leigh really missed major points here. This when Sandbh refers to it wrt PT structure. - DePiep (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

More specific: when swapping tellurium/iodine (into right then-unknown atomic number order, but against then-known atomic weight order), Mendeleev assumed a mistake in atomic weight, he did not 'overrule'. (Scerri, 2007) -DePiep (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

"On the discovery of new elements (IUPAC/IUPAP Provisional Report)"

Interesting new provisional report from the 2017 Joint Working Group of IUPAC and IUPAP! Double sharp (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

On page 1, it introduces "trans-organesson" [sic]. -DePiep (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Isotopes and Wikidata (WP:ISO-WD)

I have started Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Isotopes/wikidata (WP:ISO-WD). Because. It appears that ComplexRational is editing heavily & greatly our the isotopes. We should explore how to concentrate isotope data (on enwiki like s.a.w., 120 elemetns? OR on WD, for 3100 isotopes? then: how??). Preliminary talks were here. Don't know yet where future talks should be. I do know that we should explore the Wikidata data option for isotopes. -DePiep (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Notability of undiscovered elements

YBG's idea about a notability standard

May I suggest that this project establish an internal policy of when it thinks an undiscovered element is sufficiently notable to merit its own article? Then we could avoid discussions such as are now occurring at Talk:Unbibium. I suggest our criteria be something like this:

Add up the following points

• (a) 1 points for a recorded attempt to synthesize the element (see WP:LASTING)
• (b) 1/m points for a scholarly article devoted to this element alone
• (c) 1/n points (x>n)(n>m) for a scholarly article with a useful mention of the element, where useful is tentatively defined by length (how many paragraphs??) and the existence of content (e.g., predicted properties) that could be included in the article.

If the sum is at least 1, then the element is worthy of a stand-alone article.

I welcome comments on this, either a refinement of the criteria, additional criteria, or suggestions for m and n. Note that the criteria have been set so that as soon as there is a recorded attempt to synthesize the element, it becomes notable, based on the idea that the attempted synthesis is an event that meets the criteria for WP:LASTING, Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. An attempted synthesis is indeed a precedent for the eventual discovery or for a long series of unsuccessful attempts. Possible values for (m,n) are:

• (1,3) Either (1) a recorded attempt to synthesize, or (2) a scholarly article devoted to this element alone, or (3) three useful mentions in scholarly articles
• (2,3) Either (1) a recorded attempt to synthesize, or (2) two scholarly articles devoted to this element alone, or (3) three useful mentions in scholarly articles, or (4) a combination of useful mentions and stand-alone articles

Once our group has achieved consensus, then we should figure out how to create an policy to include in Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines. I tried to find a criteria devoted to chemical substances to see if there was anything that could be used with advantage, but I didn't find any. YBG (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@YBG: Could you explain what you mean by "1/m"? Sandbh (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

"1/m" = "1÷m" Does that explain things? (p.s., I've made a small correction above) YBG (talk) 05:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Oops. I fixed it again. Here's a history of what it has said: "(x>n)" → "(x>n)(m>n)" → "(x>n)(n>m)" — YBG (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Here is an equivalent manner of expressing the same criteria:

Add up the following points:

• (a) m×n points (n>m≥1) for a recorded attempt to synthesize the element
• (b) n points for a scholarly article devoted entirely to the element
• (c) m points for a scholarly article with useful information about the element, where 'useful' is to be defined in terms of length (paragraphs?) and the existence of content (e.g., predicted properties) that could be included in the article.

If the sum is at least m×n the element is considered sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article.

@Sandbh, Double sharp, and DePiep: Comments? YBG (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@YBG: Your idea has a precedent in the form of WP:1729! To be honest my guideline has been more along the lines of "I know it when I see it", as lame as that is, as when an element becomes notable it will obviously be so as it starts getting mentioned in lots of papers and slideshows everywhere as a target of synthesis attempts (present or future) and predictions. I will look around to see if anything has changed for the next ones up to around 126, at least. Double sharp (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Notability of specific elements

P.S. Element 124 seems particularly promising. It has been considered as the limit we could get to in one generation, through Cf+Fe or Cm+Ni (nickel projectiles would indeed get us to 126). But more importantly, it is also eka-uranium, and hence early predictions on natural superheavy elements should give us something; for similar reasons (the magic number), element 126 might be worth a look at now. Depending on exactly how much detail is available, we may now have enough to construct a passable article. I doubt elements 123 and 125 would have as much, but it seems much more possible than it did back in 2011 when those two odd ones were redirected. Double sharp (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Google Scholar searches '"element 124" superheavy' and 'eka-uranium' bring up some mighty interesting papers that I shall look at when I'm not on my phone. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I will have to do some research myself; there may be some promise, especially for 126 (which has a history of predictions and searches in nature) and maybe also 124. The others will be a bit more difficult; the only sources I found for those are not devoted entirely to those elements. But we'll see what comes up. ComplexRational (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Here's a compilation of what I found so far:

Element	Information	Refs
123	Decay properties
123	Electronic structure (I'm not sure about this one, it looks fine but is unpublished)
124	Synthesis reaction
123, 124	Generic predictions of SHE isotopes; reactions
126	Chemical properties
126	Island of stability, synthesis attempts
124, 126	Chemistry, natural occurrence
124, 126, 127	Claimed natural occurrence
124, 126, 127	Unsuccessful synthesis attempts
124, 126, 128	Decay properties
	Electron configurations; chemical properties

There are a few other abstracts I found for 124 and 126, though they don't seem to contain a whole lot. If these refs are sufficient to create articles, I can start work on them right away. In my opinion, there is promise for 124, 126, and possibly 123 or 127 (but least likely 125). Thoughts? ComplexRational (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: If 123, 124, 126, 127, and 128 all have something to say about them, then I'm willing to give 125 a pass even if there's not much to say about it. It is the first one that finally has a g-electron, after all. ^_^ All these new papers (postdating the redirection of these articles) and newly found old ones make me think that it's high time we expanded our range to element 128, with ten undiscovered elements at the end, six of them new articles. If you start working on them, I'll drop in and speed things along too. ^_^ BTW, I think the thesis is fine as a source for 123. Double sharp (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Sounds good – though I may need to wait until tomorrow to start work. Should I start work in main article space or userspace? ComplexRational (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: If you're starting tomorrow, I could create some half-finished user subpages as sandboxes to work in.

P.S. I insist that E123 through E126 are eka-protactinium through eka-plutonium, at least. ^_^ After that I can't find anyone calling E127 and E128 eka-americium and eka-curium; I think this is where things may start to diverge, as Cm is so unhappy to be in the VI state. Double sharp (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Nor have I (for 127 and 128). If you would like to create those sandboxes, let me know when I can start; we can then build up those articles. ComplexRational (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: I've created all six at their systematic names, User:Double sharp/Unbitrium through User:Double sharp/Unbioctium. You can start whenever you feel like it. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Double sharp and ComplexRational: I believe I made a loose suggestion to propose an Unbitrium article at the conclusion of the Unbibium GA, but I never expected that all of the past articles would be on the table. I personally am against the inclusion of a Unbioctium article (really, there isn't enough there at that point), but could say that I am in support of a Unbitrium, unbiquadium, and an unbihexium article. Unbipentium would then probably enter my field of vision with it being the only element discluded from 1 to 126, and 127 is rather iffy with me. I know we had articles on them at first, but then we went ahead and made them all redirects. Maybe it was unbibium coming to light, maybe it wasn't, but I'm still kind of curious what caused people to change their mind on the articles. Element 128 has been untouched by the English Wikipedia; do we need to go there?

Edit: It also might be useful to note that the German Wikipedia has kept its articles all the way to Element 132. I advise that we leave these pages on our sister wiki untouched, but for the English Wikipedia, we could probably go up to 126 or 127. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@UtopianPoyzin and ComplexRational: Well, we can draft all of them, and if some of them still don't have enough, they'll simply stay as drafts until they do. As for what brought this on, it was ComplexRational's list of sources, five of which didn't yet exist at the time the articles beyond E120 were redirected. Double sharp (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh wow, I did not realize those were Complex's sources. That's actually very helpful ComplexRational, thank you. I still am against having articles for E127 and E128, but if you are able to find more predictions that truly show its uniqueness and other important information, then I might change my mind. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I agree that 128 will likely turn out to be the weakest of the lot. But like I said, I only plan to have published the ones that turn out to have enough; the rest can stay as drafts until more things come up. And when more things do come up, we'll have somewhere to start. Double sharp (talk) 03:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

P.S. This makes me think that I should return to E121 and change one or two things. When it was the last, it made sense to discuss the entire "extreme vanguard" past 120 there; now it makes less sense. Double sharp (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I like the idea of having a holding pen for elements don't yet have enough information. That gives us a place to start sub-stubs and add to them until project members reach a consensus that the article is ready for prime time. YBG (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

PS, I hereby withdraw my proposal that began this thread. YBG (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. If we are going to have a holding pen, I think we ought to have it in the WP:ELEM subpages, rather than my userspace, since articles would presumably be there for a while. So I guess that could be the place we move the not-so-satisfactory ones at the same time the satisfactory ones get shipped off to mainspace. Double sharp (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

outdent break

If that's the case, then unbitrium could possibly be restored for now. I can agree with keeping the rest in the WP:ELEM subpages, but I would also say that having the first one on the list in the mainspace, even as a stub, wouldn't be too bad of an idea. At the very least, I would say now would be a good time to unprotect the page. It doesn't bother me, I could edit it if I wanted to. The protection was put on in (I would like to say) 2012, and it could probably go if the goals we are making will eventually come to fruition. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that 124 and 126 at least will have more to say than 123. ^_^ And I think we'd like to put in some of the new sources to really justify the article before mainspacing it. Double sharp (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, so far, work on 123 and 124 is progressing well; we haven't gone past that yet. 124 is also where WebElements stops, BTW. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Could someone please explain to me the point of having articles in a general encyclopedia about elements that none has tried to synthesize yet? I genuinely don't get it. They don't exist yet; they don't have any particular cultural value (like the Year 2000 problem was famous long before January 1, 2000), research value outside of the far wider topic of "superheavy elements" is negligible (for comparison: hydrogen is a chemical element, but not just one of many, but a thing of its own). So there is no history, no cultural value, even no particular scientific interest. Just some general predictions of no special interest (like element 137 was once thought to be the last; that's interesting but even then it seems more appropriate not to have a separate article on that but rather mention that elsewhere, and it so happens that's what we actually do). How does element 123, for instance, meet Wikipedia:Notability?--R8R (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: I would think myself that a synthesis attempt is just one of the many things that, combined together, can demonstrate notability. After all, look at unbiunium: I think that, given how many predictions there have been on its chemical and nuclear properties, the fact that there was an attempt to synthesise it is actually one of the less important things arguing for its notability. In fact, when I recreated that article, I wasn't actually aware that it had had a synthesis attempt at all. On the flip side, elements 124, 126, and 127 have all had synthesis attempts. So I think we should evaluate things on a case-by-case basis: we can build up those drafts and then later decide which have turned out to be notable. Double sharp (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems a little irrational to delay the decision on notability to after the articles have been written. I'm confident that some of these at least won't pass (or at least there's a chance of that), so it would be a waste to make the work and then not publish it because the thing turned out not to be good enough. I'd get it if this article publishing were somehow dependent on writing and you'd get more involved once you get to actually write, but this depends on meeting the notability criteria; it's an simple yes-or-no test: if it passes the criteria, you just have to find enough evidence, that's it.

The general guideline is, to quote WP:Notability:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

Sources, by the way, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.

I only mentioned those elements that nobody tried to synthesize and not more solely because we need start with something to get the discussion going. I clearly see why there are articles on elements 119 and 120; somewhat sympathetic towards the article on element 121; unsure about the article on element 122; doubtful at best about the rest.

I've read your draft on 123. Despite what it looks like before you get to read, the element has no history. It even says, "No attempts to synthesize unbitrium have yet been made,[10] and there will most likely be none in the near future." This one is not particularly important in nuclear research or anything; how does it get to have a history? Naming is trivial, either, and not particularly related to this element. That leaves us with one more section: Nuclear stability and isotopes. That section is composed of two subsections. The first one doesn't even say anything specific about this element; so far, the article has been entirely a filler and it doesn't look like there's some substantial content to be added (feel free to prove me wrong). That leaves us with two medium-sized paragraphs of text. The first one boils down to "unbitrium is predicted to be [Og] 6f¹7d¹8s²8p¹," the rest of the para is trivial. The second para is more dense with information, but that's just four lines of text (on my laptop, screen resolution 1600x900). Is this (electron configuration and four more lines of text) really enough to make up an article? Also remember that the guideline tells us multiple secondary sources are expected? I checked it and it looks like there is one secondary source for those two paragraphs, and since I happen to have that source, I know it doesn't devote even a paragraph, even a sentence to element 123; it just mentions its electron configuration in a table. Is this really enough coverage by secondary sources to truly think this element has particular encyclopedic value? My answer is, based on the draft you've written so far, no to both questions. If there is something that may change that, it will be more efficient to show it before you write the information down; what if that's still useless? Similarly, it will spare the energy to write a draft on element, say, 125 if we decide beforehand we don't need it.--R8R (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

After doing some side-by-side comparisons, I find that parts of the articles on 119-122 also give a more generic synopsis on SHEs rather than focusing exactly on the elements; there may be some inconsistency here. While I agree that not many sources (at most 2 or 3 that I found) are devoted entirely to 123, the others do make useful mentions of most elements up to around 126, and some trends (e.g. stability or lack thereof at N = 184) are explicitly described to consistently apply to different elements and nevertheless provide important context. This context may also be given in the broader extended periodic table, but I'm pretty sure our readers will not understand the finer points of relativistic effects or why some half-lives are predicted as they are without such context. Maybe, then, we should dump all the context into one place and remove it from 119-122 (and use Template:Further or Template:Main to not entirely omit background information)?

About 123, I agree that there isn't as much history as 122, 124, and 126, as no claims of natural occurrence or synthesis attempts have been made. This should not, however, preclude the inclusion of future work (e.g. talk of Bk + Fe, difficulties moving past 121), although the section could perhaps be shortened. Naming is the same across 119-122; does this mean it should not be included there either if it is a simple derivation from IUPAC rules? The predicted isotopes, however, do come from a devoted paper, and other papers with broader coverage show the same pattern. If there is not much more to say here, need there be more to say about the other elements? Finally, for chemistry, the inclusion of those values only in tables is very superficial, though the thesis (ref 1) may contain additional information explaining the determination of 123's electron configuration (though, as you stated, it may be too generic to merit inclusion). I do agree that these are only snippets here and there, but I believe that the amalgamation of all the information we have about 123 may be just enough for an article (or if not, a draft that is spared later work when more sources get published).

Per WP:Notability: I understand your arguments and feel inclined to search for more sources, but I feel everything combined plus the context may just be sufficient so as to not violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE and merit inclusion. If it's not ready, at least we'll have something to start from when it is.

I am not entirely sure where to draw the line in this case of undiscovered elements, though 124 and 126 definitely have something to say about them and I would give 123 and 127 a low pass. Even if they are WP:PERMASTUBS, the information would be gathered in one article rather than spread across extended periodic table, island of stability, magic number, etc. By this line of reasoning, 125 and 128 probably still will not pass, so I will save them for last or make only a list rather than developing an article. ComplexRational (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I also found this source which briefly mentions something non-trivial about 123: [2]

BTW, R8R, I'm not against your line of reasoning, it just appears to me that there is something. Any other thoughts? ComplexRational (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

One more interesting find: In ref 9 (Lodhi, available on Google Books), I found a table listing "nuclear reactions that have been tried for the synthesis of superheavy elements" for 110-126, but I cannot find any other source describing them, except possibly a brief mention in this one in French (calling Double sharp) - I will not include them until this is confirmed. ComplexRational (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that French article mentions that the reactions ²³⁸U+^66,68Zn and ²⁴³Am+^66,68Zn were attempted at Dubna; the latter is interesting, as then Z_target + Z_projectile = 125. It appears that E125 has attracted some interest too, as I would have expected for the first element after the 5g collapse: here is a 1988 calculation on E125F₆, and here are 2017 calculations on MF₆ hexafluorides (M = E125, E126, E127, E128, E129). It appears that superactinide hexafluorides do not use their 5g electrons much in bonding; the bonding is mostly between the highest 8p subshell on the superactinide and the 2p subshell of fluorine, unlike how uranium uses its 5f and 6d orbitals for bonding in UF₆. In this sense we might consider them to be "eka-uranides" as the chemically available electrons are 6f²8s²8p² (approximately) outside an [Og]5gⁿ core; we might also consider them to be far more like superlanthanides than like superactinides. For the isoelectronic 119-electron series, the configuration is [Og]8s¹ for E119 through E122, [Og]6f¹ for E123 and E124, and then [Og]5g¹ from E125 onwards. E125F₆ and E126F₆ are "weakly bonded complexes with a low dissociation energy"; however, the dissociation energy jumps upwards significantly at E127 and even more significantly at E129. The E125–F bond is mostly ionic, but the E129–F bond has more covalent character.

I do think that most of this material is better covered in extended periodic table than at any specific element article; even the coverage on the different isotopes and their likely decay modes could be put there for the elements that were considered in a table. E124 and E126 are what started this one, really: they seem the most promising to be more than permastubs, because of the old speculation of their natural occurrence, which must have provoked studies on their theoretical chemistry, even if it is probably going to be just "eka-U and eka-Pu".

(BTW, most of the work on the drafts was done by ComplexRational, not me. They are in my userspace but I haven't had much time to do much on them so far.) Double sharp (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Then probably we will only make full articles for 124 and 126 for now, there is indeed much more to say about those. We can discuss the chemistry of 123-129 (and this information on 5g electrons and bonding properties) and isotopes of 123-128 in extended periodic table, though we may need to split nuclear properties into two sections: islands of stability / magic numbers and specific predictions for each element. For the reactions targeting 122 and 125 (and any others we haven't found yet), a brief mention in extended periodic table will suffice. ComplexRational (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

It has not occurred to me that drafts can be made in advance way before those drafts have enough material to be released into the mainspace. Probably it does appear that elements 124 and 126 are noteworthy enough to deserve their own articles, judging from the table above---though I'd still prefer to have a look at it before these are released if that's possible.--R8R (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good, go ahead and take a look (124) (126), and leave us any comments here. ComplexRational (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Have there been any predictions of E124 and E126 geochemistry dating from the time they were thought to be possibly primordial? Double sharp (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I found nothing for 124 but this [3] for 126 looks useful; the two-page preview is most of the article (it is only 3 pages). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ComplexRational (talk • contribs) 22:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Double sharp and R8R: What's your take on the 124 and 126 drafts - are they ready for release? ComplexRational (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm very sorry for making you wait, I saw the previous notification on the day you pinged me, thought I'd reply tomorrow, and forgot about it. Now I left the notification unchecked so it reminds me of the ping. I'll read the drafts by the Friday evening; is that okay with you?--R8R (talk) 11:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: That's fine. I may also make a few small changes before then. ComplexRational (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I have not had enough time to expand the lead section for 124 (I also do not want to copy-paste from another article and just change numbers). If you would like to do that, go right ahead. ComplexRational (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

ComplexRational, please accept my apologies. It looks like I won't be able to take a look at it today. I was really going to make it today but due to RL commitments I got no sleep this night and need some sleep now. I'm sorry for all this disturbance; if you're getting annoyed, I see why. I'll try my best to make it up to you tomorrow.--R8R (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

No worries, R8R. In fact, now I had time to write that lead section. ComplexRational (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm reading 124 now; I'll have left comments on the talk pages of the respective drafts by the end of today.--R8R (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Coming up for air

I started this thread with the idea of having a WP:ELEM-specific notability standard; that idea seems to have been rejected in favor of "I know it when I see it", that is to say, that we would draft articles and as a project reach a consensus as to when a particular element became notable enough to deserve its own article. That's OK by me; that my original idea ended up on the cutting floor is not disappointing to me at all - I am rather encouraged by the vigorous discussion that resulted even though it went in a direction I did not expect.

So if we declare that to be a consensus (and I can see no reason why not), the question remains, whe,re should the holding pen be located? I can see at least three ideas

1. Draft space e.g., Draft:Unbitrium or Draft:Element 123 -- would probably involve non-project members in a promotion discussion
2. User space, e.g., User:Double sharp/Unbitrium -- what we're currently doing, but it has an aura of WP:OWN
3. Project space, e.g., WP:WikiProject_Elements/Unbitrium -- Identifies the work with our project
4. Main space section, e.g., Undiscovered chemical elements § Unbitrium -- Makes partial info available to encyclopedia readers sooner rather than later

There is probably no strong reason to choose among the first three options, but for elements that aren't likely to be deserve their own article just yet, the fourth option seems ideal. Similar information is currently located at Extended periodic table, but that really doesn't seem right to me, since it is about the elements, not the PT extension. Any thoughts?YBG (talk) 08:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I support option 4 (the purpose is to gather and make known information, right), though I am also unsure where to separate content in these drafts from similar information located in extended periodic table. If we do pass this option, a few other elements (such as 164) may also deserve devoted sections in mainspace separate from the mountain of predictions in extended PT. ComplexRational (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@R8R and YBG: After making edits to extended periodic table and trying to avoid dumping everything about isotopes from the drafts in there, I see an even stronger reason for option 4; partial info would be element-specific and not overly detailed while keeping it navigable (I still think 100k is a bit too large for extended PT, BTW) without stuffing everything into e.g. a table that has lots of abbreviations and difficult syntax that will not help our readers, to say the least. ComplexRational (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

That confirms my sentiment expressed above. Do others agree with me that the article extended periodic table would be improved by focusing more on the PT itself and different models for its extension, with information about specific elements included only to support the main topic? Of course, I wouldn't want to remove the information already there until it finds anew home. I proposed undiscovered chemical elements, but I suspect there may be an even better article title. YBG (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. It does make some sense to have information on particular elements apart from the information on the extended table (like we keep information on particular elements separate from the main periodic table article. However, there is an important question we need to answer before doing that: what constitutes the concept (not just definition; to a little oversimplify things, we have articles on concepts, not definitions) of an element apart from atomic number/its position in the periodic table? Say, with the stable elements it is actually pretty easy to see: they have their macro-scale properties, abundances, histories, industrial uses, etc. None of that is available for the undiscovered elements like 123. Then when we figure that out, we could estimate how much information we actually have for a possible article and whether it's worth to establish one in the main space.

If we make an article in the project space, then this question is not yet important, but I understand it is less rewarding.--R8R (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@YBG: I did some rearranging of extended periodic table, and in my opinion, there is a clear breaking point between the top (history, synthesis, natural occurrence) and bottom (chemistry, nuclear properties, electron configurations) that could well make two separate articles. I'm still not sure about a title, however. ComplexRational (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: Actually, by my way of thinking, after the three sections about Aufbau/Pyykkö/Fricke -- everything else seems to be not directly related to an extended periodic table. In fact, to the extent that it does relate to an extended PT, it may only relate to one of the three models. Why, for example, is only one arrangement of electrons indicated, when, if I understand correctly, the three models actually predict different filling patterns? It seems≥ to me that the rest is the content of a Period 8 elements article. YBG (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@YBG: We do have period 8 element as a redirect to extended PT. Should we move that content there? And for electron configurations, perhaps we can compare the two or three predictions side by side? ComplexRational (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

For synthesis attempts and natural occurrence, I'm not quite sure where they belong. They do in some sense relate to the history of the extended periodic table, but as you suggested, it may fit better in period 8 element because specific elements are talked about rather than strictly the periodic table extension. ComplexRational (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@(a+bj)/c:I see how synthesis and occurrence relate to history, but I'm not sure I see the connection to PT history. Period 8 element seems a good location; the only drawback I see is whether it might exclude some elements because they are period 9, at least in one of the models. Comparing the electron configuratons side-by-side seems a very good thing to do, it might go a long way toward explaining the difference between the models.YBG (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@YBG: Yes, indeed. I don't know how to explain how one model predicts some elements in period 8 and a slight modification places them in period 9, and neither case really helps for the short section on supercritical elements above 172 or the end of the PT. And I like the nickname (even though I usually say a+bi)! ComplexRational (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: I also use "i" more frequently, but for some reason "j" had a nicer ring to it. YBG (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning that the readable prose for extended periodic table exceeds 80 kB (WP:AS). For electron configurations, how about something like this? ComplexRational (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Mendeleev's table

I just read in the news, "Russia at the international level strives for that the periodic system of chemical elements officially bears the name of its creator -- Dmitry Mendeleev, declared the premier [=prime minister] of the RF [=Russian Federation] Dmitry Medvedev." (Here is the news itself (in Russian but you can run Google Translate if you're interested).)

Medvedev also said he had been surprised upon learning that not everybody in the world called the periodic table "Mendeleev's table" (note that this is, indeed, by far the most common name for the periodic table in Russian).

So if you find out your kids found a Mendeleev's table instead of a periodic table on a wall of their chemistry classroom in school, you'll know it was Russia who set this up :)

No action is to be done, I just thought you might find this interesting.--R8R (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

A wonderful discovery, very great story in history of science, at the time and in hindsight. Mendeleev should be honored for this -- and is. But I'd prefer the wording "Periodic Table of Elements" (sometimes like "Das Periodensystem der Elemente" (de) -- not bad either) which mentions the three mayor components: periodicity, table/systematical layout, concerning the elements. How many introductionary lessons are solved in there? See also: DNA & Watson/Crick. -DePiep (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Add: Evolution & Darwin. -DePiep (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

To be complete: The periodic table is up there with Newton's classical mechanics, Einstein's theory of relativity, Darwin's theory of evolution, Franklin & Wilkins & Watson & Crick's discovery of DNA structure. Also, article Periodic table is at #104 of most viewed articles November 2018 [4]: 769.080 views (=1000 per hour, 24*7). In that list, it is the topmost scientific article. And none of these highlights are named after their inventor. -DePiep (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it matters much. I am going to continue saying "periodic table" in English and "Mendeleev's table" in Russian because that's what people are used to and will understand fastest. For the sake of completeness, however, I will mention that classical mechanics is often called Newtonian mechanics.

Also, just to make sure. Russian chemists usually title their periodic tables with something like "The periodic system of chemical elements named after D.I. Mendeleev". "Mendeleev's table" alone in used in the colloquial speech. The ru.wiki article is titled "Periodic system of chemical elements."--R8R (talk) 11:49, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Unbibium

I have added unbibium to WP:ELEM/PTQ and request that it be added to the image version as well. My choice of placement is consistent with {{Extended periodic table (by Fricke, 32 columns, compact)}}, the navbox currently used on all undiscovered elements, and accounting for the fact that it would be part of the g-block. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

This sort of thing makes me wonder what published periodic tables will do once the first g-block element is discovered. Compounding footnotes upon footnotes is ugly as sin and horribly confusing, especially considering the minuscule importance of such elements to the chemistry that the bulk of students will study. Perhaps Droog Andrey's idea of ignoring 119+ until the row fills up far enough might end up being the norm; Theodore Gray has, as I recall, suggested something similar. The extra elements might well end up just being listed in a sort of appendix, as anyway the chemistry is likely to just be variations of the same theme in that really long transition series starting at 121 or 122. Double sharp (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I've repositioned E122 in that PTQ table (because exact placement is not important in this one). I guess the image will follow.

In extending PTs (like {{Fricke's}}, in mainspace) my approach would be:

1. First of all: start drawing the extended PT without using asterisks or placeholders or footnotes. Initially, base is the 32-column, 118 element PT (#including group 3 arrangement of preference). Then add columns & rows & elements as claimed. Do not use placeholders. ({{Nefedov (54 columns)}}, {{Pyykkö (50 colunms, has Z swappings)}}). Draw the Table facts the science says. This is your laboratory-wall version: correct & complete, having an extension principle (Nefedov, or Pyykkö, ...).
2. From the laboratory version, one can create a classroom version by simplifying without compromising it. That is: one can remove insignificant element (say E123 and up). These removals can have a set-marking (non-group "... (21 elements)", but should not be moved to some footnote. This maintains block g visually and structurally.
3. When using a 32-column table, g-block has a logical place. This way it is visually & explicitly distinct from f-block, IOM the most important requirement (prevent confusing or mixing up f- and g-block visually nor scientifically). Example: {{Fricke's}}. Note that it does use asterisks placeholder, but for g- not f-block (not for Lns nor Ans). Using a triangle of asterisks is nice, to be distinct from ever-present single/double asterisks meaning something else (no confusion in the minds with regular versions then).
4. If you feel the need to go down to an 18-column PT: (why? It will be full of compromises, complicating not simplifying whatever you want to convey). Probably should look ~like the PTQ table from the OP; single level of footnotes, and spatial suggestion of g-block vs f-block (this is not in the PTQ). - DePiep (talk) 10:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

(not crisp enough. will rewrite below). -DePiep (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• How to draw a future periodic table, the one for your wall:

1. Do not compromise on correctness or on being explicit. (Shortcuts are a compromis).
2. Choose a group 3 and H/He principle.
3. Draw the existing 32-column, 118 element PT. No asterisks, no footnotes. (May look like this).
4. Choose an extension principle (Pyykkö, Nefedov, Fricke, ...).
5. Scissors: cut the PT vertically and insert extra columns. (Likely near group 3, where I'd expect g-block).
6. Add rows/periods (8, 9, ...).
7. Fill the new cells with element IDs.
8. Print it & put it on you laboratory/study/library wall.

Then, you can simplify it for classrooms and small books. One can remove element sets (and draw a visual indicator, like "... elements E124–143 here")

Aways: one cell one element; omitted series visually distinct.

Do not use asterisks (do not introduce another "Ln, An bottom box")

Do not: use 'asterisks' and other placeholders to cover or mistify issues you have not solved.

Do not: compromise on factual statements.

Do not: create another "bottom box" like lanthanides and actinides are suffering still.

-DePiep (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Just curious, what exactly do you mean draw a visual indicator, like "... elements E124–143 here"? I'm having a hard time visualizing exactly what you mean. YBG (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

re: Instead of writing out all elements in new columns in the g-block, one can replace those with the literal text. Especially so when they are ordered regularly and not some border element. This saves width in the PT without changing the structure. This way, we prevent reintroduction any asterisks notation (adding an extra table by footnote, as Ln's and An's usually are). I am very unhappy with an asterisk/placeholder notation because it breaks the overall PT structure, requiring the extra mental reconstruction to see the PT. At best that is. Worse: if done incorrectly, it misrepresents the PT you want to show (as can happen with group 3 vs. Ln's An's nowadays). - DePiep (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

What is the heaviest naturally occurring element?

New paper. The heaviest surely confirmed nuclides are ²³⁷Np, ²³⁹Np, and ²³⁹Pu, so that there are currently 94 elements known to occur in nature. There are both positive and negative reports for interstellar ²⁴⁴Pu, and there is a possibility of finding primordial ²⁴⁴Pu and interstellar ²⁴⁷Cm as well (the latter would pass through ²⁴³Am in its decay chain). But barring long-lived superheavies there is no chance of going beyond 96 natural elements (which would add americium and curium to the 94 we know). Double sharp (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the natural occurrence of Am, Cm, and heavier elements, I'd say to only mention that they (especially ²⁴⁷Cm) might have interstellar origin, and not assert that they exist unless such existence is unambiguously proven - thus leaving Pu as the heaviest naturally occurring element (and how about ²⁴⁴Cm from 2β^- of ²⁴⁴Pu?). However, elements up to Es have been observed in stars - so one could make an argument that those exist naturally as well, albeit not in any detectable quantities on Earth. ComplexRational (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. One thing I am curious about is if there is more ²³⁹Pu or ²⁴⁴Pu on Earth (IIRC it should be the former); if it is the former, "From decay" is mostly right as a classification of Pu's occurrence, but if it is the latter we need to say something about interstellar Pu. Possible production of ²⁴⁴Cm from double beta decay of ²⁴⁴Pu is mentioned in the article but has not yet been observed. Double sharp (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Polyatomic/diatomic categories

Whilst in Adelaide recently I saw large glossy periodic table poster and was flabbergasted to see it used our older categorisation scheme for the nonmetals i.e. polyatomic nonmetals, and diatomic nonmetals. The legend says "Subcategory in the metal-metalloid-nonmetal trend (color of background)". Whoever the graphic designer was, they looked closely at our periodic table article. The company is igdesigngroup but there is no image of the table on their site :(   Sandbh (talk) 07:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

What sort of colour scheme did they use? YBG (talk) 08:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Nothing as good as @R8R:'s suggestion. Their scheme is red (AM); burnt orange (AEM); yellow-green (TM); leaf green (PTM); dark-green (M); blue (PN); pink DN); violet (NG); grey (unknown); green (Ln]; aqua (An); purple (background). Sandbh (talk) 11:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

All very interesting for an enterprise that touts primarily greeting cards, wrapping paper, and party favours. Of course, I think PT-based wrapping paper might sell quite well. You could add PT₂ by puttting its group 1 immediately right of PT₁'s group 18. Incline it slightly with a slope of 1:32 and it could continue forever. Of course, you't want to use the 32-column form, at least until g-block elements are discovered. Second product would of course be a table of nuclides wrapping paper.

Perhaps they have another website touting other sorts of design work. YBG (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

How exactly did Mendeleev discover his periodic table of 1869?

https://blog.oup.com/2012/08/how-exactly-did-mendeleev-discover-his-periodic-table-of-1869/

Very interesting, thanks for sharing. I think, however, there is one point Scerri probably did not entirely get, maybe due to linguistic differences between his mother English and Russian. Presuming YBG, ComplexRational, and I would eventually work together on history of the periodic table, I did some preliminary research on the matter and I encountered that story. Scerri refers to a particular solitaire game here, Klondike, whereas the word "solitaire" (пасьянс) in Russian refers not only to the card game for one player (like in English, not only Klondike, but also FreeCell, Spider, etc.), but more generally, any complex situation. For instance, when a criminal investigator is finally able to tie up all small details, evidences, interrogations, etc. into a single coherent story, it would be very appropriate in Russian to say, "Solitaire solved!", even though no cards of any kind are actually involved. Likewise, if a new fact ruins the picture, you could say it mixed up or maybe shuffled your cards (cf. English spoil smb's game or upset smb's applecart). That is not to say that Mendeleev didn't have his cards (not aces, kings, and tens, but something I presume he had made entirely for this purpose and that resembles the cells of the periodic table, except with atomic masses instead of atomic numbers), I'd just say that the playing cards are not involved.--R8R (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Isotopes of elements pages

When reading the isotopes of elements pages, there are a few recurring problems (in my opinion) that I feel need attention as they appear to have been neglected for some time:

1. Observationally stable isotopes: all isotopes with Z > 66 are supposed to be theoretically capable of alpha decay, but aside from a few exceptions such as isotopes of lead, isotopes of tungsten, isotopes capable of double beta decay, and ^180mTa (where theoretical half-lives are provided), I cannot find any sources suggesting this decay - even if it is energetically possible. Even the most recent NUBASE report and CN14 say they are completely stable. What gives? Furthermore, as stated in several pages including list of nuclides, spontaneous fission is claimed to be possible for all isotopes with A > 92. There even is a citation needed tag and I have not found any support to this claim. Is this WP:OR that went unnoticed for years?

   I could not tell you if this was original research, because I wasn't the one who wrote the article. To be fair, I would probably leave the information there with a citation-needed tag for a while until we find a source that disproves the claim made. We could never know if the claim about spontaneous fission possible for every A > 92 isotope is true or not; we have no source, and don't know if one exists. If we find evidence that spontaneous fission is NOT possible for even one instance where A > 92, then it is enough to delete. Until then, leave the citation-needed tag. That's just my take though. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

   Possible SF for surprisingly light nuclei seems to be one of those "folk" results that people have heard of but is not actually published. There are probably some less formal (but still from serious scientists) places you can find this; I will look for them. Bear in mind that possible decay is not a very cool result to publish unless you can expect the half-life to be such that you will see it in your lifetime, or if we're dealing with Pb and it would necessitate a textbook update to say that the heaviest stable element has moved down from bismuth to lead and then to thallium. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 10:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

   Here is an admittedly pretty lame source: "heavy nuclei are instable for spontaneous fission; according to calculations this should be valid for all nuclei with A [sic] > 46 (Pd !!!!); practically, a high energy barrier prevents the lighter elements from fission" (each point between semicolons is on a different line in the original). Double sharp (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

   Over 1½ months later, this issue has yet to be addressed. Shall I remove the observationally stable statements per WP:V/WP:OR? In particular, the statement about SF for Z > 40 is much more likely to be original research, considering this. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

   I'd say do it, and I'd be glad to help - several searches for references yielded nothing other than vague references to the liquid drop model and fissility line - which, in my opinion, isn't enough to justify these statements. For the others, only keep the observationally stable labels when a decay mode and half-life are explicitly predicted. ComplexRational (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

   I only realized now that all the predictions for alpha decay near and above ¹⁶⁴Dy appear to indeed have a source: {{NUBASE 2016 II}} gives positive Q_α for all such isotopes listed here as observationally stable, and negative Q_α values for the others, in which case alpha decay would be energetically forbidden. Does this qualify as a source (as no explicit predictions are made and half-lives are mostly not given), or does drawing this conclusion from given data and definitions constitute WP:OR? ComplexRational (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

2. Outdated information: The links I provided, as well as simple article searches and this great repository, reveal that many isotopes have been discovered with decay properties determined, and they are not listed at all (e.g. ^216-218Pb, [5]) or have partially theoretical values (e.g. ²³³Cm, [6] (abstract only)) when more accurate data is available. I already updated a few pages but it is simply too great and undertaking for one user. I can create a user subpage with various sources I found if that will help.

   If you have new information that can replace the old, then that's great! I don't know an easier way to add it in other than manually, but I recommend that you don't try to do it all at once, and just keep the information somewhere so you can update a few at a time. Don't stress yourself about fixing EVERYTHING. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

3. Possibly misleading information: After doing some research, I found that some isotopes listed in various tables are actually unknown, yet they are presented as if they were known. For example, ^220,241U are unknown but the range of known uranium isotopes is ^215-242U, yet those two isotopes are listed in the table. Even though they are marked as partially derived from trends, they are still shown. Even some isotopes that are not in gaps (e.g. ²⁵⁴Bk) are listed without a clear indication of discovery. No matter how reliable the prediction, I believe that these inclusions in the tables are misleading (by this logic, I could create isotope pages filled with sourced speculations up to element 130).

   I would say keep this actually. ^220,241U are included because they fall with the range of known isotopes, and just so happen to be unknown. Removing them would create an uneven scale, which could provide even more misleading information than marking the unknown isotopes as derived from trends. From there, you could make note of those instances by stating those isotopes are currently unknown, but I don't believe that is completely necessary. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

   I think it is not that misleading to miss out entries if they really are unknown. After all, anyone using our data for anything should be able to pass the low bar of reading the other columns. ^_^ Otherwise, as ComplexRational said, we could create isotopes of untrinilium already. Double sharp (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

4. Lead sections: These appear to be formatted differently across many articles and sometimes include very different descriptions of their topic. Should we perhaps try to impose a uniform standard for isotope lists as we have for regular element articles?

   The lead can differ between isotopes because of the importance of the isotope that you are covering. R8R was telling me how difficult it is to implement a uniform lead/article design for chemical elements, and doing the same but for isotopes (in which there is a far greater number of articles to fix) would be tedious and difficult to undertake. I would not recommend doing this. The importance of the isotope, as well as the available research and significant coverage of the isotope varies between, so I'd say leave most of them, but change any that are vastly different from the rest and don't provide substantial, necessary information. Once again, I'm not asking for you to change EVERYTHING, but you probably have a good idea about what a generally good lead is, and what a actually bad lead is. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

   We do not really have a standard format for element ledes either. I think it is plain that we shouldn't use the same lede format for isotopes of hydrogen, isotopes of argon, isotopes of uranium, and isotopes of copernicium. Double sharp (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

To fix all this myself would not only be a massive and tedious undertaking, but I do not want to make substantial (and possibly controversial) changes to 100+ pages without discussion. What does the community here think should be done? ComplexRational (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

And maybe make complete wrt medicals: V09 {{Radiopharmaceuticals}}, V10 {{Therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals}}. -DePiep (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll need some time to check isotopes of every element and make sure they're sourced. ComplexRational (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Problem is in some 50% of these do not have a regular drug article/description to link to. -DePiep (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@UtopianPoyzin, Double sharp, and YBG: Any ideas? ComplexRational (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• About ordering the isotopes in Isobox: heavier elements have them sorted by half-live time (Rg), lighter ones by mass number (Pb). I'd expect the same. (In element articles infobox element has them ordered by mass number). Also, we could add sorting option to both isotope tables (only works in desktop view). - DePiep (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I would instead expect consistently ordering by mass number for the isotope lists, as those are lists and we should use the ordering requiring the least thought or outside knowledge. If readers already know what proton number their desired nuclide has, they are probably searching for an isotope by its mass number, not by its half-life; and if they are not, they would probably not be looking at an "isotopes of X" list. (More likely they would find list of nuclides.) When we pick some out for the element infoboxes, the context is different, and then we can decide to do things differently. Double sharp (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  Order by mass number, is what I tried to suggest & support too. -DePiep (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  OK, I see; I misunderstood your "I'd expect the same" as meaning that you expected the "isotopes of X" articles to follow the changing formats of the isoboxes, not that the isoboxes should be consistent with each other. Double sharp (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  (Yes. I had rephrased my sentence, unclear it was. - DePiep (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC))

   Done: isoboxes now orderd by mass number. -DePiep (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

  I see that some lists are ordered high-to-low (like Fl). In time, I will reorder these. Both Infobox element and Infobox Xx isotopes. -DePiep (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Predictions on SHE decay properties

The lists of isotopes for SHEs include several undiscovered isotopes in the gaps between known isotopes. Various sources give different (and inconsistent) values, and based on our comparative sentences, the source used ([7]) is probably incorrect on this. (Example: ²⁷⁶Hs - the link earlier gives 1.11 h, NUBASE 2016 gives 100 ms, GSI gives 46 ms, CN14 (JAEA) gives 17.5 ns, etc. - spanning 12 orders of magnitude!) As such, I believe undiscovered isotopes should be removed, as choosing one source over the others violates WP:NPOV whereas own comparison and analysis violates WP:OR. ComplexRational (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I support this removal; only experimentally known isotopes should be included. Double sharp (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done Removed every speculation that I found in articles from Rf to Cn with a link to this thread. ComplexRational (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Analogies between groups 2 and 12, and group 3

@Double sharp: I was re-reading Jensen’s article on the treatment of group 12, ref: [8]. Spectroscopically and chemically he observed that Be and Mg are more like Zn, as Mendeleev showed them, but they eventually ended up in group 2 on the grounds of their electron configs being similar to Ca etc. Is that how you understand it?

I presume this is the same reason (i.e. similarities in electron configurations) why La and Ac have so far remained below Y in group 3? [Sandbh]

I believe electron configuration is a valid reason, though periodic trends such as atomic radius and electronegativity in the alkaline earth group may also be important to consider when grouping elements. ComplexRational (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

ComplexRational's answer is closer to how I see it; there are many factors all playing a role here, but electron configurations are preeminent among them. Be and Mg are closer to Zn, but that is because they are small. We expect an increase in size if nothing intervenes, so Be-Mg-Ca is preferable. To show that nothing intervenes, you then have to show that the d-block hasn't started yet (as otherwise the d-block contraction is a good enough reason to put Al above Ga instead of Sc). The "pre-d" behaviour of Ca, Sr, and Ba is then something like the "pre-f" behaviour of La and Ac. So you then have to look at how active the 4f shell is in La vs Lu compounds (i.e., if you neglect the 4f contributions in the calculations of analogous La and Lu compounds, which one ends up looking closer to reality?). I recall we went through a lot of this with Droog Andrey early this year, though that discussion is paused and not quite finished. Double sharp (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Double sharp ComplexRational: can we archive this or does it beong to that big discussion? -DePiep (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@DePiep: I believe it would fit well as a precursor to that big discussion. At the very least, it is worth discussing the differences between the group 2 and the group 3 situation there. Double sharp (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Then please move it whole where you think best (and check the =-level). -DePiep (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@DePiep: I agree with Double sharp, and would suggest to relocate this section as 11.1 (under the main heading, immediately before § Double sharp comments). ComplexRational (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits to isotope pages

I wanted to bring the recent edits of 109.106.227.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (invited to this discussion) to everyone's attention. They have been making various edits to isotope pages and templates that are not sourced (WP:OR?) and appear to introduce irrelevant or incorrect information (i.e. there are reliable sources that unambiguously make a different claim). I've reverted and warned them several times already, though they were followed by similar edits (albeit to different pages) several days later. If these edits persist, what must be done? ComplexRational (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Expert needed tag

Over at Talk:Extended periodic table § Expert tag, December 2011 there is a discussion about removing {{expert needed}}. Project members might be interested in participating. YBG (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Here are some other instances of {{expert needed}} that project members might be able to clear up:

• hastemplate:"Expert needed" linksto:"Chemical element" (8 hits) (7 hits)
• hastemplate:"Expert needed" linksto:"Periodic table" (5 hits) (4 hits)

Articles needing expert attention that link to chemical element and periodic table:

• YExtended periodic table
• ?Relativistic quantum chemistry § Qualitative treatment

Articles needing expert attention that link to chemical element only:

• ?Chemical synthesis
• ?Neutron capture § Neutron absorbers
• ?Environmental radioactivity
• ?Glossary of classical physics
• ?Chemical state
• ?Universal force field

Articles needing expert attention that link to periodic table only:

• ?Light-independent reactions
• ?Polarizability
• ?Detection limit

After we've seen if we can take care of these, we might try some other searches. YBG (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Good essence list. My advise: read {{expert needed}} documentation, top paragraph, first. -DePiep (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, the documentation explicitly states that the tag should only be used for a specific issue. We may also want to rummage the talk archives for these pages to see if anything specific is covered there. At least for extended periodic table, I haven't found anything. ComplexRational (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

This is so exhousting in many ways, not inviting. Especially those big images. Would you consider Archiving his one, YBG? -DePiep (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I've modified the {{qmark}} and {{tick}}. Is that what you were objecting to? As for archiving, it seems to me that this project is in the best position to decide what/whether to do something about the tags. I'd prefer one of us did something about these rather than just ignore them. YBG (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

150 years Periodic table of elements

In 2019, we will celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Periodic Table. As Richard Feynman said: "If there is one thing we would comminicate to other life forms in the universe, it would be that we have discovered that all stuff is made of these atoms".

— (from memory, DePiep)

Which TFA @ 150th birthday ?

I understand we can pin a more exact date to it: March 6th 1869 Mendeleev send his Table to RSC, later that month published in the first volume(!) of the RSC journal.

Now I propose we prepare an article for this anniversay to be a WP:TFA. FA Periodic table was on Main Page last January, so that one is not usable. Could we make History of the periodic table an FA? Other candidates? Or the Periodic table as a WP:POTD?

-DePiep (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

You've got my support. Unless something better surfaces, History of the periodic table seems appropriate. YBG (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

but it's not FA yet (nor GA). MAybe one of the FA elements is recyclable. -DePiep (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd prefer something more general than a specific element. What would it take to get the history article up to snuff? Or we could take one of Mendeleev's predicted elements. Gallium is GA and germanium is FA. Or could we go for a trifecta of metal-metalloid-nonmetal? Metalloid id FA, nonmetal is GA, and metal is C but has recently undergone significant improvements. But I'm not sure the M-M-NM is central enough to the PT and to Mendeleev's thoughts. For a really stretch goal, we could work on the carbon group (currently C) and all of its members (currently 1*C, 4*GA, 2*FA) - and turn an entire column blue. But overall, I still think the history article is the best one for the 150th, but it would require significant effort to improve it to FA status. YBG (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not that good in bringing an FA. -DePiep (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• As it happens, The united nations proclaims [2019] the international year of the periodic table of chemical elements. Official website. -DePiep (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• We should ask & get an exception: FA Periodic table be TFA in March 2019. That is what an encyclopedia is for. -DePiep (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I think we ought to have had the rerun of periodic table wait till 2019 instead of having had it this year, to be honest. Two years in a row is a bit much. If we can't get history of the periodic table ready, I'd favour germanium as one of Mendeleev's predicted elements that is already an FA. Nonetheless I think gallium would be better for an emergency FA push, as it was the first one of those to be discovered. Double sharp (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Germanium would be the go. The TFA blurb could be written in such a way as to highlight the fact that its properties were successfully predicted by Mendeleev, fifteen years before it was discovered in nature. The history of the periodic table would be a superb choice but I strongly doubt there would be enough time to bring it up to scratch, and get it through the FA process. Even our germanium article needs some polishing: it attained FA status on March 28, 2009! (And that scares me, given how high the FA bar is set these days). Sandbh (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Germanium was predicted already in the 1869 (first) version by Mendeleev. The line says: "Si=28, ?=70, Sn=118" (that's 70 not yet 72 then) Scerri 2007, p. 108. -DePiep (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Germanium indeed a great option. Was also thinking about Picture of the day being a PT. How do we achieve a cleanup of Ge? -DePiep (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Nice. I like the picture in the lead of our History of the periodic table article. I'll see if I can scan Ge, and gauge what needs to be done. Sandbh (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

You like that picture? I'm working to obliviate it. Featured pictures are in this category, I will check it for PTs. -DePiep (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

PT-related - Featured images at commons: by PETSCAN. (98 today). Only File:Periodic table large.svg is relevant, but I would reject it because cell-design not brilliant (too crowded). -DePiep (talk) 10:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

We could at the very least try to re-run periodic table, saying we are sorry to do it yet again and it is our fault, really, that we somehow missed the big date, but this is really important, like super important: the periodic table is one of the most iconic symbols of science and it is having its 150th anniversary and this is so very important that even the United Nations has announced 2019 as the year of the periodic table, so maybe, just maybe, we could please please please give it another shot? If the TFA community is so kind to forgive our forgetfulness, we swear to put a big banner on the top of WT:ELEM reminding us not to even consider a re-run of periodic table until at least 2069.

(I'm serious about the fifty-years reminder, by the way. Sounds unorthodox to say the least yet we somehow show we're really sorry for trying this over again but that it is so important we are ready to pay for it in a way. But just give it a thought: We could get used to it and look at it with an ironic smile. Some time later, this message will be a common thing in the project and maybe even a source for inside jokes; this funny oddity will become a tradition and eventually pull the project members together. Finally, in the late 21st century, this project will be known as a project of people true to their words.)

If that fails, germanium with a PT-themed blurb is still a nice backstop plan.--R8R (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I have entered germanium on March 1, 2019, as a reservation [9]. Change can be discussed later (and anyway a rerun of PT article should be supported by TFA managers). - DePiep (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I posted something on the TFA talk page. Sandbh (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Please now see the RFQ on the same page. Sandbh (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@R8R:@YBG:@DePiep:@1.02 editor:@Kpgjhpjm:@UtopianPoyzin:@ComplexRational: Now would be a good time to indicate your support for this RfC, if you'd be so inclined. Thank you Sandbh (talk) 10:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I second this. Everyone, please take a look at the RfC and let everyone know what you think.

@Sandbh: I'd like to ask you a question. Do you think it would be right if I did it? I feel like the idea of a discussion on this to just give it a try was mine and it would be unethical to approve my own idea. That being said, I consider you a composed person, so if you find it acceptable, I will support it.--R8R (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I feel you could Support the proposal, as the person who suggested the rfc, and as a member of our project. It’s important to be able to scan the thread and quickly tally the supports and opposes. Sandbh (talk) 09:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Just added my arguments and a !vote. re R8R: RfC neutrality suggests that personal opinion of the RfC author could be made, in a separate post below. In this case: formally Sandbh is the RfC author, and could add a !vote below in a separate post. Knowing this, I think R8R you can just expand your main post, being a contributor not the author. -DePiep (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay then. Supported the proposal.

By the way, DePiep, what do you mean by "!vote" and "!voting"? Both my coding experience and WP:WikiSpeak say an exclamation point that directly precedes something (a word or a statement) negates that very something.--R8R (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Writing !vote, WP:!VOTE: for example in a TfD, one is expected to add arguments, not votes (a TfD is not a vote counting, it is an argument evaluation). Hence, writing !vote (indeed, meaning "not-a-vote") means like: 'don't just say support/oppose, but add arguments'. Also: writing "your !vote is ..." says "your post, the argument is ...". So: "!vote" means "your argument & conclusion (+/-)". HTH-DePiep (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

!Vote is also a reminder that determining the (consensus) result is not merely a matter of counting yeas and nays. YBG (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thank you both for the clarification.--R8R (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

It appears that the three-peat is unlikely to pass, so I think we should focus on getting germanium to current standards ASAP as our backup plan. Double sharp (talk) 05:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@R8R:@YBG:@DePiep:@1.02 editor:@Kpgjhpjm:@UtopianPoyzin:@ComplexRational: If anybody else was thinking about supporting the RfC, now would be a good time to do so. See: Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article#Request_for_comment:_Periodic_table_article_as_three-peat_TFA.

Sandbh, since you did not sign the post, no bells were fired ;-) -DePiep (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Sandbh (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@R8R:@YBG:@DePiep:@1.02 editor:@Kpgjhpjm:@UtopianPoyzin:@ComplexRational: If anybody else was thinking about supporting the RfC, now would be a good time to do so. See: Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article#Request_for_comment:_Periodic_table_article_as_three-peat_TFA. Sandbh (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree. But I had explicitly supported the proposal before you rang my bell; did you ring it for a specific purpose?--R8R (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Date of origin of the Periodic Table

I understand we can pin a more exact date to it: March 6th 1869 Mendeleev send his Table to RSC, later that month published in the first volume(!) of the RSC journal.

• Asking R8R, I think you can read Russian/Cyrillic: is there a more precise date for the first publication? -DePiep (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Mendeleev finalized his manuscript and sent it to press on February 17, 1869, a date he put on the manuscript. (At the time, Russia was still following the Julian calendar; in the Gregorian calendar used today both in the West and Russia, that would be March 1, 1869). This date is often considered the birthday of the periodic table (although he used the word "periodic" only two years later and the table changed in those years significantly, the main principles remained in place). On March 6 (March 18), his work was announced by the secretary of the Russian Chemical Society Nikolai Menshutkin at the March meeting of the Society. It is often said instead the the announcement was made on February 22 (March 6), but it appears this date is false.--R8R (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

So we have dates:

Events re PT by Julian and Gregorian calendar
O.S. (Julian)	N.S. (Gregorian) (current calendar)	Event	Note
February 17, 1869	March 1, 1869	manuscript finished, send to press
February 22	March 6	(Sometimes mentioned as announcement date; eg Scerri 2007)	Probably false (OS/NS mixup?)
March 6	March 18	M's work announced by the secretary of the Russian Chemical Society

-DePiep (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Given what has been described above, I suggest the TFA be on March 1.--R8R (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

R8R, could you describe & source this in some articles (PT, History of PT)? Would be nice if Wikipedia can make a clear statement. -DePiep (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I could, though probably not today (I'm still keeping your notification red, i.e. unseen). Here's the link to the article I used to establish whether March 6 corresponded to the Old or New Style. I wish I could refer instead to the original Kedrov's article but it appears it is not available online.

Bonus: while I was looking for Kedrov's article, a found a book of his. Unfortunately, it says nothing about the date when Mendeleev's "experiment," as he had himself put it, was announced to the RCS. However, I found it notable for another reason: It dates back to 1987, back when communism nominally was still the state ideology. With this knowledge at hand, you may find interesting the introduction of a book on an ideologically neutral subject published at the time if you use [translate.google.com Google Translate] (copy and paste the link, and the machine will translate the entire web page).--R8R (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I have tried to search for some Soviet sources on the history of Mendeleev's discovery and what followed it and it appears there's a lot to say. However, my laptop loads pages veeeeryyyy slooowwwwwlllyyyy now that I have a gazillion tabs opened for history of aluminium. I think I'll have to delay the addition of that data until I'm done with that article. However, would anybody like to cooperate with me after that happens to bring history of the periodic table to the FA status? I'm not entirely sure I want to walk this path alone but if anybody joins me, I'm ready to try.--R8R (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Ping me when you're ready. I'd love to help. YBG (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's a better reference for the date alone: . Also mentions Mendeleev's predecessors. We definitely could use this one. Then again, if real in-depth research is wanted, I'd rather look for some Soviet sources.

YBG, of course. I really hope to get this done by the end of year after the exams are over (and most of them indeed are over).--R8R (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm also willing to help (and this would be my first work towards an FA), ping me when ready. ComplexRational (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not familiar with paper publishing formalities, but what would be the formal "publishing date" in this? 'Manuscript ready, send to press' may be right, but only relevant if there were conflicting claims (on the original idea) I guess. First publication seems to be the RSC journal (volume 1), that March, but I have not seen an image of it nor can I read Russian. -DePiep (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the "publishing date" would be March 6 (March 18), when Menshutkin made a short report on Mendeleev's "experiment" at the Russian Chemical Society. This makes perfect sense to me as this was the first time the work was publicly announced and this is the event so often referred to anyway.

If there were a conflict of priority, it's hard to say how the discoverer would be determined (though probably the credit would be shared). For example, nowadays, JWP recognizes as the discoverers of a new element not those who got the element first but rather those who were able to conclusively show that what they had gotten was indeed a new element. At the same time, aluminum was long considered to be discovered by Woehler but a century later, it was shown the element had been obtained by Oersted two years before Woehler (who had announced his discovery but his experiment couldn't be reproduced by the other contemporary chemists, including Woehler, which was why Oersted couldn't be given the credit back then), and although the ultimate proof that Oersted indeed had synthesized aluminum came only in 1921 at the earliest, the crown has eventually been transferred to him.

I think the "birth date" would be the first documented date, and the date February 17 (March 1) is well-documented; I have even seen the February 17 manuscript here, in Wikipedia, and the date was there.--R8R (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• I have entered germanium on March 1, 2019, for starters [10]. Sort of claiming the date, changing the TFA can be done. - DePiep (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

[11] in History of the periodic table. cn? -DePiep (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I have addedd the source R8R already provided here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_periodic_table&diff=883425112&oldid=883349455&diffmode=source. -DePiep (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Germanium: TFA on Friday March 1

We can expect ₃₂Ge to be TFA on March 1 then: Germanium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Please take a check on its FA quality. In this thread, some useful notes were already made. Good idea is to make the Ge TFA blurb pointing to Mendeleev's prediction of "?=70" (in 1869; "?=72" in 1871). Next to the 150th anniversary of course. -DePiep (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

A blurb-image for 1869 (group 14, groups were horizontal back then). The 1871 version says "?=72" (and has groups vertical). -DePiep (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

We should probably put a request up at WP:TFAR ASAP, then. Double sharp (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Germanium (feel free to edit the blurb; the current one is trimmed heavily from the lede). Double sharp (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I have changed, as proposal by edit, to use the prediction-image shown here. It was the prediction we wanted to stress to relate to the 150th anniversary. -DePiep (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I have fixed some anachronisms: In 1869, Mendeleev only predicted an element below silicon. That it would called ekasilicon would be established later; its properties would be established later (both in his article published in January 1971); the term "periodic table" would supersede all of the above (the term the "periodic system of the elements" appeared later in 1971; not sure when its representation became known as the "periodic table"). However, the character count was off back then (at 1,037 instead of the required 975; we need to be as close to this number as possible, it was changed from 1,000 just recently, apparently the TFA coordinators feel a difference between the two) and it's way more off now (at 1,131). So if anyone could look at what could be trimmed, please do so.--R8R (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I have reduced the character count to 1,054; some help is still wanted.--R8R (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It's at 987 now; I'm satisfied with how it came out and I think I'm done. Everyone is very welcome to check and provide their opinions.--R8R (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I did some copyediting for grammar and slightly reduced the character count; looks good to go, R8R . Again, further feedback is welcome. ComplexRational (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

At this moment, I find the prediction statement needlessly complicated and long (while being correct): "In 1869, Dmitri Mendeleev noted a system of similarities between the elements that would later form the periodic table; among others, he predicted an element homologous to silicon (pictured) and some of its properties". I'd suggest something like: "per his periodic table, he predicted the existence of germanium" (and let's not spend words on 'later to be named periodic table', 'among others'). Why "homologuous to Si" but not "and to Sn"? "homologous" (unlinked even/gladly so) not 'similar' in a TFA blurb? -DePiep (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

After my edit, it now says "In 1869, Dmitri Mendeleev noted systemic similarities between elements; his chart (extract pictured) would later form the periodic table. He predicted the properties of several then-unknown elements, including one similar to silicon (Si) and tin (Sn).." This removes "homologous" and "among others" and adds "tin", and I think reads smoother overall. YBG (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

~Better, but it disconnects "prediction" from the PT detail image. I prefer "... predicted (pictured)". (do not introduce other predictions?). Me trying not to be over-sensitive. Writing "(Si) ... (Sn)" OTOH is nice because these symbols are in the image! (but better not italicise, per red Book). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DePiep (talk • contribs) 01:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@DePiep: The italics were intended to subliminally tie in with (extract pictured), but that may or may not be germane (pun intended). YBG (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed better and smoother; I was originally more concerned that we were saying similar too many times. Regarding the prediction, I'd also note that the then-unknown element between Si and Sn is circled red, though it won't hurt to leave it as is. ComplexRational (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

IMO, ideally that circled-red and in-between and he-predicted and between Si-?-Sn are in one sentence, without repetition. -DePiep (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Please listen to me. The statement, as it currently is, is factually incorrect. Mendeleev did not predict properties of an eka-silicon in 1869. That happened soon thereafter, but later. In 1869, there only was the idea that there would be an element after silicon; even the eka- nomenclature did not exist at that point. Simplicity is great but it should not come at the expense of factual accuracy.--R8R (talk) 07:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

So in 1869: no predicted properties (except for atomic weight=70), no "eka"-name, not even a "periodic table". All fine with me. Doesn't that leave something like "predicted [the edxistence of] an element at this position"? "Similar to Sn, Sb (-group = oxidation)"? -DePiep (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've changed it from this:

In 1869, Dmitri Mendeleev published a table showing periodic similarities between elements (extract pictured) and predicted the properties of several then-unknown elements, including one similar to silicon (Si) and tin (Sn).

to this:

In 1869, Dmitri Mendeleev published a table showing periodic similarities between elements (extract pictured) and predicted several then-unknown elements, including one similar to silicon (Si) and tin (Sn).

Or would this be better:

In 1869, Dmitri Mendeleev published a table showing periodic similarities between elements (extract pictured) with placeholders for several then-unknown elements, including one similar to silicon (Si) and tin (Sn).

Thoughts? In particular, are we OK with the pipelink that hides the term "periodic table"? YBG (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@YBG: I prefer the second statement (first revised version) because it is more concise, addresses R8R's concerns, and flows smoothly into the next sentence. ComplexRational (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Puh-lease, it's a blurb. Say "periodic table". A blurb for germanium, so not "seven". I'm fine to simply mention the prediction of Ge in this first periodic table, but it should not cripple our language. -DePiep (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, the text is/must be: "... predicted (pictured)". -DePiep (talk) 21:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• The 2009 blurb. -DePiep (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

My revision mentioned that Mendeleev also predicted some properties of Ge (even if not in 1869; I saw a publication dating to January 1971). I think that since we're dedicating this TFA to the periodic table, we should mention this as this was crucial in recognition of Mendeleev's genius (from what I know as of now, other contemporary scientists were very skeptical of Mendeleev's abstraction, and it was when new elements, first and foremost gallium, which was discovered first, closely matched his predictions that Mendeleev's work became so widely accepted).--R8R (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC) [would be January 1871 then? -DePiep (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)]

@R8R: Given the historical significance, I restored a brief mention of later predictions on chemical properties, though I'm not entirely happy with the wording. ComplexRational (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Better, though I would leave out the "properties" part; cramming in too much facts itn few words? I'm fine with noting the bare fact that the 1869 PT (=anniversary) predicted its existence, with the wikilink for further reading. And shall we write "Winkler discovered the new element" not "found"? Crispier IMO, and cmplementing the "prediction". -DePiep (talk) 09:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that germanium was found to be Mendeleev's eka-silicon exactly because its properties matched M's predictions (that came after 1869). That's why it is important not only for the periodic table, but for germanium as well. Regardless, I think I'll have to look into this tonight once more.--R8R (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

All interesting and to be in Wikipedia, but I wonder: (a) do all predictions belong in germanium article? (b) do all predictions (properties & existence) need to be in the germanium lede or only in its history section? (c) do all these have to be in the blurb? (d) do any post-1869 predictions (properties) need to be in this blurb? (as I advocate throughout, IMO only the 1869 prediction of its existence should be in the blurb, few short simple sentences. The rest of the blurb can be about basic germanium). -DePiep (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I really like the current blurb. Compliments to those who contributed with time & care. -DePiep (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

There's one thing you might like to have fixed, though. There are two adjacent wikilinks ("Dmitri Mendeleev predicted") and that is advised against per WP:SEAOFBLUE. The fix is not unavoidably necessary but really welcome.--R8R (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I moved the second link from "Dmitri Mendeleev predicted" to "Mendeleev's predictions closely" - adjacent links are now separated by a period, is this better? ComplexRational (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Before reading this, I reverted the blurb to keep sequence "1. prediction, 2. discovery". I did not consider other aspects, mentioned here. -DePiep (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

As of now (special:permalink/883534248, I see some issues:

1. Still have a WP:SEAOFBLUE problem with "In 1869, Dmitri Mendeleev predicted the existence"
2. The general reader may not make the connection between Si and silicon and especially Sn and tin.
3. We haven't pictured Mendelev's PT, but just an extract of it. Will the reader understand that from (pictured)?

YBG (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

To ebb the sea of blue: unlink silicon, tin. More so in the last sentence ("silver" does no need a link ever, nor do zinc, copper: so common. Who will blame us?). -DePiep (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Unlinking silver and tin does not help. A sea of blue occurs when there are two or more links right next to each so that the user cannot immediately tell whether it is a single multi-word link or multiple links without intervening unlinked words - in this case, "Dmitri Mendeleev" and "predicted" - [[Dmitri Mendeleev]] [[Mendeleev's predicted elements|predicted]]. YBG (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I suggest the following to rectify the problems I listed above.

1. To fix the WP:SEAOFBLUE, change the 2nd sentence

   from this: In 1869, Dmitri Mendeleev predicted the existence of germanium, and later some of its properties, based on its position in his periodic table (pictured).

   into this: In 1869, Dmitri Mendeleev published a periodic table (pictured) predicting the existence of germanium, and later some of its properties.

2. To make the connection between Si/Sn on the PT picture and silicon/tin:

   (a) delete ", chemically similar to silicon and tin" from the 1st sentence

   (b) change the 2nd sentence in one of these two ways (depending on whether #1 is adopted)

   from this: In 1869, Dmitri Mendeleev predicted the existence of germanium, and later some of its properties, based on its position in his periodic table (pictured).

   either to: In 1869, Dmitri Mendeleev predicted the existence of germanium, based on its position in his periodic table (pictured) between silicon (Si) and tin (Sn).

   or else to: In 1869, Dmitri Mendeleev published a periodic table (pictured) predicting germanium to be similar to silicon (Si) and tin (Sn).

   (I have deleted "and later some of its properties" only because I couldn't make it flow nicely.)

3. To clearly indicate that what is pictured is not the entire PT but just an extract, change the 2nd sentence

   from: ... periodic table (pictured) ...

   to: ... periodic table (extract pictured) ...

   (I am open to other wording, my only concern here is that the reader not be mislead into thinking that Mendeleev's PT had only 12 elements, 10 known and 2 unknown.)

@Double sharp, DePiep, R8R, ComplexRational, and Sandbh: Thoughts, anyone? YBG (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• No.
• re 1: do not change sentence to prevent/evade/circumvent SEAOFBLUE ever.
• re 2: unlink silver, lead, copper, (even silicon, tin if a problem).
• re * do not change the sentence because of blue. -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Why? We're not quoting the Bible, the U.S. declaration of independence, Das Kapital, or anything of such significance. We enjoy freedom in our writing. I don't see why we would need a really special reason to be even allowed to play around with wordings; why we would need a reason in the first place.

I did mention that there could theoretically be the need to stick to a particular wording. Given how we're put into a harsh character limit, we may have to end up on a wording that breaks the rule. This is better avoided but cannot be entirely ruled out. Why the wording that we have now is so precious it cannot be edited to avoid a sea of blue ever is a mystery to me.

I have very strong doubts that what Mendeleev published was not even a periodic table (the word "periodic" originated in 1871), but a table at all. In comparison, what he had in 1871 certainly was a table, even if he still didn't use that word. (Whether he did is uncertain as I haven't read the sources closely yet; he did, however, preferably speak of a periodic system of elements.)--R8R (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

bluesea is about wikilinks, not sentences or topics. So drop wikilinks without changing the sentence. Why wl silver, copper, lead at all? These are dumb links, they are not clarifying the blurb (as wl "history of PT" does) -DePiep (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Let's not let WP:SEAOFBLUE intimidate us into re good lede/blurb writing. -DePiep (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Re why wikilink silver etc.: why not? These links are relevant enough here, these are other chemical elements. In an article on geology, the need of these links would indeed be questioned.

Re intimidation: If it indeed were that a wording with a sea of blue is good and no one without it isn't, your point would be perfectly valid. You are, however, needlessly dismissing the rule altogether, pretending it does not exist. I suggest you evaluate each wording separately. If no valid wording that doesn't fail SEAOFBLUE comes up, we are indeed fine to use one that does. Why we would have to give up on trying to find one before we start is entirely unclear.--R8R (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is what I wonder

1. Will the general reader know that the two adjacent wikilinks are separate links?
2. Will the general reader know that "Si" and "Sn" in the picture mean "silver" and "tin"?
3. Will the general reader know that the picture is just a portion of Mendeleev's published PT/table/chart?

I believe the answer to all three of these questions is "no", and since I believe we all agree on the importance of helping the general reader, this is unfortunate. Now if some of these things can only be addressed by demonstrably making the blurb worse, then I'm fine with that. ^{By this I mean, that we shouldn't make the blurb worse to address these issues} But if that is not the case, ^{ie, we don't fix these even though it wouldn't make the blurb worse} then we are allowing a sub-standard TFA to be associated with WP:ELEM. This is not good. It is a disservice to WP, a disservice to WP:ELEM, and most importantly, a disservice to the general reader, which is (or ought to be) the primary reason for building this encyclopedia.

On a side note: WP:SEAOFBLUE is not the same as WP:OVERLINK.

This sentence which wikilinks alternate words is consistent with WP:SEAOFBLUE despite WP:OVERLINK being ignored.

This sentence is compatible with WP:OVERLINK but violates WP:SEAOFBLUE because it includes two wikilinks ([[two]] [[wikilinks]]) with no intervening text.

YBG (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Double sharp, DePiep, R8R, ComplexRational, and Sandbh: Oops, I just re-read what I'd written and realized that it could be misunderstood as meaning that I'm prepared to accept making the blurb worse. I've added ^{superscript explanations} to clarify my meaning. YBG (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@YBG: In response to your questions,

1. Unless a reader coincidentally read one article but not the other, I'd think not. There doesn't seem to be a way to separate the links without awkward prose or order of links, however.
2. Rewrite second sentence to say "..., chemically similar to silicon (Si) and tin (Sn)"; as I've seen some who forget C is carbon, it's better to ensure that readers understand Si and Sn.
3. Again, someone inevitably will assume the image is the entire chart, so we should say "...periodic table (extract/excerpt/portion pictured)" to clearly denote that it is not the entire chart.

I don't think answering questions 2 and 3 like this will make the blurb worse, though it is not entirely clear where clarity becomes redundancy in these cases. ComplexRational (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The blurb is in new place. OK, I admit, this way no sea of blue looks better. I'd support adding the symbols as proposed "... (Si) and ... (Sn)", for recognition in the image. (Bonus fun fact: germanium dating). -DePiep (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking good now. Sandbh (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, I am flabergasted, as I thought that the SEAOFBLUE would be the point most likely to be acted upon, to avoid a direct violation of WP:MOS. Apparently I failed to reckon with WP:IAR. I still don't think my rephrasings are all that clumsy, but I bow to collaboration.

Incidentally, the problem with SEAOFBLUE occurs not if someone clicks just one of the links, but if they fail to click any of the links. Until one clicks (or at least hovers - impossible on a mobile device) - one cannot distinguish between a single multi-word link and multiple contiguous links. The idea behind avoiding SEAOFBLUE is so the reader doesn't have to click or hover to tell where the links are.

One final way to avoid the SEA would be to consider MOS:SPECIFICLINK which says Always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which you link: it will generally contain more focused information, as well as links to more general topics. This would suggest that we have just a single link to the most specific topic, e.g., Dmitri Mendeleev predicted, i.e., [[Mendeleev's predicted elements|Dmitri Mendeleev predicted]].

Anyone convinced? If not, I'm content to leave it as is with two adjacent wikilinks. YBG (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC) (syntax fixed and signed by ComplexRational (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC))

DYK

I thought we could post this, or something like it, for 1 March:

…That Dimitri Mendeleev, who formulated the first modern periodic table in 1869, missed out on being awarded the 1906 Nobel prize in Chemistry for this discovery, by one vote?

Sandbh (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:DYKRULES note that the quote ("hook") must be from a new or expanded article. Is this fact mentioned somewhere at all? -DePiep (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that afterwards. Pls ignore my suggestion. Sandbh (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The story is in Dmitri_Mendeleev#Later_life. What a disgrace. It took more than 100 years before the Academy would act another failure this scale. -DePiep (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

OTD

Another idea:

On this day,

1869 – Dimitri Mendeleev published the first modern periodic table with placeholders for several then-unknown elements, all of which were later discovered.

Or would going for a TFA/DYK/OTD trifecta put the whole thing at risk? YBG (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

No, not at risk. I guess a DYK is not feasible (see its rules), and having the periodic table next to germanium on main page might be acceptible. The "150 year ago" is a strong argument. -DePiep (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Added to March 1 [12]. Is this date in an sourced article? [yes, here ] (Rules say no two topics on main page may be related...) -DePiep (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Added to preparing March 1 OTD. -DePiep (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Into archive by now

By now, March 3, we can move this topic into archive. Article 'germanium' received 40k hits yesterday (1k dayly average before) -DePiep (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

references

References