Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Main
talk
 Templates
RELC
 Articles
RELC
Stats
 Periodic Table by Quality
other PTQs
 Pictures Isotopes Periodic Table Graphics (PTG) Participants
WikiChem IRC
 Links
 

Featured article candidates

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Articles to be merged

  • 07 Sep 2024Isotopes of krypton (talk · edit · hist) proposed for merging to Krypton by Xardwen (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Articles for creation

 FA A GABCStartStub FLListCategoryDisambigDraftFilePortalProjectRedirectTemplateNA???Total
2909610212497340172307321161225,6942271007,036

Neptunium

[edit]

The infobox image for neptunium was recently replaced by File:Neptunium_metal.jpg because the old image didn't show the pure metal. It will need to be reassessed for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Elements/Pictures. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 00:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably it should be a C, given the low resolution. But it's likely difficult to find anything better. Double sharp (talk) 06:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox image for plutonium is being discussed at Template talk:Infobox plutonium#Infobox image and may be changed to File:Plutonium ring.jpg, so it may need reassessment too. HertzDonuts (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"the"

[edit]

@Grendon84 has been systematically changing the first part of elements like:

  • Selenium is a chemical element; it has the symbol Se and atomic number 34.

to remove "the":

  • Selenium is a chemical element; it has symbol Se and atomic number 34.

The edits are marked minor and have no edit summary.

If there is an agreed form this it should be cited in the change. If not these changes should not be made, they are just annoying and to me they read like a word is missing. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To my understanding, the form without "the" was initially approved, though I prefer using "the" as it reads as a bit more natural. 108.160.120.147 (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paper accepted for publication that updates various nuclei

[edit]

While cleaning Isotopes of silver (updated to NUBASE2020 in 2022), I uncovered a paper, which has been accepted to Physical Review C and is available as an arXiv preprint, that updates the masses of various nuclei.

  • Jaries, A.; Stryjczyk, M.; Kankainen, A.; Ayoubi, L. Al; Beliuskina, O.; Canete, L.; de Groote, R. P.; Delafosse, C.; Delahaye, P.; Eronen, T.; Flayol, M.; Ge, Z.; Geldhof, S.; Gins, W.; Hukkanen, M.; Imgram, P.; Kahl, D.; Kostensalo, J.; Kujanpää, S.; Kumar, D.; Moore, I. D.; Mougeot, M.; Nesterenko, D. A.; Nikas, S.; Patel, D.; Penttilä, H.; Pitman-Weymouth, D.; Pohjalainen, I.; Raggio, A.; Ramalho, M.; Reponen, M.; Rinta-Antila, S.; de Roubin, A.; Ruotsalainen, J.; Srivastava, P. C.; Suhonen, J.; Vilen, M.; Virtanen, V.; Zadvornaya, A. "Physical Review C - Accepted Paper: Isomeric states of fission fragments explored via Penning trap mass spectrometry at IGISOL". journals.aps.org. arXiv:2403.04710.

This updates the following nuclei and their isomers: 84Br, 105Mo, 115Pd, 119Pd, 121Pd, 122Ag, 127In, 129In, and 132Sb. In particular, I have updated 122Ag in the table — for this nucleus, the 3− state in NUBASE2020 is declared nonexistent. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 07:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appearances of elements we have no data for?

[edit]

Of the known elements, we know for certain what ninety-seven look like at STP (the first ninety-nine less astatine and francium).

It's predicted that astatine is silvery metallic, and I assume francium would be the same. But I'm not sure if relativistic effects kick in - caesium is a bit golden - why shouldn't francium be, or is francium likely silvery as well? I'm not sure. Wikipedia does not make any assumptions to what francium's color might be in its article. Silvery like most? Or golden like caesium?

I presume fermium onwards are all likely silvery, I note Wikipedia says roentgenium is likely silvery, so I assume that all past fermium are at least to tennessine, maybe oganesson? I'm not sure what oganesson would probably look like if it's not a gas, as Wikipedia says it's probably a solid.

Is there any data on what these elusive radioactive elements might look like if we were to theoretically get a macroscopic sample of them and have the result not be instant destruction and death? 108.160.120.147 (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Einsteinium is a decent measuring stick. There are a lot of folks who postulate that the post-astatine elements will be silvery gray or metallic white but the sources do not look great. Reconrabbit 19:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Francium is probably somewhere between Rb and Cs in colour (I answered why here). But so far no RS; that's just applying the physics behind alkali metal colours on my end. In most cases the electronic structure is less simple (and also the predicted structure is sometimes not cubic, leading to anisotropic optical properties) and it will be a good deal harder to work it out. I suspect that not too much thought went into most of the "silvery" predictions and it's just that this is how most metals look. Though it's not even clear if Cn, Fl, and Og are metals or not. Double sharp (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown

[edit]

I'm i the process of removing undiscovered decay modes from isotope lists I've edited, unless there is an experimental bound. But I'm not sure how to denote decay modes with unknown branching ratio, such as the β+ and β+p modes of 124Pr:

  • β+
  • β+?
  • β+ (?%)
  • β+ (unknown%)
  • Add a new column with the branching ratio.

LaundryPizza03 (d) 11:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

β+ (?%) is succinct & unambiguous. YBG (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Double sharp (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with YBG and Double sharp. Any potential confusion (e.g., unobserved decay modes vs. observed decay modes with unknown branching radio) can be resolved with explanatory footnotes. Complex/Rational 11:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "main oxidation state"?

[edit]

Like main isotopes, main oxidation state is also something that varies in different Wikipedia articles. Some oxidation states like Tl(+3) and Co(+3) are either bolded or not in different languages of Wikipedia. There might be a need for a criteria of main oxidation states. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may have started with "does Greenwood and Earnshaw consider it a 'more common oxidation state' in their table on p.28". Double sharp (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That table is a good starting point. However, there are no oxidation states listed for He, Ne, Ar, Rn, and Db and beyond, so other sources are needed for them. No is also a problem, as the article says No(+2) is more stable than No(+3), but it is reversed in Greenwood and Earnshaw. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there is a dispute about necessariness of listing every oxidation state. I think it deserves to be discussed here. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That was my post, and my point was especially pointed at infobars.
In my opinion as a chemist and editor, the thing you describe as "main oxidation state" is a chemically significant characteristic of the element. This information is invaluable in rapid qualitative thinking about likely chemical compounds. When attached to an element, "main oxidation state" means "the element's predominate or common oxidation state".
Exotic oxidation states are quite a different matter. They only apply to, well, exotic compounds and thus have little predictive power. That is why they appear in the "news": when a chemist succeeds in creating an exotic compound that defies prediction they may claim the element is in a new "oxidation state". This state is not a characteristic of the element.
In terms of the element articles I think the exotic oxidation state content would be much more fun and effective if it were moved in sections entitled something like "Exotic compounds". There we would discuss things like XeF6 which were unexpected, difficult to create, and have unusual properties. Infobars are poor location for this info because they don't allow discussion of interesting aspects of these exotica. The effect of having both "main" and "exotic" oxidation states is to dilute the value of both bits of information. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]