Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 4

message: I've finally created a set of test-templates on my user page. See here for a complete index of used templates. These temporary working-pages contain all already converted infoboxes: respectively empty spaces to be filled with the remaining boxes (update: strike that :-)
(Added quicklinks, 15:47, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be easier with a single template instead of many. For personal training purposes – and perhaps for common use also – I "stole" the shopping list of templates (Chemical element infobox begin, Chemical element infobox entry, etc) and put them all together in one Template:Element. I have made a test element, User:Eddideigel/Hydrogen. Could this be useful? I haven't written the instructions yet, but there are just a few tricky bits, including Title_color (becomes black if undefined), Ionization_potential (potentially difficult in case of multiple potentials), and Isotope_table (verrrry difficult, but good result if filled in properly). --Eddi (Talk) 03:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I thank you for this indepth discussion, and I appreciate your experience working with the actual data. In my opinion, however, a template is both content and layout. It is a description of what should be included, and how it should be presented. Although some properties are missing for some elements, I can't see the reason why they should be presented differently. The presentation of missing properties as "n.a." or "???", or whatever, could actually inspire people to enter them. If some properties are indeed nonexistent for certain elements, then, that's no big deal. The information that an element doesn't have a certain property may even be valuable in itself. Of course there should be a threshold for the number of elements having a property before it's put into the template, but such issues would be readily solved on the template discussion page. Properties that are too special should be described in the body of articles, not in a template. Therefore I still think a common single template should be used, and I think it is possible.  I like the new use of the table image locator map, and it gives ideas for other areas. Wouldn't we need a hundred images for the atomic models and crystal structures, though? --Eddi (Talk) 23:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's more a "concept" than a "use" of the locator, but proven to work on the German pages and definitely worth adapting here. There would only be a dozen distinctive crystal structures to include, no problems from there. But I think the locator image should contain little more than just the navigational information, not only for technical reasons. While a single TableImage makes a natural place to integrate all graphical data, it has proven to be hard to maintain. Two hundred separate images may actually be less work than one hundred combined. Also, the best graphical presentation is of no use without an easy to find description of what it means—for this reason I would like these things to go with the table entries and their links.I agree that simply 'missing' data should be made an eyesore as much as possible. However in my experience, the common presentation of missing properties like "n.a." or "???" has mostly inspired people only to find even more different notational varieties of writing nothing... I did include some "_nd" template variants that create 'missing' entries, but haven't done much else with them since I couldn't tell the "not known" apart from the "not applicable". This information IS valuable, but it does not exist in the current data. I have no reason to believe that the content would improve with a stricter layout any more than that a better main layout could be created through the individual styles of the content. So you're right, it's both, each approach with its pros and cons. I will continue to work with single row entries though, which also have the advantage that they are easily converted to other layouts if necessary. Femto 16:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox template conversion 

message: Many of the rare earths (see Samarium for an example) are listed as having a biological role of "has no known biological role, but is said to stimulate the metabolism."
This sounds extremely questionable to me, and I have been unable to find any supporting references for this statement.  Is there any support for this claim at all?  If so, we should indicate who says that Samarium et al. stimulate the metabolism, and link to any available research on the subject.  If not, the claim should be removed.  There is enough health supplement misinformation on the web as it is without us encouraging people to try taking Samarium-Lutetium pills in order to "stimulate the metabolism".
Egomaniac 21:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If one could determine what a stimulated metabolism means in the first place, one could try to un-weasel the "who" part of the phrase. Even then, the fact that every known substance in this world is advertised in one way or another as having health benefits is just non-notable. Femto 18:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rare Earths "stimulate the metabolism"? 

message: Status of my converted infoboxes, each of the 116 "_header" lines occurs once (and only once) for each element and has number/symbol/name parameters with the properly spelled and matching content. A fixed-width comment column contains number and symbol of the corresponding element for each line of data. — It's an important milestone since this makes it a breeze to extract any specific entries by type, sort them into separate tables and then finally, check them!
The current system of acquiring the data and entering it directly into the articles does work. However it has one serious drawback: no references—the moment an entry is included into an article it becomes an orphan, reference-wise. Resource links at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements#General notwithstanding, since the data is scattered over article pages which are subject to lots of the usual wiki-editing, it has become impossible to determine the source of any particular entry without archeological efforts.
A solution will be to collect, check, and maintain the information on dedicated data pages—with all the footnotes and references that are necessary to validate them as authoritative, Wikipedia-internal resources.
Mostly, basic tables should suffice, with simple web link references. More important is to preserve the information of who checked and included which data. As an example, I've checked the already existing list of elements by atomic mass which now is verified data that cites its source. From here, the content can be easily included (not only!) in the Elements articles, and the articles can link back to these data pages as their reference.
=== TODO ===
Check and correct these tables! They were extracted from the current content of my working-page data. Once corrected, it can be merged back and those entries may finally be considered verified and done.
* User:Femto/table navsys an overview of all the number/left/name/right/above/symbol/below parameters from the header, plus the group/period/block/series (partly included in the working-pages)
** I have previously used the "number", "name", and "symbol" data to build an index, so these should not contain any bad surprises.
** For now, use a simple minus sign "-" for the 'dead ends'.
** What should be done with (dead) links to the non-elements like Uqu etc.? Technically, the navigation scheme is correct. Should this data be left out? Or use plain text parentheses like "(Uqu)" for all above 116?
** Can anything be put into the "group" number for the group elements to avoid creating a separate "groupless" template?
* User:Femto/table electrons electrons per shell, electron configuration (partly included in the working-pages)
** This is one of the data that needs references, get checked once again, and then can be used to create a data page, perhaps electronic configurations of the chemical elements? Help. I think I'm horrible at making up these titles.
** According to the acquisition guide, this was originally taken from http://www.webelements.com/ follow the "Electronic Configuration" link, use the "Ground state electron configuration" and "Shell structure" data
** ...unless somebody can provide a better source that 1. lists the data in a simple to extract table format, and 2. can be cited as a reference? http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/IonEnergy/tblNew.html Included in the working table. I've done my best to check that the 'per shell' numbers match to the configuration data. I saw no point in abbreviating "1s2" to "[He]", and used the numeric orbital order from the website (some were '654' for instance, that didn't change some subtle meaning about energy levels, did it?)
** Still to do: everything above(>99) einsteinium, and those funny Pa/U/Np terms.
** What about the guesses? Maintain the 'based on' info? Whose guess?
* done list of elements by atomic mass (included in the working-pages)
** The atomic masses are given with uncertainties in shorthand form, for instance 1.00794(7) which means the actual value may be with reasonable certainty somewhere between 1.00787 and 1.00801. The previous numbers mostly omitted these parentheses and misrepresented the accuracy.
** Changed Fr/Ra/Pu/Sg/Hs back to mass numbers for lack of easy references. Exact "no stable" isotope masses may be added later.
** Out of curiosity, I traced back the last digit of silver (107.8683) to a vandal edit of 2004-02-25 13:49 UTC. Central reference pages should make it harder for bogus content to slip through unnoticed.
* done atomic radii of the elements (data page) created (included in the working-pages)
** The radius of an atom is not a uniquely defined property and depends on the definition. Data derived from other sources with different assumptions cannot be compared. "No data" templates seem appropriate and ultimate, in this case.
** changes in cov.rad(Pr/Ho/At), vdw.rad(Rb), calc.rad(He/Be/Ar/Sr/Mo), emp.rad(Be/Sr/Gd/Ho)
* done melting points of the elements (data page), boiling points of the elements (data page) created (included in the working-pages)
** I haven't determined a source for the boiling points of astatine, francium, and protactinium  and did question-mark their values.
** All K/°C/°F conversions from WebElements appear OK with rounding errors below ±0.4.
** If I kept track correctly, there'll be changes in the melting points of H/He/Be/C/N/O/F/V/Cr/Mn/Fe/Cu/Ga/Ge/Kr/Xe/Ce/Pr/Pm/Ho/Er/Hg/Bi/Fr/Th/Pa/U and in the boiling points of H/He/Be/C/N/O/F/Ne/Si/S/Cl/Ar/Sc/V/Cr/Mn/Fe/Cu/Ge/Br/Kr/I/Xe/Ba/La/Ce/Nd/Sm/Eu/Gd/Ho/Er/Tm/Yb/Hg/Rn/Ac/U/Pu.
** (old:) We're going to need a bigger hammer with these. Take a look for yourself, these User:Femto/table melting point User:Femto/table boiling point are comparison overviews of melting and boiling points as given by WebElements, the CRC handbook, and what is used in the articles (conveniently aligned below each other by given units). The headings are color-coded, green where all seems well, blue where sources disagree, and red where I'm left with no clue where that data came from (hints welcome).
** Ignore the rounding where my working-data t/°C differs from that in the articles, since it was converted directly from t/K to the nearest degree, for lack of source values.
** Some values are given as triple point (marked "tp") and are not valid at standard pressure. I also left out some allotrope data for As/Bk/C/P/Se/S/Sn from the CRC.
** Unless anybody can provide primary-source data, we'll have to make arbitrary selections between which source is used. Important is that it remains retraceable on a data page.
* done ionization energies of the elements (data page) created. Limited to three entries in the working-pages, with a 'more' link to a separate ionization energies of the elements (created).
** Apart from one or two exceptions and a few omitted decimal-place zeroes, all values from the articles do agree with http://www.webelements.com/.
** The WebElements data seems mainly to be converted from values which are quoted in the CRC, without any apparent conversion errors greater than the proper significant-digit rounding.
** The ionization potential is equal to the ionization energy divided by the charge (of the electron) which is moved through it. Thus, shouldn't the table keys be renamed from "ionization potential" to "ionization energy"?
** Using up to ten table rows, this is quite a space hog in the articles. With 4 energies given for molybdenum but 30 available, I think instead of trying to find a reasonable cutoff number, this should go on a separate page like ionization energies of the elements. The articles themselves would contain, say, only the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd energy, plus a more link.
::Have you used these sources?  I don't know a whole lot about it, but it sure looks to me like your numbers are there, too, and probably at least as reliable as your other sources.
::* NIST Atomic Spectra Database, Version 3.0. http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/ASD/index.html
::*J.E. Sansonetti, W.C. Martin, and S.L. Young (2004), Handbook of Basic Atomic Spectroscopic Data (version 1.1). [Online] Available: http://physics.nist.gov/Handbook [2005, March 25]. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. 
::[today's date put in by their online example of how to cite this] Gene Nygaard 23:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like one of the best references you can get (if you know how to read them). I'm afraid though, my knowledge of anything beyond some very basic definitions of this stuff is as fuzzy as an electron cloud. :( My main objective has been to verify (and make more easily verifiable) the information that gets used in the articles. The most I can do is keeping in mind to add external links when creating a data page, as a starting point for later updates. Femto 12:16, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  references, TODO 

message: Check and correct these tables! They were extracted from the current content of my working-page data. Once corrected, it can be merged back and those entries may finally be considered verified and done.
* User:Femto/table navsys an overview of all the number/left/name/right/above/symbol/below parameters from the header, plus the group/period/block/series (partly included in the working-pages)
** I have previously used the "number", "name", and "symbol" data to build an index, so these should not contain any bad surprises.
** For now, use a simple minus sign "-" for the 'dead ends'.
** What should be done with (dead) links to the non-elements like Uqu etc.? Technically, the navigation scheme is correct. Should this data be left out? Or use plain text parentheses like "(Uqu)" for all above 116?
** Can anything be put into the "group" number for the group elements to avoid creating a separate "groupless" template?
* User:Femto/table electrons electrons per shell, electron configuration (partly included in the working-pages)
** This is one of the data that needs references, get checked once again, and then can be used to create a data page, perhaps electronic configurations of the chemical elements? Help. I think I'm horrible at making up these titles.
** According to the acquisition guide, this was originally taken from http://www.webelements.com/ follow the "Electronic Configuration" link, use the "Ground state electron configuration" and "Shell structure" data
** ...unless somebody can provide a better source that 1. lists the data in a simple to extract table format, and 2. can be cited as a reference? http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/IonEnergy/tblNew.html Included in the working table. I've done my best to check that the 'per shell' numbers match to the configuration data. I saw no point in abbreviating "1s2" to "[He]", and used the numeric orbital order from the website (some were '654' for instance, that didn't change some subtle meaning about energy levels, did it?)
** Still to do: everything above(>99) einsteinium, and those funny Pa/U/Np terms.
** What about the guesses? Maintain the 'based on' info? Whose guess?
* done list of elements by atomic mass (included in the working-pages)
** The atomic masses are given with uncertainties in shorthand form, for instance 1.00794(7) which means the actual value may be with reasonable certainty somewhere between 1.00787 and 1.00801. The previous numbers mostly omitted these parentheses and misrepresented the accuracy.
** Changed Fr/Ra/Pu/Sg/Hs back to mass numbers for lack of easy references. Exact "no stable" isotope masses may be added later.
** Out of curiosity, I traced back the last digit of silver (107.8683) to a vandal edit of 2004-02-25 13:49 UTC. Central reference pages should make it harder for bogus content to slip through unnoticed.
* done atomic radii of the elements (data page) created (included in the working-pages)
** The radius of an atom is not a uniquely defined property and depends on the definition. Data derived from other sources with different assumptions cannot be compared. "No data" templates seem appropriate and ultimate, in this case.
** changes in cov.rad(Pr/Ho/At), vdw.rad(Rb), calc.rad(He/Be/Ar/Sr/Mo), emp.rad(Be/Sr/Gd/Ho)
* done melting points of the elements (data page), boiling points of the elements (data page) created (included in the working-pages)
** I haven't determined a source for the boiling points of astatine, francium, and protactinium  and did question-mark their values.
** All K/°C/°F conversions from WebElements appear OK with rounding errors below ±0.4.
** If I kept track correctly, there'll be changes in the melting points of H/He/Be/C/N/O/F/V/Cr/Mn/Fe/Cu/Ga/Ge/Kr/Xe/Ce/Pr/Pm/Ho/Er/Hg/Bi/Fr/Th/Pa/U and in the boiling points of H/He/Be/C/N/O/F/Ne/Si/S/Cl/Ar/Sc/V/Cr/Mn/Fe/Cu/Ge/Br/Kr/I/Xe/Ba/La/Ce/Nd/Sm/Eu/Gd/Ho/Er/Tm/Yb/Hg/Rn/Ac/U/Pu.
** (old:) We're going to need a bigger hammer with these. Take a look for yourself, these User:Femto/table melting point User:Femto/table boiling point are comparison overviews of melting and boiling points as given by WebElements, the CRC handbook, and what is used in the articles (conveniently aligned below each other by given units). The headings are color-coded, green where all seems well, blue where sources disagree, and red where I'm left with no clue where that data came from (hints welcome).
** Ignore the rounding where my working-data t/°C differs from that in the articles, since it was converted directly from t/K to the nearest degree, for lack of source values.
** Some values are given as triple point (marked "tp") and are not valid at standard pressure. I also left out some allotrope data for As/Bk/C/P/Se/S/Sn from the CRC.
** Unless anybody can provide primary-source data, we'll have to make arbitrary selections between which source is used. Important is that it remains retraceable on a data page.
* done ionization energies of the elements (data page) created. Limited to three entries in the working-pages, with a 'more' link to a separate ionization energies of the elements (created).
** Apart from one or two exceptions and a few omitted decimal-place zeroes, all values from the articles do agree with http://www.webelements.com/.
** The WebElements data seems mainly to be converted from values which are quoted in the CRC, without any apparent conversion errors greater than the proper significant-digit rounding.
** The ionization potential is equal to the ionization energy divided by the charge (of the electron) which is moved through it. Thus, shouldn't the table keys be renamed from "ionization potential" to "ionization energy"?
** Using up to ten table rows, this is quite a space hog in the articles. With 4 energies given for molybdenum but 30 available, I think instead of trying to find a reasonable cutoff number, this should go on a separate page like ionization energies of the elements. The articles themselves would contain, say, only the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd energy, plus a more link.
::Have you used these sources?  I don't know a whole lot about it, but it sure looks to me like your numbers are there, too, and probably at least as reliable as your other sources.
::* NIST Atomic Spectra Database, Version 3.0. http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/ASD/index.html
::*J.E. Sansonetti, W.C. Martin, and S.L. Young (2004), Handbook of Basic Atomic Spectroscopic Data (version 1.1). [Online] Available: http://physics.nist.gov/Handbook [2005, March 25]. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. 
::[today's date put in by their online example of how to cite this] Gene Nygaard 23:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like one of the best references you can get (if you know how to read them). I'm afraid though, my knowledge of anything beyond some very basic definitions of this stuff is as fuzzy as an electron cloud. :( My main objective has been to verify (and make more easily verifiable) the information that gets used in the articles. The most I can do is keeping in mind to add external links when creating a data page, as a starting point for later updates. Femto 12:16, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TODO 

message: elementNAMEleft - elementNAME - elementNAMEright
The infobox would look nicer with a small margin on the left, so that text does not butt right up against it.  Images do this, for example, at least in the monobook skin.  
elementNAMEleft - elementNAME - elementNAMEright
This version of the table has the margin set, so, provided I blather on long enough, you should be able to see the difference. --Andrew 10:45, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
:Last time I counted, about 72 of the element articles already contained some margin attribute in one form or another. I hope to standardize this with the templates. For those without (in general, not only for the elements infoboxes), it would definitely be worthwile to include a style="margin-left:0.5em; margin-bottom:0.5em" in the table attributes. Femto 16:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor infobox formatting 

message: Allmeasures and WebElements
seem to be the references for the velocity of sound p.e. in Krypton and Xenon.
They both state that the Velocity of Sound in Xenon as measured at 20°C or 293.15 K is 1090 m/s and in Krypton at the same values 1120 m/s (look for yourself)
This is clearly wrong. We (Projektpraktikum at the University of Constance) have at the moment a gas bottle with guaranteed 99.997 % pure Krypton in the lab, and measuring the speed of sound at 23°C (room temperature) using resonance in a closed tube we get (220 \pm 1) m/s.
For those of you who rather believe established sources, see for example this Article from BBC. It doesn't state the exact velocity, but gives a general sense of the value to expect.
I haven't found the value in various books at the University Library, so I just put in our value (for Krypton) which is as good as any and deleted the value for Xenon. We can't let a value off more than 500% stand! (134.34.144.57)
:WebElements has a nasty habit of claiming to use certain conditions on one page, but then using values for a different state on another page. Those values may be the speed of sound for the solid phase for all we know, or they are indeed just plain wrong. (The value was still there for the xenon article. Pressed 'preview' instead of 'save page'? Anyway, it's removed now too.) If you have some time, maybe take a look at the dreadfully under-referenced speeds of sound of the elements (data page) and see if you can provide a few values from authoritative references. Femto 15:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is good! Just make sure to also include any stated conditions where possible. (Hours in the science library...I wish I had had so much fun in school. Simply add four tildes ~~~~ to automatically sign a post.) Femto 17:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Velocity of sound in Krypton and Xenon very wrong