Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 3

message: I named the propperty, whether an element ist paramagnetic, ferromagnetic, etc. as Magnetic ordering, because that's the term, that sounds more familiarly to me. But as I'm no native speaker I might be wrong. In scientific papers, as well as the Wikipedia itself (see: User:SteffenB/Magnetic_Ordering), I came across the use of magnetic order as well es magnetic ordering In the template, of coruse, should be used the propper term. This also applies to the name of the appropriate article (that not exists yet). As a temporary solution I created Magnetic ordering and redirected it to Magnetism (unless the page is filled with content) in order not to point to a non-existing page in the template. 
So, which one is the propper term? --SteffenB 16:06, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno.  I agree with you that "magnetic ordering" does sound more natural.  Googlefighting doesn't help -- they both get about 20,000, equally valid looking, and there are loads that use both.  I vote for "magnetic ordering", pending someone providing a definitive source. --Bth 22:35, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: familiar, property, proper, clarity lysdexia 02:11, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnetic Ordering vs. Magnetic Order 

message: Above, mav asks, "What more do you want?"  (Note that I added a couple of comments there as well as this new section.)  Let me go into that in more detail, while also explaining that part of my attitude deals with various other problems in articles on chemical compounds and the like, which though they have similarities with the articles on elements, weren't worked on by exactly the same group of people in the same project.
#In that #question section, I asked for things like 25 °C rather than 298.15 K in the speed of sound figures.
#I am also the one who started the #Unit symbols section dealing with the use of the middot rather than asterisks in symbols for units.
#I am also the one who started the #More ugly, incorrect entries: Electrical conductivity section dealing with the nonuse of siemens per meter.
#In conjuntion with them, and more explicitly here now, I strongly support the use of SI prefixes rather than scientific notation in the tables.
# In #Density Questions, Jerzy raised a good point about the invariant use of kg/m³ for density, a point which whizzed right over your head—or else it merely exposed a woefully inadequate understanding of what the SI is on your part.  The point is that using SI does not mean you are stuck with using only the base units.  Kilograms per cubic meter work fine for gases, as Jerzy pointed out.  However, there are many ways in which you could better express the densities of liquids and solids in units equal to 1000 kg/m², viz.:  Mg/m³ and kg/dm³ and g/cm³ are fully within SI.  If you also include units in the table of units acceptable for use with SI, other possibilities are t/m³, kg/L, and g/mL.  Doing so will avoid the current plethora of figures with final zeros of indeterminate significance.
#You have, in your reply to me above and elsewhere, exhibited a mistaken belief that degrees Celsius are not SI units of temperature.
#On the other hand, exhibited exactly the opposite problem with respect to several other units.  There are numerous problems with the statement at the bottom of the tables that "SI units ... are used except where noted".  Note that to me, the act of "noting" this fact requires more than the use of symbols for units which are not a part of the International System of Units.  Readers aren't always going to know whether or not those units are part of SI.
##There are no "amu" in SI.  Yes, the "unified atomic mass unit" is listed among the units acceptable for use with SI.  But it is acceptable with the specified symbol, and only with that specified symbol, "u".  Not "amu".  As NIST says in its style guide, "The only allowed name is 'unified atomic mass unit' and the only allowed symbol is u."  Besides, those atomic weights can easily be expressed in SI units as grams per mole, g/mol, avoiding the need to use non-SI units in this context.
##There are no "electronvolts" in SI.  They are, at least in some lists, acceptable for use with SI—but in a different category than units such as degrees of arc, liters, and metric tons.  These units are accepted for use in specialized fields.  When they are used outside those fields, such as WIkipedia, they should be explained and should include SI conversions.
##There are no "bars" in SI.  Those units not only don't fit in with SI, but they did not fit in with the various cgs predecessors of SI, either.  The cgs unit of pressure is the barye. Bars are only on the list of units "temporarily" or "currently" accepted for use with SI, and some style guides say their use should now be limited to meteorology.
Don't take this as the limit of "what more" I'm looking for.  I'm just getting tired of it for now.   I didn't even get into the STP stuff, for example. Gene Nygaard 02:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What else do I want? 

message: I got this on my personal talk page, but don't have time to take care of it, so... maybe someone else want to give it a go? :) "Schneelocke, there seems to be a mistake in some element's table images in wich the number of neutrons are not those of the most abundant naturally occurring isotope (is one more); see copper, nickel, zinc and maybe other elements. Guillermo 14:52, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table images 

message: Now that all pages for the elements are updated and extended to the new standard format, how about starting to provide more detailed information for the various isotopes? We could put up an extra article for each element ("Isotopes of Helium" etc.) which would then be linked under the "Isotopes" heading in the element's article (à la "Main article: Isotopes of Helium"); that article would then contain a complete list of all known isotopes (as opposed to the list on the Element page, which only lists the most important ones), provides basic information and links to the individual pages (we already have Helium-3, for example, and there are probably others, too).
The two steps required to get from the element page to a specific isotope page don't seem optimal to me, but I don't see how it could be done without bloating the main element's article (especially for elements with many isotopes), and for what it's worth, it seems to work well enough for the planets and their moons, too (for example, see Saturn (planet) and Saturn's natural satellites). 
I haven't thought about the individual isotopes' pages' layout yet, but something similar to what we have for the elements would surely be nice - a table floating at the right listing all known properties (with the table colour indicating the half-life / short-livedness of the isotope, maybe?), and a number of "standard" headings that each isotope should have (which these should be will have to be determined). 
There probably needs to be some more brainstorming and discussion before I'll start working on this, but I'm curious to hear what  everyone thinks. ^_^ -- Schnee 18:29, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been my un-written plan all along. --mav 21:48, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to hear. :) What do you think about what I proposed? -- Schnee 00:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isotopes 

message: Are there any plans to convert this template to proper wiki-style infobox template? If not, what do you think of this idea? --romanm (talk) 21:08, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good idea, but I don't know how to do that. :( --mav 21:47, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templated infobox table 

message: There appears to be an inconsistency at present, see Talk:Transition metal. Or am I missing something? Andrewa 22:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: They both are. -- Schnee 22:24, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not according to the current article, which states: Not all d block elements are transition metals. Scandium and zinc don't qualify, due to the chemical definition given above. Scandium has one electron in its d subshell, and 2 electrons in its outer s orbital. As scandium's only ion (Sc3+) has no electrons in its d orbital it is clear that it doesn't have a 'partially filled d orbital'. Similarly, zinc is not applicable because its only ion, Zn2+, has a full d orbital. That's what prompted the query. See Talk:Transition metal. Andrewa 11:02, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are scandium and zinc transition elements? 

message: Halogens are greenish more than yellowish.  Cyan is not blue, or light blue, and the sky is neither. lysdexia 02:11, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OKay.. The colors are an arbitrary way to signify periodic series - that's all. Those colors do not represent the color of the elements. --mav 03:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: disputed

message: The infobox formerly used on helium has been changed in order to accord with the inferior box here, which I think inappropriate. The infobox formerly used, which used two shades of colors to distinguish between main headings (e.g.: "General") and the description for each entry (e.g.: "Atomic weight"), which is helpful as the description and the data are on the same level and are not distinguished, and especially so for the isotope box, which is even less clear. Also, the STP note at the bottom is, in the unnecessary interest of space, far too abbreviated for a general encyclopedia. - Centrx 20:58, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox template 

message: I transfered some of the table images to commons already, however I noticed that the unscaled version isn't available for many elements - actually it seems to be only existing till Sodium. I hope those who created the table images originally still have the unscaled version, so they can be added to :commons:Periodic table. andy 19:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transfering the table images to commons 

message: Hi everyone, since we're now running on MediaWiki 1.4, which lifts several annoying restrictions on the use of templates, I created a set of templates that can be used to format the infoboxes in each element's article. Examples can be seen at :Template:Lead infobox (live at Lead) and :Template:Unquadunium infobox (live at Unquadunium) so far; the advantages are:
# Streamlines infobox layout/markup
# Removes duplication of markup
# Allows editing of infobox layout to take place in a central place and affect all elements at once
# Focuses on logical rather than physical formatting
# Allows easier editing of infoboxen for newbies unfamiliar with wikitable syntax (hopefully!)
# Allows easier editing of elements' articles for newbies by moving confusing table code into a separate template
# Increased coolness / geekiness factor :)
The templates themselves should be easy and straightforward to use; see :Template:Unquadunium infobox for a short and :Template:Lead infobox for a longer example. Suggestions etc. welcome, of course. :) -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone)  03:00, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template conversion for infoboxes