Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 5

message: I don't know if this has been considered before, but is it possible to have some indicative price per unit information in the general section of the infobox, perhaps with "updated on" and link to live source -- it would be very helpful for us "back-of-the-envelope" types!
(I should also say that I'm very impressed with what's been done here over such a short time.) (217.33.130.66)
:I think the infobox itself hasn't enough room for this type of information, you'd want at least one or two full sentences here, to specify the purity or to indicate a trend for example. I've expanded the article structure guidelines on the project page, regarding the placement of price information usually into the Occurrence section. Femto 15:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Approximate Price/cost information? 

message: An editor added "Gas density at 293K" to the table in the Helium article. --metta, The Sunborn 3 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)
:Undoubtedly, the densities for gases would make a valuable addition. The problem is, the data that exists in the articles (or existed if I removed it in a conversion) is of unknown or dubious origin and/or doesn't specify all conditions (we definitely shouldn't rely on those STP footer notes here). The little data that is collected at densities of the elements (data page)#Density, gas phase can't be exactly called reliable or consistent, so I left it out for now. All gas values would be most useful if given for the normal density at 273.15 K and 101.325 kPa, the standard condition for calculations with gases. As an appropriate entry row template I'd suggest:
:*  — includes unit gram per litre; condition standard temperature and pressure
:First, however, we should have the data (directly from an authoritative source or at least 'as calculated' by some authority, or from a reasonably current textbook). Anybody? The 'big' data collections such as the CRC apparently expect you to be able to put some coefficients into a state equation and derive the values for any desired conditions. You hardly would want to cite my math skills as a source though. I see the recent helium edit also didn't include a source (and at 20 °C it should be more like 0.166 g/L if I'm not mistaken?) Femto 3 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)
::It appears that the editor also just did hydrogen too. I will note his talk page to here. --metta, The Sunborn 3 July 2005 23:34 (UTC)
: Hello folks! I'm the guy who did the "gas density" edits on hydrogen and helium. My source is www.chemicool.com, which appears to be a reliable source. Hope you find this website useful. --Fredrik Orderud 4 July 2005 21:53 (UTC)
::Hm, those values seem to be correct, but for 0 °C, I'm pretty sure they're misquoted at 293 K. It's worth noting that several periodic table sites on the web copied this data without further questioning its origin or comparing it to other sources—I think Wikipedia can and should be better. I've expanded the data page with some data from an old physics handbook as another orientation point, but I think we can't yet be confident enough to give definite recommendations. I'm leaving the values at hydrogen and helium, only edited for 0 °C, since they're certainly within the ballpark, but the search for the ultimate source continues. Femto 5 July 2005 12:56 (UTC)
:The CRC Handbook gives virial coefficients for the majority of gaseous elements, from which we can calculate densities without having to assume ideal behaviour. Which unit do you prefer to use, g/L, g/dm3 or kg/m3: I ask because we're having a discussion on units at WP:Chem and it would be sensible to be consistent! Physchim62 7 July 2005 09:19 (UTC)
::If by "we can calculate" you mean that "you can calculate" the densities from coefficients cited in the CRC, and show your work without ridiculing yourself, by all means do! The preference should be g/cm³ for condensed phase densities and g/L for gases, which seem to be used by the majority of references. g/dm³ would also work, but has more letters, and might get confused with g/cm³. It makes sense to keep the gram for easy calculations involving the atomic mass. kg/m³ has the problem with final zeros of indeterminable significance for non-gases. Femto 7 July 2005 12:09 (UTC)
:By "we" I mean "anyone who thinks it's worth doing". I will be unable to get round to it before August. I agree entirely with the comment about non-significant figures for the densities of condensed phases in kg/m3: note that the same problem applies if you quote properties at 298.15 K and 101.325 kPa (rather than 298 K and 100 kPa). Physchim62 8 July 2005 10:14 (UTC)
::Aw. I tried to keep close to the sources, and hopefully avoided any 'upwards-inflated' conversions. This is by the way the reason why the infobox uses a mix of (round) °C and K conditions. Femto 9 July 2005 10:06 (UTC)
The following molar volumes and densities for the majority of the gaseous elements were calculated from the van der Waals equation of state, using the quoted values of the van der Waals constants. The source for the van der Waals constants and for the literature densities was: R. C. Weast (Ed.), Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (53rd Edn.), Cleveland:Chemical Rubber Co., 1972.
   	van der Waals constants	van der Waals constants	25°C, 100.0 kPa	25°C, 100.0 kPa	0°C, 1 atm	0°C, 1 atm	lit.
   	a (L2bar/mol2)         	b (L/mol)              	Vm (L)             	d (g/L)            	Vm (L)        	d (g/L)       	d (g/L)
Argon   	1.363                  	0.03219                	24.77              	1.613              	22.39         	1.784         	1.7837
Chlorine	6.579                  	0.05622                	25.11              	2.824              	22.75         	3.116         	3.214
Fluorine	not available          	not available          	not available      	not available      	not available 	not available 	1.696
Helium  	0.03457                	0.02370                	24.81              	0.1613             	22.44         	0.1786        	0.1785 (0°C, 1 atm)
Hydrogen	0.2476                 	0.02661                	24.81              	0.08127            	22.43         	0.08988       	0.08988
Krypton 	2.349                  	0.03978                	24.73              	3.388              	22.35         	3.749         	3.733 (0°C)
Neon    	0.2135                 	0.01709                	24.80              	0.8139             	22.42         	0.9002        	0.89990 (0°C, 1 atm)
Nitrogen	1.408                  	0.03913                	24.77              	1.131              	22.39         	1.251         	1.2506
Oxygen  	1.378                  	0.03183                	24.77              	1.292              	22.39         	1.429         	1.429 (0°C)
Radon   	not available          	not available          	not available      	not available      	not available 	not available 	9.73
Xenon   	4.250                  	0.05105                	24.69              	5.323              	22.28         	5.894         	5.88
Physchim62 21:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I included it with the data page, chose the appropriate recommended values (with exception of F and Rn, and a rounded Cl which still seems a bit sketchy), created , and added entries to the articles. Femto 14:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: approx. 9 g/L is probably about as close as we're going to get for radon. I had a look at it using estimated van der Waals constants, and I think 9.73 is too high for NTP: maybe an error from extrapolation of the measurements? There must be a measured density for fluorine out there somewhere, maybe from Air Products? I'll have a look when I get the chance. Physchim62 22:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Density of fluorine: 1.59 g/L (1 atm, 15 °C) from Air Liquide, 0.0983 lb/ft3 (1 atm, 70 °F) from Air Products. Physchim62 12:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Reducing that to STP, I get 1.677 g/L respectively 1.696 g/L. The latter suspiciously looks like the CRC value from above, converted back and forth, but it's a confirmation nevertheless. Seems safe enough to add a rounded 1.7 g/L to the data page and article. Femto 14:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gas densities, other row needed? 

message: :Category:Inorganic compounds has been tidied up so that there is a category for every element (at least, every element for which we have at least one compound article, which is now most of them). Editors might like to consider linking to the appropriate category (eg, :Category:Sodium compounds) rather than trying to compile a list of compounds which would need a lot of maintenance. Physchim62 7 July 2005 09:19 (UTC)
:This should be included into the article structure guidelines on this project page, under the Compounds heading, as a link similar to those Main article: summaries. We need to settle on a unified wording, "See :category:sodium compounds for a list of compounds." or something like that? Femto 7 July 2005 12:12 (UTC) (Added such note. Femto 15:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compounds 

message: Many of the various periodic tables and some other pages that contain partial periodic tables (most of which seem to be accessible through Template:PeriodicTablesFooter) need to be converted to pipe syntax. I've already wikified the tables on Poor metal, Group 9 element, Group 10 element and Group 12 element. This task should be taken on by someone who already knows the pipe syntax and style commands pretty well. Please check out the aforementioned tables to see how I'm doing it and to get ideas for how to specify alignment and color efficiently (hint: you usually don't need to put them in every single cell). - dcljr (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have started introducing the template  (see example to the right) in periodic tables and in articles on periodic table groups. Wikification of tables may well be combined with introduction of the template. For some examples of use and further discussion, see the halogens, periodic table (standard), the template talk, and discussion below. --Eddi (Talk) 02:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Periodic tables need wikification 

message: Somebody added thermal diffusivity infobox entries at carbon and silver. An appropriate template was also created, but unless there are going to be more entries of this type, I think for just two of them it's overkill and could be handled by regular table rows. There was no reference given, but the values are apparently calculated from (atomic mass / density) × (molar thermal conductivity / molar heat capacity). Similar to the molar volume entries—which have been removed since they can be derived from existing, more reliable values of atomic mass and density—is there a real need for them? Is this a commonly preferred unit in mineralogy or something? Femto 14:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thermal diffusivity 

message: The website EnvironmentalChemistry.com prohibits access for people using the Opera web browser, on the grounds that some copies of Opera are supported by ads.  This is against the Wikipedia:External links policy, so links to this website should be removed. --Carnildo 05:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem was known (see #Dodgy links above) but nobody wanted to do the dirty work. (thanks!) None left in elements 1-118 if I kept track correctly, or duly marked where used as a true reference. Also removed those with a generic "also used as a reference" note (which date back to when the first data was initially collected and are quite obsolete). Femto 16:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: EnvironmentalChemistry.com

message: I would like to propose changing the standard first sentance for element articles.  Currently, it is: 
"Element Name is the chemical element in the periodic table with the symbol symbol and atomic number ##.", with any description of the element included in later sentences.  I would propose changing this to: "
ElementName(symbol) is a ElementDescription.  Its atomic number is ##."  ElementDescription would be something like "silvery and ductile member of the poor metal group of elements"(from Aluminium).
I believe that this would be more informative to general readers; the atomic number is also listed at the top of the elementbox, which makes it's inclusion in the first sentence not so important.  I've changed Aluminium to fit my suggestion; feel free to revert or leave it until the discussion is finished as you will.) Thanks for all your work! JesseW 03:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was unaware that there was a standard first line, if there is I would enforce it. However, as per your consideration, the main thing I see right now is the use of brackets. Good writing never includes brackets. Where a bracket might be of actual use a comma would do. In your case it is just lazy prose. --metta, The Sunborn 05:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "use of brackets" - huh?  Do you mean including the symbol as "(symbol)"? If that is what you were referring to, the objection "lazy prose" doesn't explain what's wrong, or provide any suggestion as to an alternative.  I suppose, if you really hate parentheses (the term brackets usually refers to [these marks]), it could be rephrased as "ElementName is a ElementDescription.  Its symbol is symbol and its atomic number is ##.", but that strikes me as unnecessarily verbose.  But I basically don't care.  What I do care about is putting the ElementDescription in the first sentence.  What do you think about that part of the proposal? JesseW 07:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

text: The opening sentences were introduced at the beginning of this project by User:maveric149 et al. with the main template that was used to create the new article structures. There wasn't an atomic number in the corner of the infoboxes then, so this sentence indeed may be due for a rewrite. Whatever is going to be the result, it should be the same for all elements. Currently some say "is a chemical element", others have been changed to "is the chemical element". The difference between the articles is confusing, and having both makes neither version look quite right. Femto 17:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you prefer the description first(is a) or the atomic number first(is the) version?  As I said above, I prefer the description first one. JesseW 00:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Personally I don't care as long as it is professional (ie no parentheses). If you think a description is nessisary go for it. --metta, The Sunborn 01:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since nobody has opposed this, or commented since July 29th, I'm going to change the guideline on the page.  Feel free to object, or revert, or alter it, if you don't like it.   Hope this is useful. JesseW 23:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing standard first sentence... 

message: If anyone wants Electron shell diagrams then I have made diagrams for them all here: commons:Category:Electron_shell_diagrams (just finished uploading them). There is an A0 poster type table, but it's proving a pain to export in a decent resolution as yet. So far all I have managed to do is make GIMP use 1.5 GB of swap file! Greg Robson 20:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I still maintain this kind of image conveys very little true information, especially considering the space used. Femto 09:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially considering the quantum model that is acutually used today. These lewis diagrams are meaningless next to what we believe to be going on inside an atom today. --metta, The Sunborn 17:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I realise that too. But quantum mechanics doesn't fit in with GCSE science too well (unless we devoted a lot more time to the subject!). It's useful for some aspects (reactions) of the lower ranked atoms. At least I got some familiarity with Inkscape. Greg Robson 21:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

text: They're very nice diagrams, but probably more use to the people on WikiBooks than here. Still, it's good to know they're around. After all, we have an article on the octet rule, which applies to precisely four elements... Physchim62 22:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electron Shell Diagrams 

message: This is regarding my reversion of the recent edits to the infobox templates. They caused the inner borders to disappear completely under Opera 8.5, which I don't think was the desired result. If it was, this makes the isotope table quite impossible to read and the multilined cells require vertical align attributes. Unquoted attributes are also only allowed transitionally, and removing the quotes was a step backwards, I believe.
There have been earlier attempts to improve the coding of Template:Elementbox header and I can see the need for it. But it should be made sure first on this project page that the infobox renders as intended before the live templates are modified. Different browsers show different inheritance of the border attributes for example. Currently on my system, the standard beveled border renders acceptable under Opera, rather heavy under Firefox, and a sick dirty beige under IE5.5SP2 (sue me).
So, how should the Elementbox be styled? (And how would the coding be achieved?) Beveled borders, thin solid borders, one outer border with flat colored panels and spaces inbetween? Perhaps assign a class from a predefined Wikipedia style sheet. The mix of old named attributes and new inline styles should go. Can we get rid of the padding around the vaporpressure and isotope tables? Everyone's happy with the font sizes? How bad or good does the box look on your system anyway? Femto 12:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I should probably mention here the recent changes by User:Locke Cole. Apart from minor aesthetics, they look good in the browsers I tested, and thus are likely to stay. Any discussions or further insights from HTML experts are welcome. Femto 14:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox coding 

message: from Talk:Francium Shouldn't the left arrow link in the template go to element number 86 rather than nothing?  It seems that the current interpretation of what the arrow links means is too literal and doesn't take into account that every element ought to link to the elements with one more and one less proton than it.  Otherwise how are you to traverse all of the elements in a row when you can't wrap around edges?  --Cyde 06:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on whether one considers the table to wrap around; if it does, the concept of distinct rows/periods is somewhat weakened. Personally I seldom use those links, and last time would have had use for a francium←radon link when reverting an anon user who quite draggingly changed some pages in this manner, though this also means you're not the only one. Either way with me, as long as the whole system is kept consistent. Femto 12:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As it is there is no good way to browse all of the elements one after another by following simple navigation links.  That's my main problem with the current organization.  If you want to make the left/right arrows different for wrapping around the table (to emphasize periodicity), then go right ahead.  But I think it should at least be possible.  --Cyde 02:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, no, I think that if the table wraps, it should be by atomic number, however the resulting steps at the edges would essentially put all periods on the same logical row. Which seems about the only reason why there are no traversal links, and I can't judge how trivial this is compared with having no links at all. Just make those changes more quickly than over the course of several days like when it was attempted last time. Femto 14:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left/right navigation links 

message: I just noticed that none of the folks here seem to have ever visited Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics, so I invite everyone over. linas 03:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, it's now on my watchlist, but I don't promise anything. :) Femto 11:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics]] 

message: I just thought I let you guys know an idea I thought of: how about a set of links to every element with each element in it's own box (see the bottom of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season; you can use your established color scheme). Format these into the shape of the Periodic table, and each box is a link to the aprropriate element and displayes the chemical symbol. You could also include links to all of the "isotopes of x", but that has a separate WikiProject. I just though I'd bring that up; I stink at HTML, just so you know.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 01:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you thinking of additions to the articles periodic table, periodic table (detailed), etc., or a new article, or something? The hurricane legend gives popup titles when hovering over the different colours, which could be added to the existing articles, whereas new information like isotopes probably requires a new article. --Eddi (Talk) 02:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: For a periodic table with links to Isotopes of X as well as the article X for each element X, plus popup titles with chemical series, occurrence, and physical state (e.g. Halogens; Primordial; Gas), see User:Eddideigel/Periodic test. The data behind the table includes atomic number, element name, chemical symbol, atomic mass, physical state, chemical series, and occurrence — all data copied from Periodic table (large version). The layout of the table can be changed easily by exchanging all occurrences of  with another template, but leave the data intact. Any comments regarding layout and usefulness are welcome here, or at Talk:Periodic table, or the talk page of the test table. --Eddi (Talk) 14:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Guilty on the expansion charge. But as you can see it is also the beginning of a vast simplification – basically the same code can be used for most of the periodic tables, only changing the template. If only template names could be used as template arguments (or can they?), it would suffice to update element data in one file and let the umpteen templates handle the rest. I'll do some testing of template nesting and see if it works. BTW, I'm not all that involved in the project, so I could need some advice regarding announcement. --Eddi (Talk) 20:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh nothing fancy, just a section with a quick mention of its existence as a way of displaying these cells, an example usage, maybe outline the parameters. Similar in style to the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements#Color standard. Femto 22:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Goody. Femto 15:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: After some thought I have put together a few pages to test the idea of "one file – umpteen templates". The master file with all the data is User:Eddideigel/Periodic master, which takes the name of an element cell template as parameter and renders the data accordingly. The template defaults to  as in Periodic table (standard), so the table shows up even without the parameter. The client that transcludes the master is User:Eddideigel/Periodic client, which currently uses  as in Periodic table (large version). Feel free to modify the client file and see how it works, or browse through its revision history. This kind of transclusion is possible in several of the periodic table variants, and I still think such a master file would be useful. --Eddi (Talk) 05:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Periodic table navigation box? 

message: The recent change to Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements#Color standard is at variance with what's currently in use for the infobox headings. However, what's in use for the periodic tables also has some considerable weight. Two 'standards', one of them must die. What now? Femto 15:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gas/Liquid/Solid color standard 

message: The periodic table article makes use of the template , which contains the actual table plus explanation of colours and frame styles. The template doesn't add any template functionality and is only used in that article, so it doesn't seem to reduce repeated markup, just moves it out of the article. Is such a template warranted? --Eddi (Talk) 03:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Transclusion within the article namespace seems unusual. However periodic table is better off without additional code, and periodic table (standard) is rather a foldout chart never meant to have independent content anyway, this may just be the exception that proves the rule. One page fewer to maintain, and easier to find for potential editors than a template (especially if one includes it with something like  ). Makes sense to me. Femto 13:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never thought about adding a comment – good to have other people around. :)   I have modified the standard table with <noinclude>s and harmonisation of notes, and transcluded it to the bigger article. The smaller article takes an optional parameter with styles for the table, e.g. width:80%. I have reverted the transclusion awaiting review of consistency, but it can easily be restored. --Eddi (Talk) 00:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, the periodic table template has a history</span> that may be worth noticing. If it is proposed for deletion, we ought to consider whether its history should first be merged with one of the other articles' histories. --Eddi (Talk) 03:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: "Awaiting review of consistency" - No one complained, what exactly are you waiting for? Femto 14:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one complained because no substantial changes had been made at the time. Subsequently I made some changes that I wasn't completely sure of. Doing this in the low-profiled periodic table (standard) allowed for timely review. Now it can be placed in the high-profiled periodic table. --Eddi (Talk) 20:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep or delete Template Periodic table 

message: Template:Periodic table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. Thank you.
--Eddi (Talk) 02:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The result of the debate was DELETE. The template's talk page was preserved in Talk:Periodic table (standard). --Eddi (Talk) 10:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:Periodic table 

message: The templates in the project should be substituted, because that will reduce the load on the servers and for other reasons. It is also not clearly on the list WP:SUBST#Templates_that_should_NOT_be_subst.27d. Polonium 21:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither are they on the list of "Templates that should be subst'd", that can't be the only reason. Moreover, there also are "Reasons not to substitute". The ease of changing and maintaining a standardized appearance clearly has precedence over server load in this case. Those subst's have to be reverted. Femto 22:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and will fix what I can. --mav 03:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substitute 

message: The Uranium trioxide GAS also found its way into the uranium page! As combustion product! The edit war and dispute is long and hard so please have also a look on the topic as it enters your teritory. The Precautions was moved to place two because its more important than any thing else, even with the toxic Berylium and Plutonium its place 6 or 8. So lets add the stuff when the dispute is solved not when several chemists, which have read the literature provided, doubt the importance of the topic, and the conclusions drawn from the literature.--Stone 09:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uranium

message: Why aren't the valencies of an element mentioned in the infobox? Isn't that a very important chemical property?Loom91 16:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you take a look at valency (chemistry) you'll see that for various reasons it's somewhat deprecated as a useful property these days.  But that article does have a little coloured-in periodic table at the bottom showing valences.  The infoboxes do have oxidation numbers, which are a more robust variant of the concept. --Bth 07:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But a wikipedia is a general reference work, not solely for experts. Valency is a concept taught in highschool chemistry and many people will look up an article on an element to find out its valency for use in calculations. Not many will look for it under oxidation numbers. Wikipedia should be accessible to a general population. Loom91 07:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is, the concept that was taught in your school may not be the same that was taught in my school. What Bth said. The wider concept of a list of common oxidation numbers seems more useful. Those who still miss valency may look up its article, and be provided with better information than from a disconnected infobox value alone. Femto 12:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really want us to list chlorine with a valency of five or bromine with a valency of seven? Placing valencies in the infobox would either be misleading or incorrect! (I sould state an interest—I wrote the current version of valency (chemistry) to keep it in line with the IUPAC definition) Physchim62 (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But should we really completely sacrifice informativeness for the sake of technical accuracy? Loom91 17:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Inaccurate information is worse than uninformative! Physchim62 (talk) 09:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not when that information is accurate enough in some contexts, such as high-school chemistry. Loom91 13:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valency in infobox 

message: When dealing with toxic elements such as chlorine, mercury, lead and other toxic or dangerous metals, the health concerns and precautions should be prominent in the article. In the case of lead, for instance, the dangers of lead dust from old paint and dust for young children is quite well established but too little known. Michael Glass 13:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Health Concerns

message: The current Good article Collaboration of the Week is .Please help to improve this article to the highest of standards.
Thought I'd let you guys know.--HereToHelp 21:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chlorine up for GA COTW

message: Just FYI, the elementboxes' magin seems wrong, there should not be a right margin, but a left one.
Spiff 15:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. There appears to be a default margin in the wikitable class. Replaced "margin-left:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" with "margin:0 0 0.5em 0.5em" in the table header. Does it work as intended? Femto 18:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elementbox width