Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements

Archives: Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Article alerts

Good article reassessments

30 Nov 2024 – Boron (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c); see discussion
19 Nov 2024 – Actinide (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c) was closed; see discussion
03 Nov 2024 – Group 5 element (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Requested moves

19 Nov 2024 – Heavy metal element (talk · edit · hist) move request to Heavy metal (chemistry) by Mdewman6 (t · c) was moved to Heavy metals (talk · edit · hist); see discussion

Updated daily by AAlertBot — Discuss? / Report bug? / Request feature?
Click to watch (Subscribe via

RSS

Atom) · Find Article Alerts for other topics!

‹ The template below (Articles by Quality) is being considered for merging with Category class. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

FA	A	GA	B	C	Start	Stub	FL	List	Category	Disambig	Draft	File	Portal	Project	Redirect	Template	NA	???	Total
29	0	96	103	127	96	34	0	172	14	1	0	104	0	20	979	172	2,035	0	3,982

TrophyBox

New implementation of Template:List of oxidation states of the elements

I pushed a new set of templates for oxidation state data. The content of List of oxidation states of the elements is now derived from {{Element-symbol-to-oxidation-state-data}}. The references in this content were copied out of Template:Infobox element/symbol-to-oxidation-state. That template will be replaced shortly with one based on the new data set. At that point both presentations of the oxidation state data will be based on the same data. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great! The List-of... table has a few bugs in the Notes column:

~~Elements 42–44 are throwing red error messages~~
Seems to have cured itself...maybe when I purged.
Element 54 has text other than refs (should be a <ref>...</ref>?).
Element 104 has some visible parentheses.
Element 104 has an unresolved named-ref "Haire".

DMacks (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not spend a lot of time on the high elements numbers with predicted oxidation states. I'm just guessing, but the predicted oxidation states are likely to be one result in one primary publication. I think mostly these would be better handled in the article text to explain the concept of the prediction. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by the /sandbox usage. I copied the existing {{Infobox_element}} into {{Infobox_element/sandbox}} and changed the sandbox version to call the new backend processing. Then I copied {{Infobox iron}} into {{Infobox iron/sandbox}} into {{Infobox iron/sandbox}} and changed the first line to call {{Infobox_element/sandbox}}. But I get inconsistent results. I seems to have taken my first change but after that my changes seem to have no effect?? Johnjbarton (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it sticky-headers. Not related to the current back-end overhaul, but useful for readers for a long table regardless of how the table is generated. DMacks (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox iron/sandbox}} has an example of the new code driving an element infobox. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated {{tl:Infobox element}} to use the new backend. Please let me know of problems. Two I know about:

Most elements have unsourced oxidation states which show up as lots of ? linked to WP:citation needed. We could agree to delete them instead. Or reference them. I guess review sources on individual elements would be good sources.
The hypothetical elements beyond 112 are not correctly listed. I was unsure what should be done.

Johnjbarton (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elements from Nh to Ubh are all correctly displayed now. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This change has broken references for at least a few articles. Is there a fix planned? Why weren't the changes adequately tested to prevent that? For an example, see Nihonium, which has more than two dozen undefined reference errors. <ref name="Haire"> was previously defined by invoking {{infobox nihonium}}, but this recent edit by Johnjbarton changes the inclusions to a template that no longer provides those references. Now, they're undefined. Roentgenium has similar damage. Also, Seaborgium, Ruthenium, Meitnerium, Moscovium, ... -- mikeblas (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tested the changes as well I could. The way the system works certain kinds of issues can't be tested without deploying only then if someone notices the problem as you have done. (Thanks!)

References in particular are nasty business in this system so we have to work around issues. If the refs are defined in the oxidation state data they may duplicate those in the article; if not they may be missing. The only solution for refs needed in both places is to add the definition to the reflist ref= parameter in the References article and use <ref name="Haire"/> in the oxidation state data.

I could not find the definition of Hoffman-2006 in the old implementation. I believe it is the same as the one weirdly named "Haire":

Hoffman, Darleane C.; Lee, Diana M.; Pershina, Valeria (2006). "Transactinides and the future elements". In Morss; Edelstein, Norman M.; Fuger, Jean (eds.). The Chemistry of the Actinide and Transactinide Elements (3rd ed.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media. ISBN 978-1-4020-3555-5.

I think we should change the ref name. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the ones you listed. Let me know if you find others. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes! But there are at least a few others: Darmstadtium, Bohrium, Copernicium, Unbibium, Flerovium, Hassium, Livermorium, Roentgenium, Ununennium, ... maybe there are more. You can look through Category:Pages with broken reference names to see if you can spot more.

{{infobox element}} previously invoked {{Infobox element/symbol-to-oxidation-state}}, which provided several citations, including "Haire". But a recent change to {{infobox element}} has it now invoking {{Element-symbol-to-oxidation-state-data}}. But that new template no longer defines "Haire", and some of the other citations. Am I missing something, or wasn't it foreseeable that this change would cause errors, since the expected citations would no longer be produced? In all of the cases, the article is decorated with a visible error message about the undefined reference(s). -- mikeblas (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The new scheme is also used for the List of oxidation states of the elements which appears in Oxidation state. If every element in your list includes a def for "Haire" then Oxidation state will have that many duplicate definitions. So the oxidation state data should not have defs, only refs and the defs should be in the articles. Including defs in the oxidation state data is also error prone because editors of the element pages will have to work hard to find the ref def.

Was it foreseeable that some refs would be messed up? Maybe if I was smarter.

Personally I think we should not be presenting oxidation states for these elements: they never form oxides. But the fix up is easy enough I work on it. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the expectation was that articles would define references that were previously made by templates, then it seems like almost any article using the template would need to be examined. That's a pretty risky change.

Goin' forward, tho, I'm no kind of chemist past twelfth grade, so I can't say anything about the propriety of oxidation states in the articles.

There's a couple of other errors left; "Pyykkö2011" isn't defined in Unbibium, for instance. Looks like it might also have been coming from these templates. -- mikeblas (talk) 03:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"VI" (see Copernicium), "Schwerdtfeger" (see Flerovium), "hassocene" (see Hassium), and "hepta" (see Roentgenium) are more citations that have gone missing. Previously, they were all defined in {{Infobox element/symbol-to-oxidation-state}}. Some of these still have problems with "Haire" being undefined. Is there some fix pattern that I can help with to get thes problems sorted across the affected articles? -- mikeblas (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, the problems resulted by named refs being used in the template that were not defined in the article.

It seems to me that a template should not depend on any refs being defined elsewhere; rather, a template should stand on its own without such a dependency. It would be good, however, for a template to provide a name for every reference it defines in case a transcluding article wishes to use it.

With this convention, the only potential error would be defining a named ref multiple times; a reasonable naming standard would avoid this issue.

— YBG (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the other way around. The template used to define references, and the article used them. The template stopped producing those references, and now there are undefined reference errors popping up.

Some have been cleaned up, but there are still many errors around as a result of this change.

Johnjbarton, here is another batch of errors: Unbibium (for "Pyykkö2011"), Unbihexium (for "Pyykkö2011"), Unbinilium (for "Pyykkö2011" and "Haire"), Unbiquadium (for "Pyykkö2011"), and Unbiunium (for "Haire" and "Amador"). Again, let me know if I can help. I don't know if you're manually adding the references to the articles, or if you plan to restore them to the template, or ... -- mikeblas (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The template used to define references, and the article used them." As I have been trying to explain there used to be two templates. One defined some refs that were used in articles but the other did not. I was unlucky in basing my refs on the the other database which did not list these non-elements.

Placing the definitions in the database has two issues:

When incorporated into Oxidation state refs defined in different elements will results in duplicate refs
When less experienced users look for the definition of the ref in the article they won't find it, it's very mysterious.

Placing only references in the database has two issues:

Defs have to be copied into two articles, the element and Oxidation state
Failure to do the previous step leads to cite errors.

I chose this path because editors changing the database have enough experience to do the double copy and the missing citations are big red errors that can be noticed and fixed but duplications are tedious to find and fix.

Just to reiterate: refs in the database and defs in 1) element article 2) Oxidation state.

I will update the documentation and ping you to check it for me. Then I'll work on the non-elements. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank @Mikeblas. I've fixed all of these I believe. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Thanks for sticking with it!!1! -- mikeblas (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general the unreferenced oxidation states are also listed by Greenwood and Earnshaw – just as less common ones. Here's the list of uncommon oxidation states listed by G&E on p. 28.

Z	Sym	Uncommon oxidation states in Greenwood & Earnshaw
3	Li	−1
5	B	1, 2
6	C	−3, −2, −1, 1, 2, 3
7	N	−2, −1, 1, 2, 4
8	O	−1, 1, 2
11	Na	−1
13	Al	1
14	Si	−3, −2, −1, 1, 2, 3
15	P	−2, −1, 1, 2, 4
16	S	−1, 1, 3, 5
17	Cl	2, 4, 6
21	Sc	1, 2
22	Ti	−1, 2, 3
23	V	−1, 1, 2, 3, 4
24	Cr	−2, −1, 1, 2, 4, 5
25	Mn	−3, −2, −1, 1, 3, 5, 6
26	Fe	−2, −1, 1, 4, 5, 6
27	Co	−1, 1, 4, 5
28	Ni	−1, 1, 3, 4
29	Cu	1, 3, 4
31	Ga	1, 2
32	Ge	1, 3
33	As	2
35	Br	4, 7
39	Y	2
40	Zr	1, 2, 3
41	Nb	−1, 2, 3, 4
42	Mo	−2, −1, 1, 2, 3, 5
43	Tc	−3, −1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6
44	Ru	−2, 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8
45	Rh	−1, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6
47	Ag	2, 3
49	In	1, 2
52	Te	5
54	Xe	8
57	La	2
58	Ce	2
59	Pr	2, 4
60	Nd	2
62	Sm	2
64	Gd	1, 2
65	Tb	1, 4
66	Dy	2
69	Tm	2
70	Yb	2
72	Hf	2, 3
73	Ta	−1, 2, 3, 4
74	W	−2, −1, 1, 2, 3, 5
75	Re	−3, −1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7
76	Os	−2, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8
77	Ir	−1, 1, 2, 5, 6
78	Pt	5, 6
79	Au	−1, 1, 2, 5
82	Pb	−4
83	Bi	−3, 5
84	Po	6
85	At	3, 5, 7
90	Th	2, 3
91	Pa	3, 4
92	U	3, 4, 5
93	Np	3, 4, 6, 7
94	Pu	3, 5, 6, 7
95	Am	2, 4, 5, 6
96	Cm	4
97	Bk	4
98	Cf	2, 4
99	Es	2
100	Fm	2
101	Md	2
102	No	2

So the "citation needed" tags for these states should be replaced by a reference to the same G&E page that gives the common states. Double sharp (talk) 08:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have done this.

A bunch more were actually cited in the previous versions. On the other hand, there is a particular issue here. The source for Al₃BC (the first problematic case) never mentions the oxidation states in the compound. I presume the logic behind the B −5 entry is that this should have Al +3, C −4, B −5, but it's not explicitly stated. So now I wonder if it should be considered acceptable to derive unstated oxidation states from IUPAC's rules (doi:10.1515/pac-2015-1204). I might note that the IUPAC report in question remarks that there are quite a few cases where OS assignment becomes either truly ambiguous or formal beyond the point of usefulness, such as in metallic compounds (AuNCa₃), complexes with non-innocent ligands, and cases with very low electronegativity differences (e.g. carbon diselenide).

Personally, I think we should not derive such states ourselves, no matter how obvious the result looks. A particular pitfall is mentioned by this article: Cs₂Pt and BaPt both look like stoichiometric ionic compounds, but only the first is really well-described that way (the second has Pt–Pt chains). Double sharp (talk) 08:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

"A bunch more were actually cited in the previous versions. " links the presentation of the older data which has citations in the last column but many states are listed in the row that do not correspond to any ref. Still some of these refs could be useful. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to look through them over the next few days. :)

In general, probably G&E should be enough for most of those in the above table. However, in some cases of exotica I'd very much like to back them up with an additional source – I am unaware of a single actual example of Li(−1), and G&E p. 99 remarks on sodides, potassides, rubidides, and caesides but notably not lithides. So I would very much like to know what they had in mind. Double sharp (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For −5, see p. 139. Burzuchius (talk) 09:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Burzuchius: Thanks. Not sure how I missed that page. In that case, I withdraw my objection to B −5, though I'd still argue for only including oxidation states if they are stated by the source. Double sharp (talk) 12:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with using only sourced oxidation states not ones based on editor analysis. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only known (not predicted) transactinoid oxidation states past Rf are Db +5, Sg +6, Sg 0 (hexacarbonyl; oxidation state however not explicitly mentioned, though I suppose one could plead that it's obvious since it's said to be homologous to the Mo and W versions), Bh +7 and Hs +8 (mentioned as the highest formal oxidation state in the Sg 0 ref).

For completeness here are two borderline cases which I think should not yet be in the list. There is a report on CnSe from 2015, which would presumably be Cn +2 (implied to be homologous to HgSe). However, in a 2016 conference it was stated that further experiments are ongoing to elucidate what's happening (and also to compare with Fl). I have not seen anything more recent on this. Probably NhOH (which would be Nh +1) was formed in experiments probing Nh chemistry (doi:10.1140/epja/i2017-12348-8, noting homology to Tl), but it is not securely identified. Well, what can I say: chemistry with such short-lived species is hard. Double sharp (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are extraneous commas after the last oxidation state in each list, which is ungrammatical. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All these commas are removed. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits violate WP:SULF

There are a lot of edits that violates WP:SULF recently. Although they are actually trying to help to change the article into the same variant of English, we have to address that changing Sulfur → Sulphur is unnecessary. Do we need an edit notice or an edit filter for this problem? Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've occasionally taken a whack at SULF corrections. One gray area I hit is in terms of scope, when an article is not a science article but does have some small science content more than just a passing mention. "These spellings should be used in all chemistry-related articles on English Wikipedia, even if they conflict with the other national spelling varieties used in the article." DMacks (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a notice to Talk:Iodine before I saw this note. I don't know if it will help, but it is easy to do.

In my opinion an article that discusses "sulfur" as a material has become a chemistry article, ie unless it is about the word "sulfur". Johnjbarton (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created an edit notice for that, but soon I found that I don't have the permission to add it into articles. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nucleus hydro elemon, Johnjbarton, and DMacks: I added this edit notice to the element articles in question. Not sure if it will be necessary for all isotope- and compound-related pages as well, and if so, if there's a more efficient way to add one. ^Complex/_Rational 15:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All elements needs the edit notice, so do all aluminium, sulfur, and caesium compounds. As "sulfuric acid" is common in chemistry, the list will be even more extended. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New atomic weights for Zr, Gd, Lu.

https://iupac.org/standard-atomic-weights-of-three-technology-critical-elements-revised/ 108.160.120.147 (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! Updated. :) Double sharp (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should infobox images for colorless gaseous elements be the liquid form (if available), or the discharge tube?

The infobox image for nitrogen is liquid nitrogen. The image for oxygen used to be liquid oxygen, but @Hexonite: changed it to the discharge tube here without explanation (I would like to change it back but first should ask why you changed it). All the noble gases have discharge tubes, but Wikimedia Commons has images of liquid argon available at commons:Category:Liquid argon, and liquid helium at commons:Category:Liquid helium. There are images of liquid xenon here, here, and here. So, if an image of the liquid element is available, should we use that instead of the discharge tube, and only use the discharge tube if no image of the liquid element is available? This was previously discussed at here in 2009, because at the time these articles were using images of empty vials containing the colorless gas. HertzDonuts (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hexonite doesn't appear to be very active, so I have changed the image at Template:Infobox oxygen back to liquid oxygen for now. Waiting for input from others before changing the images for helium, argon, and xenon. HertzDonuts (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am reluctant for the change of noble gases without neon and krypton. The infobox at the article Noble gas will have a weird mix of liquids and discharge tubes. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, I guess that really is something to think about

I only updated it to better represent oxygen being thought of as a gas, rather than a liquid.

If anything, these pages should have pictures of all of the phases (because it's the same element and molecule), however if that's impossible, only pictures of their current phase.

lets say water is a liquid and freezes to become ice, is water more thought of as a liquid or a solid? Everyone knows that water freezes to ice, but does the liquid form come to mind first or the solid form when you think of water?

Yeah that was my logic here.

AND that's what I think the noble gases pictures should be. Noble gases, not liquids. Hexonite (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, light produced from an Oxygen molecule never comes to mind when you think of Oxygen

On second thought I would probably suggest that the gaseous elements have a photo detailing the molecule, for instance H2 is H - H two Hydrogen atoms that if represented would be represented as two circles with a line connecting them to visualize the bond.

That would be even better. If I had to choose, I would say the discharge tubes, but that's a suggestion too. Hexonite (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see an argument that the infobox picture should show the element's standard state (maybe a collection of allotropes in cases like carbon and phosphorus). In that case, perhaps colourless gases should not have a picture in the infobox as well, since they are inherently unphotographable in the standard state, and should instead have pictures illustrating them in other ways in the body? It's similar to how I'd expect true-colour images for Solar System objects in their infoboxes, even if in the case of Venus the result is really boring. Double sharp (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, some image is always better than no image. If it's a transparent gas, I'd rather have some kind of container and explanation over "no image". 108.160.120.147 (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oxidation states for Ubb, Ubq, Ubp, Ubh

The oxidation state data for six "elements" relies on this source:

Pyykkö, Pekka (2011). "A suggested periodic table up to Z ≤ 172, based on Dirac–Fock calculations on atoms and ions". Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics. 13 (1): 161–8. Bibcode:2011PCCP...13..161P. doi:10.1039/c0cp01575j. PMID 20967377.

However, when I read the source I conclude that no such data is present there. The section "5. Ionization potentials and oxidation states" in the paper is chicken and waffles as far as I can tell. I am unable to verify the existing data based on this source. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See table 7. The oxidation states are implicitly stated by referring to formal electron configurations, i.e. "8s⁰5g⁰" for 121X₃, 122X₄, 123X₅, 124X₆, 126O₄. Section 5 refers to predictions varying for 126. Then again, since these lists of compounds are not explicit OS statements, and they are presumably not exhaustive, perhaps they should be removed anyway and left to the text. (Also, strangely I can't find 126(VI) mentioned there. The hexafluoride is discussed in another paper by Dognon and Pyykkö, though.) Double sharp (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other sets in sidebar

I am proposing that the "Other sets" section of the sidebar be subdivided up as shown at {{Sidebar periodic table/sandbox}}. The current layout {{Sidebar periodic table}} is visible in the documentation below my proposal. Comments? — YBG (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you consider grouping all of the periodic chart categories together? The "... periodic table position" could be "Named groups", "Other groups" or "Other named groups" under "By periodic table structure". Johnjbarton (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a good idea, and no, I didn’t consider it. The three categories under periodic table structure are each currently mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive, so moving this section would be a little tricky, but probably doable. I’ll have a go at it. YBG (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnjbarton What do you think of it now? YBG (talk) 03:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! Johnjbarton (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JJB: Under Other sets, named for ... we have:

... element uses
Coinage, precious, and refractory metals

... element properties
Heavy and light metals * Noble metals

But I’m wondering if that last would be better:

... element properties
Heavy, light and noble metals

Thoughts?? YBG (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also good. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing problems with element templates

There are still many referencing templates with errors. (Are these templates actually in use, or should they just be deleted anyway?) These templates all have undefined reference errors in themselves -- that is, right at their template pages, or their own documentation pages. These seem to be related to oxidation states:

Here are element-specific templates that also have referencing errors built-in:

It seems like bad form to have referencing errors in a template's example invocation in its own page. I don't think these pages were a problem until some changes were made last week. How can this all be set right? -- mikeblas (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solving this problem will unfortunately create other problems. These two problems are 1) mysterious references, 2) silent failure modes.

1) When I altered the template implementations I changed a few references and the result was errors in many element pages as you know. The reason was that these element pages used <ref name="Haire"/> but no where in the element page was "Haire" defined. I did not realize what was going on and I guess I have more than the average experience with references in wiki pages.

2) When working on this problem I encountered cases where a reference was included twice I guess because an editor did not know where to look for the definition of the reference.

For these reasons I think we should define reference in the final end point page and not in the template data base. There are two down sides to this solution: 1) twice as many definitions (element and oxidation state 2) errors in template documentation pages that you see above.

In my opinion we should adopt the solution that puts the burden on editors who work on templates as they are more likely to know the issues or at least know how and where to ask about them.

However if there is a consensus to place definitions in the database I am fine with it.

We could solve the errors in the template documentation pages by adding ref-defs in these templates, but I would oppose this solution because it would be three places defs have to be added.

I also just had a thought: what if we got rid of the oxidation state database and put the oxidation state data into each element's infobox instead? It might be possible to build the List of Oxidation State table by processing the infobox for all the elements. This would be a lot less complex for editors than tracing through {{infobox element}} Johnjbarton (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the refs should be defined in the template (or the OS db if you prefer). There should be a list of named references in two places: in the template’s doc page and in the element's talk page. This could be done creating a subpage of the template and transcluding it in both places. This would provide two places for an editor to find out about named references available for use.

But even if an editor doesn’t know about the names refs, they would not be burdened. Editors should not be adding a reference unless they have access to the original source, and if they have access to the original source, they have all the information they need to create the footnote.

The only possible problem would be if an editor tried to define a named ref that is already defined in the template. This can be avoided by having all ref names defined in element templates named appropriately. I suggest something like ElemTemplate_Smith or ElemTemplate_Smith1969. An editor who wants to add a couple of statements supported by Smith and decides to add a named reference would create ref named Smith or Smith1969. There would be no duplicate definitions. A more experienced editor would notice that Smith is unnecessarily listed in multiple footnotes and could correct the issue.

— YBG (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I think the refs should be defined in the template (or the OS db if you prefer). " That combined with mikeblas' complaints is enough to convince me.
"There should be a list of named references in two places: in the template’s doc page and in the element's talk page. This could be done creating a subpage of the template and transcluding it in both places."

? These refs would not appear in the elements page or oxidation state list. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is "the database"? I guess that's the same thing that YGB means by "the OS db"? -- mikeblas (talk) 04:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I said 'database' I meant {{Element-symbol-to-oxidation-state-data}}. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok all of the templates are fixed. The element Darmstadtium has a duplicate citation for some reason that I can't figure out. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does it have something to do with how electron config is transcluded into the infobox, or the excerpt from superheavy element? Recon rabbit 17:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was a doosy! I tracked down the duplicate reference to {{Infobox element/symbol-to-electron-configuration/ref}}, which had a slightly different definition of that "Haire" citation. I think it is fixed now, with this edit. Did my fix cause any collateral damage?

This "Haire" reference is used all over the place. Would it be a good idea to give it is own template, so it can be defined at one place in the template, then invoked repeatedly all over? Then, the repeated definitions would always match. If the ref ever needs to be updated, it is in one place. (OTOH, if only some articles need a change to the reference, then more complexity arrives.) -- mikeblas (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't think we're out of the woods. Several other artilces (like Dubnium and Bohrium and Rutherfordium and Samarium and ...) have duplicate ref def errors for "Haire". -- mikeblas (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed rutherfordium, seaborgium, dubnium, and bohrium. -- mikeblas (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you meant {{infobox rutherfordium}} etc. I don't think those changes have the effect you think they do. Making the text content of two refs identical has no effect on anything other than the changed ref content. Both defs will still appear where ever they appeared before. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I made fixes at the infoboxes. If a <ref> tag is exactly the same as another, it is combined into the same reference -- but only if exactly the same. If the same values are in the same parameters, just in a different order, that's not exactly the same, and a duplicate definition error appears.

And further: if that reference definition is wrapped in a template, it will consistently be generated and never cause a duplicate reference definition error.

Can you please help me understand your reversion of my edit over on the Samarium article? In my version of the article before you reverted my change, there are no duplicate definition errors. When you reverted the edit and re-added the name, a duplicate reference error appears. -- mikeblas (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In your version of Samarium reference 10 and 70 are the same. Your edit just took off the name so there were no longer two defs with the same name but rather one named and one unnamed, two copies. After I reverted your edit, in the next edit I changed the ref def to ref ref: <ref name=Chiera2024/>. Now their is one def (somewhere!) and one ref-ref, and the References list two instances. Does that make sense?

This consistently generated/ref merging thing is new to me, can you point to the docs? Sounds very handy. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see! I didn't notice a version of the article after your reversion. Maybe I looked while you were editing it, or maybe I didn't refresh.

Notes 10 and 70 in my version aren't quite the same. They have different date formats, and that's one of the things that was different between the citations used to form the references. And, since they were different, that's why the error appeared.

I don't know if the duplicate folding behaviour is documented, but it's readily observable and behaves consistently. -- mikeblas (talk) 09:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Group 5 element

Group 5 element has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting decay energy for isotope lists

A while ago I posted a discussion suggesting that decay energy be added to the tables on "Isotopes of [element]" articles. The discussion never really got to a consensus. I though I might bring it up again because this site lists, as far as I can tell, all known isotopes and decay energies for most decay modes. The one exception is it does not appear to list the energies for cluster decay. Thoughts? TornadoLGS (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Actinide

Actinide has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Heavy metal element#Requested move 19 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Heavy metal element#Requested move 19 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Boron

Boron has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse Radiolysis Studies for Oxidation states

I was looking over some of the old references, and noticed some oxidation states have been stated by observation from pulse radiolysis studies, such as

Kläning, Ulrik K.; Sehested, K. (1986). "Selenium(V). A pulse radiolysis study". Inorganic Chemistry. 90 (21): 5460–4. doi:10.1021/j100412a112.

Should these be included in the list of oxidation states? Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 03:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]