Talk:List of chemical elements/Archive 1

Archive 1

[Untitled]

I started by including a version of a more complete list. we should be able to get a lot of properties, especially by using abbreviations, putting refs and notes after the table (not using footnotes), and perhaps rounding off a few numbers (of physical data). Essential properties are: Atomic number, symbol, name, weight, density, melting point, boiling point, electronegativity, valence numbers, group, period, series, electrical conductivity, thermal conductivity, heat capacity, heat of fusion, heat of evaporation, etc. see <http://web.mit.edu/course/3/3.091/www3/pt/pert0.html>, which is good, but appears to be outdated. there needs to be a way to use Excel spreadsheets. if only each row didn't need a line break. Anthony717 (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Antihydrogen

Should antihydrogen be included in the table (it is, so far, the only antielement which has been synthesized as atoms, rather than solely nuclei)? Its atomic number is of course -1. Stonemason89 (talk) 05:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a list of elements, not antielements. Nergaal (talk) 05:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Good edit

I changed polonium to a metal 'cause it is a metal.
I also changed ununseptium to a halogen 'cause ununoctium is listed as a noble gas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wd930 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Atomic weights

All the atomic weights in Wikipedia must be modified after IUPAC Atomic weights of the elements, 2009 edition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.100.90.38 (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, all. What is the small integer number in (parentheses) after the atomic weight? This parenthetical number is in many atomic element pages, not just this one, so it must be so simple and obvious to everyone that it is never defined/mentioned. It does not seem to be the number of abundant isotopes upon which the weight is based; e.g., 9-Flourine-19 with a single dominant isotope gets a five: 18.9984032(5). It should be possible to search the page text for the word "parentheses" and find the statement which is the key to the column. Please make only gentle comments -- I'm already feeling totally stupid. Thanks.
Jerry-va (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jerry-va, the number in parenthesis at the end of the atomic weight is a range of variation. Unfortunately someone else will have to tell you if it is half of the range or the whole range of variance as I am not sure. Another point I want to bring up to others is that germanium's atomic weight appears inconsistent with IUPAC2009 and should be 72.63(1), not 72.64(1) From, tullywinters May 5th, 2011.
Here is a link that worked on 05MAY2011 for IUPAC 2009 Atomic Weights: http://iupac.org/publications/pac/83/2/0359/ Also, IUPAC now uses a [minimum; maximum] weight for ten of the elements, so two numbers are given, not just one. From, tullywinters —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tullywinters (talk • contribs) 01:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jerry-va, I did a little reading on IUPAC's website and found in the 2001 Atomic Weights definite evidence that at that time, the parenthesis after the atomic weight was both a plus and minus uncertainty. In the 2005 IUPAC article, it was harder to be sure, but I found some evidence that "uncertainty" was mentioned, and no evidence that the nomenclature had changed since 2001, so I believe it is a +-amount of uncertainty upon the last digit given just before the parenthesis. Cheers. Good Day. From, tullywinters 05MAY2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tullywinters (talk • contribs) 02:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

In general for any number like that based on scientific data a number in parentheses at the end is the one sigma uncertainty (standard deviation) in the last digit of the number, so 18.9984032(5) means 18.9984032 with a standard deviation of 0.0000005.Physdragon (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Melt > Boil ??

Some elements have Melt > Boil - that doesn't sound right!? See As,Bk,Cf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copyeditor42 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh boy, it seems there are significant errors in both the boiling and melting point ~columns. Does anybody know a good source for boiling points/melting points which could be used to verify the lot? Yoenit (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

There's data at http://www.webelements.com/periodicity/melting_point/ and http://www.webelements.com/periodicity/boiling_point/ .

Don't know how verified.

Similar to existing wikipedia data, sometimes varying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copyeditor42 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Melting points are fairly different from the data at Melting points of the elements (data page) which cites webelements.com. In addition, a lot of the values on this page end in ".15", which seems like a possible transcription error. John.velonis (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that the ".15" values may be from converting integer temperatures in Celsius to Kelvin by adding 273.15 (0 degrees Celsius). It would probably be better to preserve the number of significant digits in the original. John.velonis (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy in the temperature columns

The accuracy in the temperature columns is not correct. The many numbers ending in '.15' are clearly copied from some Kelvin scale list with only 1 Kelvin accuracy. Thet part after the decimal dot should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilberth (talk • contribs) 12:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Valency needs to be Included in List

Ok, I know it's very easy to figure out estimated valency if you just go 1,0,1,2,3,4,3,2,1,0,1,2,3,4,3,2,1,0...etc etc..

(atleast that's what I figure on the first 20 elements) but lot of people don't know that. So a valency column will be appreciate.

Please Note: Some element's like Phosphorous have more than 1 valency. NK 09:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickKartha (talk • contribs)

Valency is not much used outside school chemistry. We already have list of oxidation states of the elements (oxidation state is basically a better, updated version of the valence concept) and I would not want to excessively bloat the table here. Only the most important properties should be here, and you can find links to tables with the other properties in the box at the bottom. Double sharp (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Formatting problem

Currently, the list's numerical columns (melting points, etc) sort lexicographically instead of numerically. I unfortunately don't have the wiki-fu to fix this; if anybody with the proper knowledge drops by, have at it. 128.61.53.23 (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I just checked things and it seems to work OK in my browser (IE9)

• These all sort numerically: Z, Period, Density, Melt, Boil, Heat
  • Group sorts numerically with blanks before 1
  • Weight sorts numerically suprisingly even [brackets] and (parens) don't interfere
  • Neg sorts numerically now that dashes are consistent ("-" changed to "–")
  • Abundance sorts numerically except that <0.001 is intermixed with 0 (this still needs to be fixed)
• These all sort lexically: Sym, Element

For more information, see Help:Sorting YBG (talk) 12:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The order is numerical(ok) in the boiling point column, but lexicographical(wrong) in melting point in Chrome 15, can anyone confirm and/or fix? --81.184.131.134 (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The template {{nts}} will fix this and also improve the column that uses {{sort}}. YBG (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The Abundance column should be OK now. I have also made some changes to the Melting Point column, but cannot confirm whether it makes any difference in the problem reported above with Chrome 15. YBG (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The Abundance column still does not sort correctly. How about removing all non numeric symbols, and adopting "0" convention for the rare natural elements, and a "" nil symbol for the rare artificial elements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.73.195 (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I had to revert my changes to the Melting Point column as they actually broke sorting in IE. There is still one minor change to the MP column -- I have included He's MP of 0.95 from the footnote. There is a small chance that this might fix the problem in Chrome 15, but I can't tell. I would appreciate it if someone could check this out. YBG (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Density

Could we have a note accompanying density? Since density varies with temperature and pressure, it would be nice to know if these are all at STP (or SATP?), or at least to indicate the ones that are. --Synaptophysin (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

STP is generally assumed when the value is given without qualification. In the one case where the value is not for STP (the predicted density of element 118) we have an explanatory note stating the conditions (somewhere between −15 °C and −10 °C – the liquid range of element 118 – at 1 atm). Double sharp (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

2 more section

Please add more section in it like relating to natural & artificial element and then in natural which are metals and which are non-metals.
115.241.241.2d (talk) 06:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Why does list of metals come here?

I was looking for a list of metals. Why is it redirected here? Not all metals are elements. Steel, for example. Kathyfeller (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

A belated comment: because all metals are elements, sorry. Metals that are not elements you refer to are called alloys (mixture of metals and, sometimes, carbon and boron). Steel is an alloy.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It is still a redirect. But, strangely, metal article starts with: A metal is a material (an element, compound, or alloy). So that at least claims compounds and alloys are metals. 82.141.95.243 (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Etymology

I think the etymological information is often misleading. What the column 'origin of name' should contain is the term which the name of the element is immediately derived from, not the etymological history of that term. So for example, beryllium is from the existing word 'beryl', whatever the etymology of that word is. The way to handle this is to put 'beryl' in the 'origin of name 'column', and link through to the beryl article for its etymology. I intend to clean up the etymological information in this sense. Zwart (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Does that require an extra column? Also, do you have a suggestion on how to represent the (eg) Greek word & spelling? -DePiep (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

There is Beryllium#Etymology. Also, I'd like to have the infoboxes "history" section, with free text |naming=, more complete. Hope you are inspired :-). -DePiep (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Lehrer Order

This is admittedly silly, limited to 102 elements, more an issue of alliteration, but I would like to suggest a link here to [[Tom Lehrer]'s song The Elements. True, there is no-direct scientific value about Lehrer's alliterative order, but for the English language there is fun in science, but Lehrer order might considered a lesser order to that of atomic number. Lehrer was there doing informal science education before Richard Feynman became popular outside physics. It might convert a small number of English majors into chemists and chemical engineers. The order should be the same as the song minus his lyrical comment about Harvard and without the conjunctions. 143.232.210.38 (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That sequence can very well be in the songs page. Here it is less relevant I think. -DePiep (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What about elements in popular culture section? It is missing. 89.217.21.76 (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't that turn into something like xkcd 446? Elements appear quite widely. Or perhaps you mean references to the elements as a whole, or the periodic table as a whole? But given the periodic table's iconic status, such a list would get really difficult to maintain, wouldn't it?

(Also, including all the lyrics of the song is of questionable legality, no? Although perhaps just the ordering of the elements he uses is OK?) Double sharp (talk) 12:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Errors with Electronegativity values

Cobalt - should be 1.88, Nickel - should be 1.91, Lead - should be 1.87 (data from the Wikipedia pages for these elements)

Jim23mac (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Eh? We give these very same values on this page. Double sharp (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Units with fraction and multiple factors in denomerator

The unit for heat J/g·K is not right. It can be written J/(g·K) or J/g·K. Benadikt (talk) 10:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

So, what else should be in the table?

Comment by IP

Or, should something be removed? When I search for "csv list of elements" I want to find something like: (Hydrogen, Helium) - well, really (Hydrogen 1..., Helium 2...) and I can't see anything like that anywhere... What I don't want to see is something like: (Hydrogen, black border, colour green, used to mean gobbledygook in Dutch 2000 years ago, weight 2.01223 uparrow blue 2 3 4 5... ???maybe Helium is there too if I read another few pages???

So where is what the page says it is - a list, not a novel? Something I can parse on a device that will fly, rather than something that will be so difficult to parse it would never be able to lift all the required RAM. Interesting though it might be whilst sitting comfortably at a PC.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.69.13 (talk • contribs) 18:57 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is my first try at converting the table to CSV. Actual commas are converted to &COMMA; I needed this for something else, and decided to try to extract from the table. Maybe others have use for it, too. Gah4 (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Z,Sym,Element,Origin of name,Group,Period,At. wt.,density,melt,boil,C,X,Abundance 1,H,Hydrogen,composed of the Greek elements hydro- and -gen meaning 'water-forming',1,1,001 !1.008,0.00008988,14.01,20.28,14.304,2.20,1400 2,He,Helium,the Greek helios, 'sun',18,1,004 !4.002602(2),0.0001785,0.95,4.22,5.193,-,0.008 3,Li,Lithium,the Greek lithos, 'stone',1,2,007 !6.94,0.534,453.69,1560,3.582,0.98,20 4,Be,Beryllium,beryl, a mineral,2,2,009 !9.0121831(5),1.85,1560,2742,1.825,1.57,2.8 5,B,Boron,borax, a mineral,13,2,011 !10.81,2.34,2349,4200,1.026,2.04,10 6,C,Carbon,the Latin carbo, 'coal',14,2,012 !12.011,2.267,3800,4300,0.709,2.55,200 7,N,Nitrogen,the Greek nitron and '-gen' meaning 'niter-forming',15,2,014 !14.007,0.0012506,63.15,77.36,1.04,3.04,19 8,O,Oxygen,from the Greek oxy-, both 'sharp' and 'acid', and -gen, meaning 'acid-forming',16,2,016 !15.999,0.001429,54.36,90.20,0.918,3.44,461000 9,F,Fluorine,the Latin fluere, 'to flow',17,2,019 !18.998403163(6),0.001696,53.53,85.03,0.824,3.98,585 10,Ne,Neon,the Greek neos, meaning 'new',18,2,020 !20.1797(6),0.0008999,24.56,27.07,1.03,-,0.005 11,Na,Sodium,the English word soda (natrium in Latin),1,3,023 !22.98976928(2),0.971,370.87,1156,1.228,0.93,23600 12,Mg,Magnesium,Magnesia, a district of Eastern Thessaly in Greece,2,3,024 !24.305,1.738,923,1363,1.023,1.31,23300 13,Al,Aluminium,from alumina, a compound (originally aluminum),13,3,027 !26.9815385(7),2.698,933.47,2792,0.897,1.61,82300 14,Si,Silicon,from the Latin silex, 'flint' (originally silicium),14,3,028 !28.085,2.3296,1687,3538,0.705,1.9,282000 15,P,Phosphorus,the Greek phoosphoros, 'carrying light',15,3,031 !30.973761998(5),1.82,317.30,550,0.769,2.19,1050 16,S,Sulfur,the Latin sulphur, 'fire and brimstone',16,3,032 !32.06,2.067,388.36,717.87,0.71,2.58,350 17,Cl,Chlorine,the Greek chloros, 'greenish yellow',17,3,035 !35.45,0.003214,171.6,239.11,0.479,3.16,145 18,Ar,Argon,the Greek argos, 'idle',18,3,040 !39.948(1),0.0017837,83.80,87.30,0.52,-,3.5 19,K,Potassium,New Latin potassa, 'potash' (kalium in Latin),1,4,039 !39.0983(1),0.862,336.53,1032,0.757,0.82,20900 20,Ca,Calcium,the Latin calx, 'lime',2,4,041 !40.078(4),1.54,1115,1757,0.647,1,41500 21,Sc,Scandium,Scandia, the Latin name for Scandinavia,3,4,045 !44.955908(5),2.989,1814,3109,0.568,1.36,22 22,Ti,Titanium,Titans, the sons of the Earth goddess of Greek mythology,4,4,048 !47.867(1),4.54,1941,3560,0.523,1.54,5650 23,V,Vanadium,Vanadis, an Old Norse name for the Scandinavian goddess Freyja,5,4,051 !50.9415(1),6.11,2183,3680,0.489,1.63,120 24,Cr,Chromium,the Greek chroma, 'color',6,4,052 !51.9961(6),7.15,2180,2944,0.449,1.66,102 25,Mn,Manganese,corrupted from magnesia negra, see Magnesium,7,4,055 !54.938044(3),7.44,1519,2334,0.479,1.55,950 26,Fe,Iron,English word (ferrum in Latin),8,4,056 !55.845(2),7.874,1811,3134,0.449,1.83,56300 27,Co,Cobalt,the German word Kobold, 'goblin',9,4,059 !58.933194(4),8.86,1768,3200,0.421,1.88,25 28,Ni,Nickel,from Swedish kopparnickel, containing the German word Nickel, 'goblin',10,4,058 !58.6934(4),8.912,1728,3186,0.444,1.91,84 29,Cu,Copper,English word (Latin cuprum),11,4,064 !63.546(3),8.96,1357.77,2835,0.385,1.9,60 30,Zn,Zinc,the German Zink,12,4,065 !65.38(2),7.134,692.88,1180,0.388,1.65,70 31,Ga,Gallium,Gallia, the Latin name for France,13,4,070 !69.723(1),5.907,302.9146,2477,0.371,1.81,19 32,Ge,Germanium,Germania, the Latin name for Germany,14,4,073 !72.630(8),5.323,1211.40,3106,0.32,2.01,1.5 33,As,Arsenic,English word (Latin arsenicum),15,4,075 !74.921595(6),5.776,1090 !1090,887,0.329,2.18,1.8 34,Se,Selenium,the Greek selene, 'moon',16,4,079 !78.971(8),4.809,453,958,0.321,2.55,0.05 35,Br,Bromine,the Greek bromos, 'stench',17,4,080 !79.904,3.122,265.8,332.0,0.474,2.96,2.4 36,Kr,Krypton,the Greek kryptos, 'hidden',18,4,084 !83.798(2),0.003733,115.79,119.93,0.248,3,.0001 !1e-4 37,Rb,Rubidium,the Latin rubidus, 'deep red',1,5,085 !85.4678(3),1.532,312.46,961,0.363,0.82,90 38,Sr,Strontium,Strontian, a small town in Scotland,2,5,087 !87.62(1),2.64,1050,1655,0.301,0.95,370 39,Y,Yttrium,Ytterby, Sweden,3,5,089 !88.90584(2),4.469,1799,3609,0.298,1.22,33 40,Zr,Zirconium,Persian Zargun, 'gold-colored'; German Zirkoon, 'jargoon',4,5,091 !91.224(2),6.506,2128,4682,0.278,1.33,165 41,Nb,Niobium,Niobe, daughter of king Tantalus from Greek mythology,5,5,093 !92.90637(2),8.57,2750,5017,0.265,1.6,20 42,Mo,Molybdenum,the Greek molybdos meaning 'lead',6,5,096 !95.95(1),10.22,2896,4912,0.251,2.16,1.2 43,Tc,Technetium,the Greek tekhnètos meaning 'artificial',7,5,098 ![98],11.5,2430,4538,-,1.9,.000000003 !~ 3e-9 44,Ru,Ruthenium,Ruthenia, the New Latin name for Russia,8,5,101.07(2),12.37,2607,4423,0.238,2.2,0.001 45,Rh,Rhodium,the Greek rhodos, meaning 'rose coloured',9,5,102.90550(2),12.41,2237,3968,0.243,2.28,0.001 46,Pd,Palladium,the then recently discovered asteroid Pallas, considered a planet at the time,10,5,106.42(1),12.02,1828.05,3236,0.244,2.2,0.015 47,Ag,Silver,English word (argentum in Latin),11,5,107.8682(2),10.501,1234.93,2435,0.235,1.93,0.075 48,Cd,Cadmium,the New Latin cadmia, from King Kadmos,12,5,112.414(4),8.69,594.22,1040,0.232,1.69,0.159 49,In,Indium,indigo,13,5,114.818(1),7.31,429.75,2345,0.233,1.78,0.25 50,Sn,Tin,English word (stannum in Latin),14,5,118.710(7),7.287,505.08,2875,0.228,1.96,2.3 51,Sb,Antimony,composed from the Greek anti, 'against', and monos, 'alone' (stibium in Latin),15,5,121.760(1),6.685,903.78,1860,0.207,2.05,0.2 52,Te,Tellurium,Latin tellus, 'earth',16,5,127.60(3),6.232,722.66,1261,0.202,2.1,0.001 53,I,Iodine,French iode (after the Greek ioeides, 'violet'),17,5,126.90447(3),4.93,386.85,457.4,0.214,2.66,0.45 54,Xe,Xenon,the Greek xenos, 'strange',18,5,131.293(6),0.005887,161.4,165.03,0.158,2.6,.00003 !3e-5 55,Cs,Caesium,the Latin caesius, 'sky blue',1,6,132.90545196(6),1.873,301.59,944,0.242,0.79,3 56,Ba,Barium,the Greek barys, 'heavy',2,6,137.327(7),3.594,1000,2170,0.204,0.89,425 57,La,Lanthanum,the Greek lanthanein, 'to lie hidden' 58,Ce,Cerium,the then recently discovered asteroid Ceres, considered a planet at the time 59,Pr,Praseodymium,the Greek praseios didymos meaning 'green twin' 60,Nd,Neodymium,the Greek neos didymos meaning 'new twin' 61,Pm,Promethium,Prometheus of Greek mythology who stole fire from the Gods and gave it to humans 62,Sm,Samarium,Samarskite, the name of the mineral from which it was first isolated 63,Eu,Europium,Europe 64,Gd,Gadolinium,Johan Gadolin, chemist, physicist and mineralogist 65,Tb,Terbium,Ytterby, Sweden 66,Dy,Dysprosium,the Greek dysprositos, 'hard to get' 67,Ho,Holmium,Holmia, the New Latin name for Stockholm 68,Er,Erbium,Ytterby, Sweden 69,Tm,Thulium,Thule, the ancient name for Scandinavia 70,Yb,Ytterbium,Ytterby, Sweden 71,Lu,Lutetium,Lutetia, the Latin name for Paris,3,6,174.9668(1),9.84,1925,3675,0.154,1.27,0.8 72,Hf,Hafnium,Hafnia, the New Latin name for Copenhagen,4,6,178.49(2),13.31,2506,4876,0.144,1.3,3 73,Ta,Tantalum,King Tantalus, father of Niobe from Greek mythology,5,6,180.94788(2),16.654,3290,5731,0.14,1.5,2 74,W,Tungsten,the Swedish tung sten, 'heavy stone' (W is wolfram, the old name of the tungsten mineral wolframite),6,6,183.84(1),19.25,3695,5828,0.132,2.36,1.3 75,Re,Rhenium,Rhenus, the Latin name for the river Rhine,7,6,186.207(1),21.02,3459,5869,0.137,1.9,.0007 !7e-4 76,Os,Osmium,the Greek osmè, meaning 'smell',8,6,190.23(3),22.61,3306,5285,0.13,2.2,0.002 77,Ir,Iridium,Iris, the Greek goddess of the rainbow,9,6,192.217(3),22.56,2719,4701,0.131,2.2,0.001 78,Pt,Platinum,the Spanish platina, meaning 'little silver',10,6,195.084(9),21.46,2041.4,4098,0.133,2.28,0.005 79,Au,Gold,English word (aurum in Latin),11,6,196.966569(5),19.282,1337.33,3129,0.129,2.54,0.004 80,Hg,Mercury,the New Latin name mercurius, named after the Roman god (Hg from former name hydrargyrum, from Greek hydr-, 'water', and argyros, 'silver'),12,6,200.592(3),13.5336,234.43,629.88,0.14,2,0.085 81,Tl,Thallium,the Greek thallos, 'green twig',13,6,204.38,11.85,577,1746,0.129,1.62,0.85 82,Pb,Lead,English word (plumbum in Latin),14,6,207.2(1),11.342,600.61,2022,0.129,1.87,14 83,Bi,Bismuth,German word, now obsolete,15,6,208.98040(1),9.807,544.7,1837,0.122,2.02,0.009 84,Po,Polonium,Polonia, the New Latin name for Poland,16,6,209 ![209],9.32,527,1235,-,2.0,.0000000002 !2e-10 85,At,Astatine,the Greek astatos, 'unstable',17,6,210 ![210],7,575,610,-,2.2,0.000000000000000000003 !3e-20 86,Rn,Radon,From radium, as it was first detected as an emission from radium during radioactive decay,18,6,222 ![222],0.00973,202,211.3,0.094,2.2,.0000000000004 !4e-13 87,Fr,Francium,Francia, the New Latin name for France,1,7,223 ![223],1.87,300,950,-,0.7,0.000000000000000001 !~ 1e-18 88,Ra,Radium,the Latin radius, 'ray',2,7,223 ![226],5.5,973,2010,0.094,0.9,.0000009 !9e-7 89,Ac,Actinium,the Greek aktis, 'ray' 90,Th,Thorium,Thor, the Scandinavian god of thunder 91,Pa,Protactinium,the Greek protos, 'first', and actinium, which is produced through the radioactive decay of protactinium 92,U,Uranium,Uranus, the seventh planet in the Solar System 93,Np,Neptunium,Neptune, the eighth planet in the Solar System 94,Pu,Plutonium,Pluto, a dwarf planet in the Solar System (considered the ninth planet at the time) 95,Am,Americium,The Americas, as the element was first synthesized on the continent, by analogy with europium 96,Cm,Curium,Pierre Curie, a physicist, and Marie Curie, a physicist and chemist, named after great scientists by analogy with gadolinium 97,Bk,Berkelium,Berkeley, California, where the element was first synthesized, by analogy with terbium 98,Cf,Californium,California, where the element was first synthesized 99,Es,Einsteinium,Albert Einstein, physicist 100,Fm,Fermium,Enrico Fermi, physicist 101,Md,Mendelevium,Dmitri Mendeleev, chemist and inventor 102,No,Nobelium,Alfred Nobel, chemist, engineer, innovator, and armaments manufacturer 103,Lr,Lawrencium,Ernest O. Lawrence, physicist,3,7,266 ![266],15.6 !(15.6),1900 !(1900),-,-,1.3,0 !0 104,Rf,Rutherfordium,Ernest Rutherford, chemist and physicist,4,7,267 ![267],23.2 !(23.2),2400 !(2400),5800 !(5800),-,-,0 !0 105,Db,Dubnium,Dubna, Russia,5,7,268 ![268],29.3 !(29.3),-,-,-,-,0 !0 106,Sg,Seaborgium,Glenn T. Seaborg, scientist,6,7,269 ![269],35.0 !(35.0),-,-,-,-,0 !0 107,Bh,Bohrium,Niels Bohr, physicist,7,7,270 ![270],37.1 !(37.1),-,-,-,-,0 !0 108,Hs,Hassium,Hesse, Germany, where the element was first synthesized,8,7,269 ![269],40.7 !(40.7),-,-,-,-,0 !0 109,Mt,Meitnerium,Lise Meitner, physicist,9,7,278 ![278],37.4 !(37.4),-,-,-,-,0 !0 110,Ds,Darmstadtium,Darmstadt, Germany, where the element was first synthesized,10,7,281 ![281],34.8 !(34.8),-,-,-,-,0 !0 111,Rg,Roentgenium,Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen, physicist,11,7,282 ![282],28.7 !(28.7),-,-,-,-,0 !0 112,Cn,Copernicium,Nicolaus Copernicus, astronomer,12,7,285 ![285],23.7 !(23.7),-,357 !357,-,-,0 !0 113,Uut,Ununtrium,IUPAC systematic element name,13,7,286 ![286],16 !(16),700 !(700),1400 !(1400),-,-,0 !0 114,Fl,Flerovium,Georgy Flyorov, physicist,14,7,289 ![289],14 !(14),340 !(340),420 !(420),-,-,0 !0 115,Uup,Ununpentium,IUPAC systematic element name,15,7,289 ![289],13.5 !(13.5),700 !(700),1400 !(1400),-,-,0 !0 116,Lv,Livermorium,Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (in Livermore, California) which collaborated with JINR on its synthesis,16,7,293 ![293],12.9 !(12.9),709 !(709),1085 !(1085),-,-,0 !0 117,Uus,Ununseptium,IUPAC systematic element name,17,7,294 ![294],7.2 !(7.2),723 !(723),883 !(883),-,-,0 !0 118,Uuo,Ununoctium,IUPAC systematic element name,18,7,294 ![294],5.0 !(5.0),258 !(258),263 !(263),-,-,0 !0

Original thread

Which additional columns should be added to this page? I personally think the element categories should get a column, as there have been complaints about the color coding in the older list pages. Another possible candidate is hardness. What else? pictures?. Yoenit (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, my initial idea was to have two separate element lists: one on physical properties (User:Nergaal/List of elements by physical properties) and one on atomic ones (List of elements by atomic properties). The former evolved into the current form. Nergaal (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

But if this is going to indeed remain the main element list (which would mean to actually create the physical prop. ones), then the element categories would get a column, abundance (Abundance of elements in Earth's crust), and allotrope column, and remove heat, fuse, vapor, Ther, and elec. The hardness and heat capacity would go in the physical properties one. Nergaal (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is my suggested header:

Z	Sym	Name	Group	Category	Period	Neg	Weight (u)	Abundance	Allotropy	Melt (K)	Boil (K)	Density (g/cm3)

Nergaal (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

html code for table

The comment tag is used to hold the code. The use of <"br"> tags is the only easy way edit Wikipedia tables in Excel.

Changes in data?

I moved the section accuracy in temp columns here, because it appears that the melt>boil section and that section are both talking about changes in data.
I'm assuming the 'Revision as of 18:43, 11 February 2013' was that change? But, in the comments for the change, it's not mentioned where the new data is/was coming from. I'd like to know what sources are used for the data (and why they're changing so much).
~ender 2013-06-11 16:38:PM MST

Names for 113, 115, 117, and 118

From the IUPAC website (PDF here:

Following earlier reports that the claims for discovery of these elements have been fulfilled [1, 2], the discoverers have been invited to propose names and the following are now disclosed for public review:

• Nihonium and symbol Nh, for the element 113,
• Moscovium and symbol Mc, for the element 115,
• Tennessine and symbol Ts, for the element 117, and
• Oganesson and symbol Og, for the element 118.

The pdf says "8 June 2016". -DePiep (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Moving to template?

I see that in addition to this article, chemical elements and symbol (chemistry) have their own duplicate table. We should move this into a template and transclude it because at the moment we have multiple slightly different tables which are mostly a WP:CFORK from here. This means that an error fixed either here or on another article currently has to be done across all of them. Thanks, Laurdecl ^talk 05:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Double sharp, who appears to work on this article. Laurdecl ^talk 08:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I most certainly agree with you! I don't think it's necessary to give a separate entry to the etymologies of the symbols rather than the names: either they are very similar (presumably no one would question why lithium is Li), or they are explained in parentheses (like how sodium is natrium in Latin, giving rise to the symbol Na). Double sharp (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I've done so; tell me what you think. Cheers, Laurdecl ^talk 00:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It would have been a nice idea to post something at Talk:Symbol (chemistry) and Talk:Chemical elements before making this major edit, but oh well... I agree with the idea that we should be wary of CFORKs in this topic area. For some reason this topic seems prone to forks. But as a semi-regular editor at "Symbol (chemistry)" I'm not sure I'm in favor of using the template. To be honest I have been thinking for a long while now that the table used at "Symbol (chemistry)" needlessly covered a lot of extra information (Atomic number, Relative atomic mass, group, period, and metallic character) that was almost wholly unrelated to the topic of the article—the symbols themselves. Now with the use of the template, it seems we've added Atomic weight, density, melting point, boiling point, specific heat capacity, electronegativity, and abundance to the columns of data that provides zero additional information related to the symbol. If anything I'd be in favor of chopping down the table at "Symbol (chemistry)" to cover only information related to the symbols (i.e. the topic of that article). Obviously that wouldn't work if we're using a template because if we chopped down the info in the template it would have negative consequences at the other articles... -Thibbs (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I thought I might as well do it and then see what people think. We can always code the template to hide certain fields, if that's what you want. The problem with maintaining separate tables is that if someone wants to update information they have to do it across all of them (there are actually quite a few articles with their own list) and it's far more time consuming. We already have the periodic table as a template so this seems like a natural progression. I haven't replaced the table at chemical elements yet because it's fairly different, yet the one at symbol (chemistry) was almost identical. Some fields are slightly unrelated to the topic – but then so are most of the other properties. Sticking just to the topic would leave us with a bare table consisting of symbols, an origin, and a number. It's almost worth having the template just to prevent the "Origin of name" fork that was there. Cheers, Laurdecl ^talk 04:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

How would we code the template to hide certain fields? And would that be something that would only effect "Symbol (chemistry)" or would the hidden fields then be hidden on all other articles that use it? If there was a way for the template to display its full content on articles like this one ("List of chemical elements") but only the atomic number, name, and information related to symbols would display over at "Symbol (chemistry)" then that would be ideal. From my perspective, a better alternative might be to merge Symbol (chemistry) with List of chemical element name etymologies and possibly remove this field from the template in question as the template is much more data-oriented than historical in nature and as you suggest it creates the potential for a CFORK. -Thibbs (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Hiding columns can be done, don't worry. But. The oriignal intention here (like, "repetition so use a template") needs refinement for the actual usage in the articles (three or four?). Only ~3 columns are repeated, the rest is article-local (etymology, atomic weight). So a lot of columns are to be optional. About the "changes in one place": good point, but also against point is: these propertie do not change that often. (I'm on the fence for now) -DePiep (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

IMO this is a misuse of the template. If two articles contain huge basically same lists, the proper solution is to mabe a common article and put it into the "See also" section. The problem with huge templates is that it severely slows down the loading of the pale, especially on mobile browsers. Therefore a mere content duplication is not a function of templates: they are used for navigation, infoboxes, standard messages, etc. Pease see WP:TMP: Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content, etc.. I will ask in Wikipedia talk:Template namespace for more input. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Staszek Lem. I'm sorry, I have much different getting of templates. The good essence of a template is repetition of same info. Repetition of info does not invite a separate article (thinking, that would eliminate all templates then?). Also "makes it more difficult to edit the content" is minor, more important is to improve content in one single place (a template then, or Wikidata)!

I think the problem here is that the single-table is not fit to be used on these pages. Which is a different issue. -DePiep (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, template repeat info. But the usage in this case is not approved in wikipedia. If large article text must be repeated, then it must be a separate article. Please see also WP:Summary style about avoiding repetition , which is called "content forking". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Re: that would eliminate all templates then? - This utterance tells me you did not read the guideline carefully. Templates have specific usages in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Quoting me, you left out the (thinking: ...) context.

Staszek Lem, I maintain a dozen of templates, each doing 100 to 20k or more transclusions. I never met this 'article text' rejection. -DePiep (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

OK. Let me clarify. "article text" is a bit too general. You also omintted something when quoting me :-). I said "large article text". I don't know which templates you maintain, but it is OK to keep templates of basically technical character, such as {{as of}} or even a bit longer. In context of chemistry I may imagine someone may maintain a template, e.g., say, to represent C2H5OH in nice form of C
₂H
₆O etc. I may even understand a bunch of templates to represent chunks of Mendeleev's table, for uniformity. But I fail to imagine the pressing reason of inserting the whole list of chemical elements into several articles. Wikipedia is not paper. If someone needs to see this list in the context of some article, it is a single mouse click away. A similar situation is e.g., for the articles in history. Several geographical or political entities may have nearly identical histories . We don't write a template {{Battle of Chelmno}} and then transclude it into the articles about Chelmno, about Eastern Front, Summer 1944 Soviet offensive (if existed). etc. We use "==See also==", or, if narrative requires, WP:Summary style. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't feel invited to reply. -DePiep (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Template nominated for deletion. There is no reason not to use labeled section transclusion to share the text instead of a template, which keeps the list on the main article while still having it be transcluded. Pppery 13:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Critical point and triple point

Discussion about melting points and temperature reminds me that the table doesn't have critical point and triple point. Well, what actually reminded me of that is that past the triple point, there is sublimation, and not melting/boiling, which the table doesn't indicate. Gah4 (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

"Past" presumably meaning below the triple point pressure; below the triple point temperature, there may be exceptions like water (and among the elements, Si, Ga, Ge, Bi, and Pu). It would presumably have been listed if not for the facts that (1) it's not as eye-catching as the melting and boiling points, given the general lack of space and (2) it is not exactly an easy quantity to find values for online. Double sharp (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

For gases, they are usually more important and more useful than melting and boiling, for refractory metals, less useful. But yes, the table is getting a little wide to add more columns. Though it might be that some columns are wider than they need to be. Gah4 (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Melt column Sort not Working

The sort function on the "Melt" column does not work. I lack the expertise to fix it. The sort functions for columns for Atomic Weight, Density and Boil appear to work. Andromedahpg (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Problem should be fixed, there may be a less crude way than the method I used.Tombo7791 (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tombo7791: The sort order is incorrect. It should be using data-sort-value attributes instead of {{sort}}. Hairy Dude (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

NOT an "armaments manufacturer

NOT an "armaments manufacturer: Alfred Nobel
There is no evidence or history that Nobel was an "armaments manufacturer". He invented and made dynamite for peaceful purposes like mining and construction.
It is VERY difficult to build a highway or a railroad through the mountains/hills without any good, efficient, relatively safe explosives. People tried using nitroglycerine for such things, but that is very dangerous stuff. Nobel invented dynamite because it was lots safer to use.
Nowadays, ammonium nitrate plus fuel oil or diesel fuel is even safer for construction workers and miners.24.121.195.165 (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Not following this all that closely, once you invent something, you can't completely control how it is used. I suspect that some got used in armaments, though I doubt that Mr. Nobel manufactured them. Gah4 (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

According to the Periodic Table of Videos, dynamite is not very good for munitions because the explosion happens too fast. A somewhat slower explosion, does more damage.--Klausok (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

From Alfred Nobel he owned Bofors which is an actual armaments manufacturer. Otherwise, the question is in the 1890's, which may or may not be what is best now. Gah4 (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Notes are unaccesible unless they are expanded

This is not a good user experience. When I click on a Roman-numeral footnote in the table, nothing happens. Unless I go below the table, and click 'Expand' to see the list of notes. What would be the solution? Gikü (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gikü: I've made the notes expanded by default; clicking on them should work now. Hovering on a Roman-numeral footnote should display it even if the notes are collapsed, but that is probably not as intuitive. Double sharp (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Thanks! Gikü (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Spelling

Should this article use US or UK spellings? It uses the British "aluminium" (not "aluminum"), but the US "sulfur" (not "sulphur"). Per WP:ENGVAR, it should be one or the other. Unfortunately these spellings seem to have been introduced at the same time, so there's no precident to call on. Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The current mixture is correct per WP:ALUM. IUPAC recognises aluminium, sulfur, and caesium as the standard international names in 1990, and uses these names as the primary ones, although it does recognise aluminium, sulphur, and cesium as acceptable variants. AFAICS the original addition of the etymologies for each element's name used British English (note colour under the entries for chromium and rhodium), so I'll edit the article accordingly. Double sharp (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done; I've also added {{IUPAC spelling}} to the top of this talk page. Double sharp (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware of WP:ALUM - I've now added it as a legitimate exception at WP:ENGVAR. Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

... which was subsequently reverted . Ho hum... Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Links to Wiktionary

I suggest removing the links to Wiktionary from the table as the meanings implied are already there. The links are "too much of a good thing." WikiArticleEditor (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Melting point of helium

It seems misleading and frankly meaningless to list the melting point of helium at 25 atmospheres (which is not a standard pressure for any use case I am aware of!). It's my understanding of the relevant physics that the melting point may be made arbitrarily low by setting the pressure to be just above that at which helium can solidify. However the actual process of freezing may become impractically tedious. 0.95 may in fact be for example the lowest temperature at which the freezing point of helium has been measured, but this is a fact about the state of the art in cryophysics research, not a fact about helium.

Instead, I think it would be more accurate to either:

* list the superfluid transition point in the "Melt" cell, with an appropriate footnote and possibly the parenthetical (superfluid) or ($\lambda$ point)

• list a dash in the "Melt" cell with a footnote

76.126.136.185 (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Something is fishy about this value, which seems to come only from WebElements. According to Hoffer et al. (Hoffer, J. K.; Gardner, W. R.; Waterfield, C. G.; Phillips, N. E. (April 1976). "Thermodynamic properties of ⁴He. II. The bcc phase and the P-T and VT phase diagrams below 2 K". Journal of Low Temperature Physics. 23 (1): 63–102. doi:10.1007/BF00117245.), 25 atm is the pressure corresponding to a melting point of absolute zero (where pressure exactly compensates for the zero-point energy of the system and allows freezing to the hcp lattice). I'm inclined to change the cell to a dash and change the footnote accordingly. Double sharp (talk) 03:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Double sharp (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

And you can make the melting point arbitrarily high by increasing the pressure. I used to know the pressure for room temperature, but I forgot by now. OK, from [1] it is 114,000 atm. Gah4 (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes of course, though I suppose that the most important pressure for He would still be the lowest one where it can freeze at all. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It appears that the assumption the OP and I made (that decreasing pressure always lowers the melting point for He) is actually wrong, and that I misunderstood the paper I cited, as did Melting points of the elements (data page); see the discussion at Talk:Helium#Melting point. Double sharp (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Atomic weights of the elements 2013 (IUPAC Technical Report)

As of September 6 2019 the atomic weights on this page are based on the Atomic Weights of the Elements 2011 (IUPAC Technical Report) Wieser, M., Holden, N., Coplen, T., et al. (2013). Atomic weights of the elements 2011 (IUPAC Technical Report). Pure and Applied Chemistry, 85(5), pp. 1047-1078. doi:10.1351/PAC-REP-13-03-02

Updates have since been made in the Atomic weights of the elements 2013 (IUPAC Technical Report) Meija, J., Coplen, T., Berglund, M., et al. (2016). Atomic weights of the elements 2013 (IUPAC Technical Report). Pure and Applied Chemistry, 88(3), pp. 265-291. doi:10.1515/pac-2015-0305 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palpatine66 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Abundances for the really rare elements

The values for Po, Rn, Ac, and Pa come from the CRC Handbook: the At value is from Holleman and Wiberg. Those for Tc, Fr, Np, and Pu are only mentioned in terms of their abundance relative to U in various references: for Tc and Fr the refs are in their WP articles, and for Np and Pu it is the 3rd edition of The Chemistry of the Actinide and Transactinide Elements.

Am, Cm, Bk, and Cf are the most dangerous and close-to-OR ones, since only one very recent book lists that they occur naturally. Since I only need the order of magnitude here, a few calculations were done for Am and Cm, all based on info presented in sources. For curium, I calculated it based on the value for ²⁴⁴Cm (decay product ²⁴⁴Pu, whose abundance is cited in its own article: then multiply by the probability of its double beta decay branch that creates ²⁴⁴Cm) because the route by neutron capture is much less likely (the concentration of ²³⁹Pu relative to U, which is produced by single neutron capture, is only about 10⁻¹¹). The rest are from the given neutron capture reactions. I am suspicious about the Emsley source now because the values are SO low I have a hard time imagining how technology suddenly improved by ten orders of magnitude between 2006 (Pu is given as highest in The Chemistry of the Actinide and Transactinide Elements) and 2011 (Emsley). You'd think that we'd then have found primordial ⁹²Nb, ²³⁶U, ²⁰⁵Pb, ¹²⁹I, ²⁴⁷Cm...! Double sharp (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The claim of natural occurrence is really not likely at all for Bk and Cf. And the reason? Starting with ²⁴⁴Cm at 2×10⁻³², you need another five neutron captures for Bk and Cf. Since the ratio of ²³⁹Pu to U is about 10⁻¹¹, I think we can roughly assume that that's the probability of a nucleus in a uranium deposit capturing a neutron to an order of magnitude. Five more factors of 10⁻¹¹ get you to 2×10⁻⁸⁷ for ²⁴⁹Cm. How reasonable this is can be realized from the fact that this concentration means that in the entire Earth's crust, there is at most 6×10⁻⁶² g of ²⁴⁹Bk! And I'm not even considering that it decays! That is not even one atom! At least the values for Am and Cm are plausible! And I have not found a single corroborating source stating that Bk and Cf occur naturally (although I have found such sources for Am and Cm). I'm inclined to remove Bk and Cf outright from our list of natural elements, leaving it at 96, with americium as the rarest natural element. (Disclaimer: yes, if neutrons ever strike ²³⁵U, you could get more neutrons. However, given that we need Cm to already be present because ²³⁵U concentrations aren't high enough anymore, you're asking for a lot of happy coincidences, and I'm not satisfied that Bk and Cf have been detected, at least not without another reliable source that also makes the claim that did NOT copy Emsley or Wikipedia.) Double sharp (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Corrected Am on the prompting of Roentgenium111 to 10⁻²⁷ mg/kg; thanks! Double sharp (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

BTW, in case anyone else has thought of that: yes, the elements up to Fm would have been produced at Oklo, but that was 1.7 billion years ago. Even the longest-lived of the transplutonium elements, ²⁴⁷Cm, has a half-life of only 15.6 million years and all of it is long gone by now. Even ²⁴⁴Pu would probably have decayed beyond measurable quantities, since its production is not likely with the low neutron fluxes characteristic of a nuclear reactor. Double sharp (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Holleman & Wiberg give for the Earth's crust (p. 423): 45 mg At, 100 g Fr, 12 kg Pm, 25 kg Pu, 1.2 tons Np, 8.5 tons Rn, 2500 tons Po, 7000 tons Ac. Double sharp (talk) 04:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Does this or a similar source give an exact figure (i.e. not relative to U) for Tc? I have not found any source corroborating the value of about 16000 tons given in technetium and isotopes of technetium - even in the former's references. ComplexRational (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: Not on that page, but it might appear in the section on Tc; I will check. Double sharp (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@ComplexRational: I haven't found any value for Tc in Holleman & Wiberg. Double sharp (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Thank you for looking. If nothing else comes up, I'll remove those statements as unsourced. ComplexRational (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Melting/boiling points listed for carbon?

The table currently lists a boiling point 500 K higher than the melting point for carbon. This seems to directly defy the fact that carbon sublimates at atmospheric pressure. It should have either only the sublimation point listed, or an irrelevant theoretical melting point and the sublimation point as is currently in place for arsenic. Magic9mushroom (talk) 12:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

List redesign

I am working on a complete redesign of the current #List table.

Issues are, imo:

1. Too crowded with info. For an overview like this, no seven-decimal values are needed.
2. Technically, it is hard to maintain & update.
3. Too much footnotes, applied unhelpful. Footnotes with dozens of backlinks indicate an unhelpful setup. Class-footnotes (like "from decay") better be rebuild into an other presentation form.

I have prepared these changes in a new List template:

1. I have added column "Origin" for primordial/decay/synth (aka occurrence, but more to the point innit?), and column "Category", to allow a text with the standard background colors.
2. Swapped columns to order as Period, Group. Is natural reading sequence / PT sequence.
3. Std atomic weight: use formal short values (abridged, conventional).
4. Use {{Val}} for number formatting & presentation.
5. Footnotes: rebuild.
6. Techically, use a subtemplate for a row. Helps using formatting, maintenance, central data retrieval.
7. Use Elements-data central when available (like std.a.w.).
8. Kept: etymology texts; with minor changes for consistency e.g. when symbol is clarified ("Hg").

Todo

• Compare old rows with new rows per element (see Z-sort trick, below)
• Check footnotes for correct setup
• Refine footnote texts
• Add reference footnotes? eg m.p., b.p.
• Column ordering may change, kept for now to compare-with-old checks.
• Later, after implementing: data like mp, bp, density could use a check by source.
• Obvious edits and footnote text improvements: go ahead.

For suggestive edits & ideas, pls consider talking here.

• Other improvements to consider? Add/remove columns?

About the new template

• The new List is in {{List of chemical elements}}
• For development & checking, it now has the 'old' rows from this article in there too. To compare: just sort by Z !

Before going live, the extra info will be removed.

• Old header, footnotes in there too.

What do you think? -DePiep (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

list of isotopes chronology

Why is there no List of isotopes in chronological order? UB Blacephalon (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

That list would have some 3500 isotopes. What would you expect? -DePiep (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, a list of all known isotopes in the world with a column of the year they found it next to it and maybe another column for how it was discovered? UB Blacephalon (talk) 03:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: That is not a bad idea, although it may be better on another page due to size concerns. In the meantime, you want Michael Thoennessen's book The Discovery of Isotopes: A Complete Compilation. On pages 298 to 383 it has such a table; although sorted by element rather than by year, it does give discovery years. (And those page numbers should tell you something about the size of such an endeavour. ^_^) Double sharp (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Double sharp: That sounds amazing, I hope you could make such a list! As for the book, where can I get it? Is it in libraries? UB Blacephalon (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: My apologies, it would take too much time for me. I am involved in a big discussion at the moment, and after that I confess I mostly want to focus on my real-life work that is not chemistry. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 09:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Oh no, it's fine. Maybe I could get other people to help as I have not published a page before so it's totally fine, sorry! UB Blacephalon (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Blacephalon: No problem. Thanks! Double sharp (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

^o^ UB Blacephalon (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)