Talk:Discovery of chemical elements/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Including atomic numbers in this table would make it more useful.

Last natural element discovered?

This article says Francium was the "last naturally occurring element discovered" (1939), then says Astatine was discovered in 1940. But the article on Astatine says it is naturally occurring (in the second sentence). Could this apparent contradiction be fixed please? McKay 01:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Fr was the last element discovered in nature. At is naturally occuring but was discovered synthetically, so doesn't count. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Beryllium

I don't know much about the history of the discoveries of elements, so I don't know why berylium is listed twice: 1798 and 1828. Just thought I'd point that out to anyone who is interested in the subject and would like to research it. --DangApricot 03:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I just noticed this too. So far as I can see, the 1798 entry is Vauquelin's discovery of the oxide, and the 1828 entry is Wöhler and Bussy's independent first isolations of the metal. Now the introduction says "The elements are listed generally in the order in which each was first defined as the pure element", but then I'm not at all sure what that actually means. I suspect that the elements mentioned up to and including the first half of the 19th century had by no means all been obtained 'pure' - so where does that leave us? Given that sodium and suchlike are listed for first isolation of the metals, even though (AFAIK) chemists had been sure that the alkali metal salts did contain metals, that would lead us to prefer the later date and we should remove the earlier one. Opinions? Kay Dekker 01:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ununoctium

Ununoctium appears to have been discovered twice. There should be only one instance of discovery on the chart, right? - Unsigned

Oxygen

Should it perhaps be noted that Scheele discovered oxygen a few years earlier than Priestly, but did not publish the discovery until 1777? On the page Carl Wilhelm Scheele it is also stated that he "also discovered other chemical elements such as barium (1774), chlorine (1774), manganese (1774), molybdenum (1778), and tungsten (1781)". This is in disagreement with what is said in these tables. Myself, I am not familiar enough with the history to be of much help, but it seems to me both pages cannot be right... Osquar F 13:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That should be clarified, yes. —Nightstallion (?) 02:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Gold is missing from the list of elements known in antiquity.

John Woodruff

Time-line Table of elements?

Just an idea - you could make a table of elements colour coded with the century of discovery ... e.g. dull (e.g. grey) for anciently discovered and bright (e.g. red) for more recent. Just to add a splash of colour, may be there is a nice trend -- Quantockgoblin 07:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Text boxes

I think it would look a lot better if you fixed the width of all the text boxes so that they all line up - i.e. when scanning down the list it is a little distracting at the moment -- Quantockgoblin 10:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Old names and symbols

I think it might be nice if you could include the modern symbols e.g. H and the ancient symbol used in alchemy. Also if there is an ancient name give that too? -- just an idea -- Quantockgoblin 10:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Splash of colour

You could also consider adding pics of the chemical elements in one of the columns. -- Quantockgoblin 12:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Antiquity elements

The first section on the elements has a huge amount of repetition; perhaps even a table is unnecessary here? I assume the table is given to be in a more consistent format with the rest of the article, but maybe there is enough reason to just state something like the following: 'The following elements were discovered in antiquity (discoverers being unknown)^{ref1 ref2} . Thanks. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Poll/request for feedback

I've listed this article because I am stumped about an essential feature of the article/list: I am not sure how to define the discovery date. Here are some cases I have stumped onto (I am talking mostly about the Recorded discoveries section):

1) many early elements are noticed/discovered by someone, but there is not a good definition of chemical element available to label as such; also, there was no academic community to accept these discoveries;

2) many elements were discovered by someone but they did not care enough to advertize their discoveries (i.e. palladium) or simply did not get to publish it fast enough; meanwhile others have published similar discoveries, and not in every case the latter recognized the discovery of the first person;

3) some elements were discovered obscurely but never got any attention; nevertheless, scientific assesments suggest veridicity of results (I cannot think of a better example right now, but technetium is a good example);

4) some rare elements were discovered, but I am not sure they were actually truly isolated; for example some rare earths wewre probably isolated in small quantities, but there might be no report besides the initial discovery (heaviest radioactive elements fall in this category also)

5) some elements were almost surely known to exist before they were isolated; for example F isolation from HF had been attempted for a very long time before it was actually done; is isolation=discovery in this case?

6) some elements were prepared very impure; later, others got the credit for doing the separation the same way, but at higher purity (i.e. silicon); who is the winner?

7) more to be added! I don't care about MOS or text yet. I just want to know what should I use as a principal date.

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I would suggest to report the first recorded date of discovery or mention of the element. If it looks like whoever mentionned the element first did not consider it a "discovery", then place a footnote or something saying that this is only the first report of an element, rather than the actual date of discovery.
• Also I wouldn't call isolation = discovery. If they knew an element was in a molecule, then the element was discovered.
• First persons to create the element wins. Give mention the second person if you feel its important
• Hope that helps. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 01:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say to always list in order of discovery, not isolation. If the isolation date is significantly later than the discovery date, then it's worth mentioning including. As for the early elements, I don't think that an early lack of knowledge about chemistry really matters. So long as someone recognizes an element as a distinct substance, as with copper, that counts as a discovery. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to have first characterization/mention/experiment that determined there is a new element/compound; first publication of results (that appeared in a journal, that ended up being widely accepted), and first isolation of the element (widely recognized). But is still have problems. Here's a typical example, arsenic:

• first discovered by Geber
• Albertus Magnus around 1200 proved that there was a metallic substance obtained from arsenic oxides. "However, his documentation is considered vague" but people in the Middle Ages seemed to name this substance.
• It was not until 1649 that Johann Schröder (1600-1664) clearly reported the preparation of metallic
• Lavoisier was the first to state that metals are elements, not compounds.

Geber would clearly fit in the first category, but his works did not spread. Magnus's results seemed to be more spread, so he could fit for the second. Schroder's result definitived the debate and obtained the metal clearly. Lavoisier named this metal as element. Who should fit where? Nergaal (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nergaal, thanks for inviting me to the discussion. Personally, I think that adding more columns might not be necessary, as the Notes section already deals with the same information. In the case of arsenic for example, Geber's works were actually quite widespread among both medieval Arabic and European alchemists. Since the works of both Geber and Albertus Magnus were widespread, I don't think it's necessary to have a column about who should get credit for making the substance more widesptead. Of course, neither of them recognized it as an 'element', so I do think it would be a good idea to have a column for the first person to recognize it as an element, as with Lavoisier in a number of cases. In my opinion, I think the "First report of characterization (widely recognized)" and "First person to report characterization (usually accepted discoverer)" columns should be replaced by something like "First person to recognize as element". Jagged 85 (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Did gold or silver come first?

The dates given in the article contradict the comment as to which came first. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that this has been fixed now. Thanks. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Diamond or coal?

Although pure carbon (Allotropes of carbon) is best known as either graphite or diamond, coal is mostly carbon and has been known much longer. So why is not coal listed as the first known instance of elemental carbon? JRSpriggs (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Or charcoal, for that matter? —WWoods (talk) 02:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that this has been fixed now. Thanks. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Chromium

Really, discovered by the terracotta army? 69.198.107.229 (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Table formatting?

Trying to cram all that Notes text into a narrow column messes up the table. How about something like this instead:

Z	Element name	First observed or predicted	First report of characterization (widely recognized)	First isolation (widely known)	First observerer	First person to report characterization (usually accepted discoverer)	First isolator
		Notes
33	Arsenic	800 CE (ca.)		800 CE (ca.)	Geber		Geber
		Discovered and isolated by Geber ca. 800 CE. Albertus Magnus was the first European to isolate the element in 1250. In 1649, Johann Schröder published two ways of preparing elemental arsenic.
51	Antimony	800 (ca.)		800 (ca.)	Geber		Geber
		Discovered and isolated by Geber ca. 800 CE. Basilius Valentinus was the first European to describe the element around 1450. First description of a procedure for isolating elemental antimony in 1540 by Vannoccio Biringuccio.
83	Bismuth	800 (ca.)		1753	Geber		Claude François Geoffroy
		Discovered by Geber ca. 800. Later described in writings attributed to Basilius Valentinus around 1450. Definitively identified by Claude François Geoffroy in 1753.
30	Zinc	1526		1746	Paracelsus		Andreas Sigismund Marggraf
		Identified as a unique metal by the alchemist Paracelsus but was extracted as a metal since antiquity (by Indian metallurgists before 100 BCE), but the true nature of this metal was not understood in ancient times.
15	Phosphorus	1669		1669	Hennig Brand		Hennig Brand
		Prepared from urine, it was the first element to be chemically discovered.
27	Cobalt	1732		?	Georg Brandt		?
		Proved that the blue color of glass is due to a new kind of metal and not bismuth as thought previously.
78	Platinum	1735		1735	Antonio de Ulloa		Antonio de Ulloa
		First description of a metal found in South American gold was in 1557 by Julius Caesar Scaliger. Ulloa published his findings in 1748, but Sir Charles Wood also investigated the metal in 1741. First reference to it as a new metal was made by William Brownrigg in 1750.
28	Nickel	1751		1751	Axel Fredrik Cronstedt		Axel Fredrik Cronstedt
		By attempting to extract copper from the mineral known as "fake copper" (now known as niccolite).
12	Magnesium	1755		1808	Joseph Black		Humphry Davy
		Black observed that magnesia alba (MgO) was not quicklime (CaO). Davy isolated it electrochemically from magnesia.
1	Hydrogen	1766		1500(ca.)	Henry Cavendish		Paracelsus
		Cavendish was the first to distinguish H 2 from other gases, although Paracelsus around 1500, Robert Boyle, and Joseph Priestley had observed its production by reacting strong acids with metals. Lavoisier named it in 1793.

That loses the "sortable" feature, however.
—WWoods (talk) 06:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks better but... I wanted to add all three dates and all three people because of the sort function. If you find a way to make sort still work, regardless of the way the table looks, I am totally for it! Nergaal (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I came here following a plea for help at Help talk:Table#Help needed. I guess I don't see the problem that you're trying to correct. Clearly there are problems above, but everything looks fine on the article page at browser widths from 2048 down to 1024 pixels. Narrower than that—down to 600 to 800—it's a bit "scrunchy" but still quite usable. —EncMstr (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The table on the page is quite cramped. I was thinking the table here looks much bettter, but loses the sort function. Is it possible to have a table like this with sort function? Nergaal (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is. Once the rows have multiple meanings like that, there's no way to sort sensibly. If it were my task, I'd concentrate on making the narrow columns narrower, like using a shorter word than characterization for the two columns in Recorded discoveries. Maybe use fewer columns? —EncMstr (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

How can I make the table with a width of 150%, or say 800px? This woulld sove teh cramping and would make the table still usable. Nergaal (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend eliminating the "Report of characterization" and "Person who widely reported first characterization" columns entirely. The only entry that uses either one of these columns is the first one (arsenic), and even there the "Report of characterization" column only has a question mark in it--not exactly vital information. It would free up a lot of column space to just eliminate both; if there's a desire to keep the reference to Albertus Magnus for arsenic, then just make a footnote of it under the "Observer" column. The Rev (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

help

can somebody open this article: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/114234977/abstract Pleaaase `Nergaal (talk) 11:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I might get it! --Stone (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry its pay per view also for academic institutions in Germany.--Stone (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Order

What's the default order of the elements? If it's by "First observed", then Manganese (1770) and Barium (1772) are out of place. If by "First isolation", then Bismuth (1753), Zinc (1746), Magnesium (1808), Hydrogen (1500(ca.)), Barium (1808), and Tellurium (1795?). Also, the names are sorting by first name rather than last. I think there's some way of putting in a sort key, so that e.g. "Franz-Joseph Müller von Reichenstein" is sorted by "Reichenstein", but I don't know how that works.
—WWoods (talk) 14:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the sorting order is independent of what is displayed by using the {{sort}} template. Instead of Franz-Joseph...Reichenstein, write {{sort|Reichenstein|Franz-Joseph...Reichenstein}}. That is, {{sort|what it is sorted by|what is shown}}. —EncMstr (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Looking into it, I see there's also {{sortname}}, which'd save a bit of copy&pasting: {{sort|Franz-Joseph...|Reichenstein}}

—WWoods (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Discover

The key question is: Who discovered the elemet? I have the problem with the definition of discovery.

• Fluorine was known as a element for very long time and used acordingly. So who discovered it? Some alchemist or early chemist I would suggest. Fore sure not Moissan.
• For my impression Molybdenum and Fluorine and some others are treated very different:

Molybdenum was discovered by Scheele although he only suggested the composition of Molybdena.

Fluorine was discoverd by Moissan because he first isolated it.

Lithium was first isolated as element by William Thomas Brande but Arfwedson discovered it

Zinc was used in ancient india but not identivied as an element, so knowing it but not stating it is an element makes you not discover it.

Copper was found by some ancient tribes 6000 BC but who suggested first that this is an elemenmt?

Had Geber already the concept of elemet when he isolated arsenic? If not he does not qualify as discoverer like the producers of zic in india.

For me this long list incorporates a lot of difficult to answer questions which would be best answered in an text, because a list is not capable to do the trick of giving explanations.--Stone (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all the table is not fully updated, so feel free to update it. I agree the answer is hard to give. I had created most of the text of the article when I noticed this. I even opened some sort of a poll up here to try to brainstorm on this issue. Nevertheless, simply going to a text is not the best option since this table has a huge potential in terms of sorting. Also, the first part is different from the recorded discovies.

My suggestion was to very clearly state 3 categories: one was first observer or predictor (i.e. discovery of HF or the first statement that HF includes a new element would count here for F); first published result which received wide aknowledgement (this would be hard for the early elements, but it should include the date the discovery was either put in a report or a book - i.e. first person to say that there is a new element and here is its spectra/characterisation); and first person to isolate+characterize the elemental form (i.e. publish a result saying here is how to get gaseous F2). These are all suggestions. Once several clear classifications are found, this list would look great. Nergaal (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I prefer just simply having two categories: the first observer or predictor, and the first isolator or characterizor. I really don't see any reason why the wide aknowledgement category is necessary, especially in regards to ancient and medieval times when discoveries were limited to certain regions. If there are some cases where it's necessary to point out the first wide aknowledgement, then the Notes section can explain it, instead of having an extra column for it. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I also think that the Indians should be recognized as the first observers of zinc, as they were clearly aware of zinc and built the first zinc mines. It seems a bit odd that the ancients are recognized as the first observers for the other elements, but not for zinc. Also, the only elements from the list that were referred to as 'elements' in medieval times were sulfur and mercury by Geber. The rest were not identified as 'elements' until Lavoiser. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Graph

It would be interesting to see a time graph of the discoveries to get a sense of how quickly/slowly the discovery of chemical elements occured. Suntag (talk) 04:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be great! Any takers for this job? Nergaal (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• http://www.mpoweruk.com/elements.htm Nergaal (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• http://periodictable.com/Properties/A/DiscoveryYear.html 65.80.178.227 (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• I have made this:

Soerfm (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sulfur/ Mecury

These are not identified as "elements" in the chemical sense by Jabir/Geber. In their pure (philosophical) state they are "principles" in the theory of metallogenesis. Please see The Mineral Exhaltation Theory of Metallogenesis in Pre-Modern Mineral Science Ambix Vol. 53, No. 1 March 2006 Pgs 43-65

J8079s (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

lead and tin

I took this out :Lead was first purified and clearly differentiated from tin by medieval [[Alchemy and chemistry in Islam|Middle Eastern chemists]]<ref name=El-Eswed>{{Cite journal|title=Lead and Tin in Arabic Alchemy|first=Bassam I.|last=El-Eswed|journal=Arabic Sciences and Philosophy|year=2002|volume=12|pages=139–53|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|doi=10.1017/S0957423902002060}}</ref> as lead and tin were purified and clearly differentiated from at least Mesopotamian times. J8079s (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a cite Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: The Archaeological Evidence By Peter Roger Stuart Moorey Published by EISENBRAUNS, 1999 ISBN 1575060426 J8079s (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

What is this supposed to mean ?

"The elements are listed generally in the order in which each was first defined as the pure element, as the exact date of discovery of most elements cannot be accurately defined."

What is this misconceived sentence supposed to mean? What does "defined as the pure element" mean ?? There is a problem with the word "defined". You can infer the existence of, discover, extract, measure, determine the properties of a chemical element, but you cannot "define" it. And what is a "pure element" ? All elements are "pure". Is the sentence intended to mean, the preparation of a sample of the element which is not mixed or compounded with any other element ? To what degree of purity ? For many elements, preparation of "pure" ( uncontaminated ) samples occured decades after the existence of the element was scientifically conclusive.Eregli bob (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Gold and Queen Zer

Queen Zer I suggest never existed. There are lots of websites that mention her and her gold or turquoise burial goods, but many are plainly humbug, for example many date her to 5500 BC. The earliest mummies are no earlier than about 3300 BC. I can find this reference [1] to a queen Zur, wife of an Athotis.

I suggest that Zer is a old variant of Djer(Aka Athothis), and hence not a queen. Gold was found associated with Djer, see [:File:CeremonialFlintKnife-Djer.png] for example. This site purports to have a picture of the gold and turqoise bracelet found on a human wrist at tomb O, identified as the tomb of Djer. I'll mark the article as "dubious".

"widely known"

In the "Recorded discoveries" table is a column headed "Isolation (widely known)". I have no clue what this means. What is it that is "widely known"? The element? The person who isolated it? The fact that it was isolated? 86.160.83.63 (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Smelting of iron / iron age

"The discovery of smelting around 3000 BC led to the start of the iron age around 1200 BC"

It needs to be clarified whether "discovery of smelting" refer to the smelting of iron or to the general technique. If the former, then why was there a 1800 year gap? If the latter, then it contradicts the statement earlier that "lead smelting began at least 9000 years ago". 86.181.201.159 (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible mistake

When referring to Carbon, "Samaritans" are mentioned. This might be a mistake. Perhaps, Sumerians are meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.29.164 (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I have improved the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.29.164 (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a good entry title

"chemical elements discoveries" is not idiomatic English. I would say it requires an apostrophe ("chemical elements' discoveries", i.e. the discoveries of the elements) or, better, should be changed to "chemical element discoveries". 86.135.115.218 (talk) 10:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Platinum

Show next lines: Show previous lines:

Probably because of this. It was identified as a distinct element in 1753 but was known and used well before that. In that respect it is a bit like Zn. Double sharp (talk) 09:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I've added the Inca use of bismuth in the article. Double sharp (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Timeline of chemical elements discoveries → Timeline of chemical element discoveries – Per comment above, current title is not proper English. 86.146.106.166 (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support – This should be a speedy move, in my opinion. --Article editor (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I agree that this ought to be an uncontroversial speedy move. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Chromium

The current entry for 'chromium' under 'Unrecorded discoveries' is inconsistent with the Chromium article which states:

"Chromium oxide was used by the Chinese in the Qin dynasty over 2,000 years ago to coat metal weapons found with the Terracotta Army. Chromium was discovered as an element after it came to the attention of the Western world in the red crystalline mineral crocoite (lead(II) chromate), discovered in 1761 and initially used as a pigment. Louis Nicolas Vauquelin first isolated chromium metal from this mineral in 1797."

--Kevjonesin (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

So the contradiction is with

"Chromium...Before 1 CE...Terracotta Army...China...Found coating various weapons in China because of its high strength and corrosion resistance"

with the reference Cotterell, Maurice. (2004). The Terracotta Warriors: The Secret Codes of the Emperor's Army. Rochester: Bear and Company. ISBN 1-59143-033-X. Page 102. Terracotta Army also says "chromium dioxide", using the same reference and others. Siuenti (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, the Chinese Wikipedia entry for chromium says "discovered in 1797". Siuenti (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the Chinese Wikipedia, Siuenti.

It seems to me that the presence of 'chromium (di)oxide' on ancient artifacts is likely a weak, if not outright spurious, indicator of an early awareness of chromium as a distinct element. In light of which the chromium entry might better reside alongside other existing eighteenth-century (1700s) entries.

I did some 'snooping' as well. Found a chinahistoryforum.com entry examining the question in—fairly extensive—detail:

It seems clear the swords are not ‘chromed’ in the sense we understand it today, nor was the identified material used to coat them chromium as such, but a reduction of chromium in combination with other material (into Potassium chromate) and it may be that chromium was created in a reduction process rather than actual isolated.[2]

Much that is posted in casual articles about the weapons and their 'coating' may well be repeatedly recycled media simplifications/exaggerations. I'm thinking that unless some reputable scientific/academic source can be found explicitly attributing knowledge of elemental chromium to the ancient Chinese it would be best to categorize the chromium entry by the known 1700s dates.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Wait, the ancient Chinese Cr claim is back? I could've sworn we'd gotten rid of it some time ago: it seems to keep coming back for some reason. I've taken it back out and replaced the Vauquelin entry for Cr (which is indisputable). Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Zinc

When I typed in "When was Zinc discovered" in Google, it was discovered in 1746. But in the article, it was discovered before the Middle Ages. Should I change Zinc to "Discovered to Middle Ages?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erbium Is Awesome (talk • contribs) 22:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Rasaratna Samuccaya

He was not a person. This is the title of a book. Double sharp (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Timeline of chemical element discoveries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080917214726/https://www.rameria.com:80/inglese/history.html to http://www.rameria.com/inglese/history.html

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080916201636/https://georgiagulfsulfur.com:80/history.htm to http://www.georgiagulfsulfur.com/history.htm

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061230040713/https://periodic.lanl.gov:80/elements/22.html to http://periodic.lanl.gov/elements/22.html

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130604212956/http://chemeducator.org/sbibs/s0010005/spapers/1050387gk.htm to http://chemeducator.org/sbibs/s0010005/spapers/1050387gk.htm

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091221072744/https://www.iupac.org:80/web/nt/2009-06-26_Uub to http://www.iupac.org/web/nt/2009-06-26_Uub

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Antimony

I find the "in widespread use" for this element and the source given rather questionable. As far as I can gather, the sulfide (stibnite, Sb₂S₃), was used (in cosmetics) but not known as an element or metal until much later. The "in widespread use" bit implies the element, not a compound. Kleuske (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Moscovium - 2010? Really?

A lot of earlier sources (and even the Wikiepdia article on it) claim 2003, but why so recent here?

Same thing for the others. I'm sure flerovium was 1999 and livermorium was 2000.

Vandalism? Or something further?

8.40.151.110 (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

IUPAC. The 2003 discovery did not meet IUPAC's criteria; the 2010 discovery of ^289,290Mc as daughters of ^293,294Ts did. Same with Fl and Lv; the initial discoveries did not meet IUPAC's criteria, but the later experiments did. Double sharp (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I changed it on the element articles for Nh–Og, this time with hidden comments to deter others who might not be aware of this from changing it back. You can see all the IUPAC reports linked at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Elements/Links. Double sharp (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

What about, say, Ds, Rg, and Cn? Were those actually later or no? 8.40.151.110 (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

No; for those, the original discoveries were confirmed. The IUPAC technical reports are here: Ds, Rg, and Cn. (Although arguably since the 1966 date from IUPAC for nobelium is from the date of publication of the papers, Ds and Rg should really say 1995 instead of 1994; I will change that.) Double sharp (talk) 04:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that after the IUPAC reports accepting the discoveries of moscovium and tennessine, there have appeared new articles noting some incongruencies in the decay chains (one, two). Burzuchius and I have remarked on this at Talk:Tennessine#Number of atoms and isotopes): the nuclides involved are probably still Mc and Ts isotopes and their daughters, but they might not be the ones claimed, and some of the more removed daughters may have been misidentified more significantly (the extremely short half-life of ²⁷⁷Mt to spontaneous fission that is claimed is rather unusual given its odd proton that should hinder this, but if it is not the daughter of ²⁸¹Rg but is instead the granddaughter of ²⁸⁰Rg via ²⁸⁰Ds, then it would make perfect sense as the even-even ²⁷⁶Hs). So it is plausible that in the future IUPAC will push back the discovery date even further, when future studies confirm these two elements beyond all reasonable doubt. (The names have already been officially assigned and will not change even if that happens, as it did with nobelium.)

It is honestly rather a pity that IUPAC has not commented on the discoveries of the first hundred elements. Different sources often give slightly different dates for some of them, and there are quite a few truly controversial cases such as lutetium and actinium. Double sharp (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The articles for Ds and Rg need to be updated as well. I see how Lu and Ac could be controversial. 8.40.151.110 (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

P.S. The reason I chose this option is that otherwise it gets difficult to explain Nh. If you say Mc was discovered in 2003, then so was Nh, the year before the RIKEN team saw its first event, and so JINR should be the discoverers; but then it gets named Nh by RIKEN instead. Maybe rewriting it like Lu would be better. Similarly I'd add a note that Fl, Lv, and Og were discovered earlier but only published a bit later and recognised by IUPAC in even later experiments. But then if you use the earliest experiments for Fl and Lv the difficulty is that these seem to have undergone electron capture along the way, which would move forward the discovery of Nh; I think we would need to rewrite that like Pa.

All right, I seem to have convinced myself that it would work fairly well! So I guess I'll do it to avoid this confusion. Double sharp (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Timeline of chemical element discoveries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070108015008/http://neon.mems.cmu.edu/cramb/Processing/history.html to http://neon.mems.cmu.edu/cramb/Processing/history.html

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070115042236/http://www.ec.gc.ca/MERCURY/EN/bf.cfm to http://www.ec.gc.ca/MERCURY/EN/bf.cfm

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309030116/http://www.chem.shef.ac.uk/chm131-2001/chb01jms/caesium.html to http://www.chem.shef.ac.uk/chm131-2001/chb01jms/caesium.html

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081003153044/http://www.maik.ru/abstract/radchem/0/radchem0535_abstract.pdf to http://www.maik.ru/abstract/radchem/0/radchem0535_abstract.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Last stable element to be discovered

This article claims that "Hafnium was the last stable element to be discovered." The article on Hafnium calls it the penultimate stable element to be discovered. The article on Rhenium claims it to be the last stable one. I have no idea what's correct, just trying to point out the inconsistencies.--37.201.181.76 (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Re was discovered in 1908 by Ogawa, but at the time the discovery was not recognised. In the meantime Hf was discovered, and so when Re was rediscovered in 1925 it looked like it was the last. I'll fix the Hf and Re articles. Double sharp (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Should Pd be 1802, and question about Mc, Ts, and Og

According to this it's possible that Pd should be 1802: http://www.vanderkrogt.net/elements/element.php?sym=Pd

Also, I've seen some sources claiming 2005 for Og and 2009 for Mc and Ts. Is that when the first events were seen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:B1FB:9425:19EF:D9E4 (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

It's complicated. Wollaston discovered the metal in 1802 (we know that from his lab book) and named it palladium the same year, but he only published the discovery (most unconventionally by offering samples which he had purified for sale in a Soho shop) in 1803. He first published on palladium traditionally in 1804 (although the paper was on rhodium, he mentioned palladium several times) and only disclosed that he had been the discoverer of palladium in an 1805 paper. As such, one needs to define what exactly one means by a "discovery", and then we need to remember that there is no definition that will apply equally well to 1669 (phosphorus) and 2009 (tennessine).

As for the superheavies: the first atom of oganesson was synthesised in 2002, but the discovery was not announced externally because its decay energy was the same as that of ^212mPo, a common unwanted side product in experiments aimed at producing superheavy elements. As such the ²⁴⁹Cf+⁴⁸Ca experiment was rerun in 2005, when two more atoms of ²⁹⁴Og were made, and publication occurred in 2006 (including both the 2002 and the 2005 data). The first atoms of ²⁹³Ts were certainly produced between July and October 2009 (see the discovery paper) and I have changed tennessine accordingly to 2009; moscovium on the other hand was first produced in 2003 in the ²⁴³Am+⁴⁸Ca reaction, although the IUPAC–IUPAP JWP only recognised its production as the daughter of tennessine in 2009. Since we are now going by dates of first generally accepted production rather than waiting for the JWP announcements, I've retained 2003 for moscovium. Nihonium is then treated as a case of roughly contemporarous independent discoveries (kind of like how bromine is treated now). Double sharp (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Question about Si

Did Berzelius actually think he had discovered it rather than simply isolating it? It's mentioned in works of his from before 1823... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:C95:5EFB:69C9:5AB5 (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Depends how you look at it. By modern standards he was the discoverer, as no one before him had successfully isolated it; whether he thought of himself as such is quite another matter (you can read his original paper here in English and here in Swedish). Certainly fluorine was often mentioned in the literature before Moissan isolated it in 1886. It is fairly difficult to be consistent in such a list because we then have to deal with uranium: Klaproth thought there was a new element in the mineral he was examining, and he was right, but he claimed to have isolated it, and in that he was wrong. Yet he is pretty much universally acclaimed as its discoverer, and not Péligot. Double sharp (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. I would say the discoverer would be the first person to recognize the existence of the new element. How could F have been included in the first periodic table if it wasn't discovered until 1886? If we're treating "earths/radicals" as their component elements, then Na and K could possibly be 1758, F 1771, Ca ?1755, and B, Al, and Si also in the 1700's. I know the theory of combustion wasn't put forth until the 1770's–80's, but it just doesn't make sense to me that Na, K, F, Ca, B, Al, and Si would be discovered so long after Y. I also tried to use 1808 for Al, Si, Be, and Zr (from Humphry Davy's paper naming them) but I was called out on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:C95:5EFB:69C9:5AB5 (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Does this help with regard to Si, Al, Zr, Be, and Y? https://books.google.com/books?id=TPY4AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA135&dq=ittrium+1808&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwij3PbYl5_aAhUGxYMKHeiWBSsQuwUITDAG#v=onepage&q=ittrium%201808&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:C95:5EFB:69C9:5AB5 (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Let me know what you think of this suggestion, pulled from the book I linked to above:

Potassium – Davy 1807

Sodium – Davy 1807

Calcium – Davy 1808

Barium – Davy 1808

Strontium – Davy 1808

Magnesium – Davy 1808

Yttrium – Davy 1808 (isol. Mosander 1843)

Beryllium – Davy 1808 (isol. Wöhler and Bussy 1828)

Aluminum – Davy 1808 (isol. Ørsted 1825)

Zirconium – Davy 1808 (isol. Berzelius 1824)

Silicon – Berzelius and Davy 1808 (isol. Berzelius 1823)

Boron – Gay-Lussac & Thénard 1808 (isol. Davy 1808)

Fluorine – Ampère 1810 (isol. Moissan 1886) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:C95:5EFB:69C9:5AB5 (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Going that way, wouldn't Al have to be 1787 and B and F 1789 (Lavoisier, mentioned in the article)? I think all this sort of thing is quite logical but that it can get us fairly far afield from the general consensus of reliable sources is (which is fairly inconsistent). We'd have to ask ourselves:

1. Is it a discovery if somebody mistakes a compound for the new element? (Uranium.)
2. Is it a discovery if somebody finds the element, but thinks it is a compound? (Chlorine.)
3. Is it a discovery if somebody finds the element but has by modern standards a completely wrong understanding of what it is? (Nitrogen and oxygen.)
4. Is it a discovery if someone predicts that a new element must be there, but has no means of finding it, but the new element becomes part of accepted theoretical chemistry anyway? (Not only Davy with Al and others, but also Mendeleev for Sc, Ga, Ge, and many others.)
5. Is it a discovery if evidence is presented for a new element but chemical isolation is not done, either due to location (helium) or short half-life (oganesson)?
6. Is it a discovery if someone correctly thinks there is a new element there but mistakenly thinks he has isolated it when he has not? (Urbain's claim for lutetium.)
7. Is it a discovery if someone claims to have found a new element, and was widely accepted as a discoverer, but later advances in chemistry shows that he cannot have found that element, but really found a different element which he did not claim? (Debierne's claim for actinium, which was probably protactinium; Ogawa's claim for nipponium, which he thought was eka-manganese but we now know was probably dvi-manganese.)
8. Is it a discovery if someone claims to have found a new element, but his claim is rejected, only to be reevaluated later thanks to advances in chemistry? (For some time there was doubt about polonium as an element.)
9. Is it a discovery if someone claims to have discovered a new element, was probably correct in hindsight, but he only found really convincing evidence for it later? What year should such a situation be placed under? (Lawrencium and flerovium.)

Trying to provide one-size-fits-all answers to these questions would provide interesting results, but as the TWG alluded to, absolute priority tends to mean absolute injustice. Really, this whole list exists only because of the tradition that the discoverer names an element. I think the best way to deal with it is just to follow the consensus of historians (Mary Elvira Weeks is an excellent start) and put enough explanatory information for readers to make up their own minds. Double sharp (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

1. I would say yes for U and no for the others (Be, Zr, Sr, Y, Ba, Mg, and possibly others), but that one is a little confusing.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. If the evidence is from the properties of its compounds (F, Al, Si, etc.) and not purely theoretical.
5. Yes.
6. Yes.
7. Unless they are definitively disproven if they are still widely accepted as the discoverer; not if they retracted their claim.
8. Unless the discoverer him/herself rejects the claim.
9. I'd keep the earlier year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:C95:5EFB:69C9:5AB5 (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Reasonable answers, even if not all sources would agree with them. Anyway, getting back to the point, we would need to push things back even further, because of this 1787 comment from Lavoisier: "We are probably only acquainted as yet with a part of the metallic substances existing in nature, as all those which have a stronger affinity to oxygen than carbon possesses, are incapable, hitherto, of being reduced to a metallic state, and consequently, being only presented to our observation under the form of oxyds, are confounded with earths. It is extremely probable that barytes, which we have just now arranged with earths, is in this situation; for in many experiments it exhibits properties nearly approaching to those of metallic bodies. It is even possible that all the substances we call earths may be only metallic oxyds, irreducible by any hitherto known process." He was discussing the "earths" he had listed, and from that list we would end up having to give him credit for discovering Mg, Al, Si, Ca, and Ba; then Davy would have named them (including Al and Si, which he could not isolate), and their isolation would come even later. Similarly Lavoisier's mention of radical boracique and radical fluorique rather implies by these standards that he discovered boron and fluorine. Double sharp (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I must admit that I'm not sure what you mean for #7. Using Debierne's example again, he claimed the discovery of actinium and today is still usually recognised as such, but the chemistry he recorded for it is wholly inconsistent with that known for actinium suggests that what he had at first was really what we now know as protactinium. Is it reasonable to credit him as the discoverer of Ac? Is it reasonable to credit him as the discoverer of Pa? This is the kind of difficulty I am talking about. Double sharp (talk) 06:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

1787 for Mg, Al, Si, Ca, and Ba and 1789 for B and F actually make sense, especially if we're using 1794 for the rather rare and obscure Y. That said, the date that Davy named them still makes a lot of sense too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:75D7:1FB0:D1AB:1E30 (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Yttrium isn't that rare: it's more common than lead. I don't think it's that remarkable that common-sounding elements got discovered later since they are more difficult to isolate, even if you know that they are there. Double sharp (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

But if you know they're there then haven't they already been discovered? That's the way I see it... Also, I didn't know yttrium is more common than lead. Learn something new every day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:A594:E4D2:7948:BAC8 (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

How about we just change Al and Si to 1808 as outlined above and keep everything else the same? Let me know what you think of that idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:A594:E4D2:7948:BAC8 (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The trouble is what counts as knowing that an element is there. Take hafnium: Bohr certainly knew that element 72 would be found in zirconium ores, and motivated by his predictions Coster and Hevesy searched for it there and found it. Isn't this the same situation, just with periodicity and electronic structure substituted for an understanding of the role of oxygen in oxidation and a recognition that earths are metal oxides? If we would like to consider Lavoisier (who understood this) or Davy (who tried and failed to isolate them after Lavoisier had made his remarks) the discoverer of aluminium, when actually they just looked at alumina and realised that it must be the oxide of a metal they could not isolate, why don't we consider Bohr the discoverer of hafnium? (Strictly speaking Bohr was not the only one who predicted that element 72 should be an eka-zirconium at the time, but his prediction is certainly the most well-known.) After all, all samples of zirconium at the time already contained significant hafnium impurities. Double sharp (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

If you only have periodicity and electronic structure to go on then you haven't observed the element yet; that's not the case with the role of oxygen in oxidation and a recognition that earths are metal oxides if you're working with the oxide (which Davy was). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:84EE:DBA2:4565:26B0 (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

If we're using 1825 for Al and 1823 for Si then we'd have to use 1886 for F, which doesn't make any sense because it was clearly known to exist before then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:3DC0:9115:A25A:5AC5 (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I think you'll find that it's quite common to consider fluorine to have been discovered in 1886, although this is usually the result of talking loosely when isolation is meant. This article on the history of fluorine clearly writes "Fluorine was the last of the halogen family to be discovered and separated, after chlorine in 1774, iodine in 1811, and bromine in 1826". For the most part, though, the article (along with Greenwood and Earnshaw) considers this to have been the isolation, and quietly ignores the question of discovery, because it is complicated. In the case of hafnium, because of its extreme similarity to zirconium, experimenters working on Zr had certainly observed Hf directly without knowing what it was because all their Zr samples were contaminated with it. Personally I think that this list is far too simplistic and of necessity treads roughshod over all the different degrees of claims (a fun one is lutetium, where both Urbain and von Welsbach claimed at about the same time to have found a new element occurring with Yb, and both were right, but only von Welsbach succeeded in isolating it – though Urbain mistakenly thought he had). By the same token, if we consider F to have been discovered in 1810, then that means that you can discover an element without experimental work simply by realising what the constituents of a substance must be, which creates fun questions about when Na and K were discovered. It also means that bismuth was discovered in 1753 by Geoffroy, who first managed to experimentally demonstrate that it is a distinct element, which itself causes problems because Agricola was well aware of bismuth far earlier. Furthermore the whole idea that identifying a compound counts as observing the element only really starts to make sense when the whole notion of what a compound is is sorted out – and that was still being sorted out in 1779 when Proust's law was formulated. Again, there isn't a way to apply consistent criteria across all 118 elements to a simple timeline without raising questions. Double sharp (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. It just doesn't make sense that an element could be named (and even its properties determined - keep in mind this was before the periodic table) long before it was discovered... does it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:3DC0:9115:A25A:5AC5 (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

You know what, I've thought about it and I think everything should stay the same as it is right now. In fact, can we delete this whole section so it doesn't cause any changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:7116:FA47:EE6D:F1DC (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It's all right. I don't see why the section would need to be deleted; it's useful to have these explanations and examples up to point people to to show that this is not as simple as a simple table implies it is. Double sharp (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Cr

Should its discovery and isolation be the same date? Would that be 1797 or 1798? I can't tell from looking at the paper... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:4D19:7809:37F:4C7D (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Error in Hydrogen section

Antoine Lavoiser named Hydrogen in 1783 while reproducing the 1781 Cavendish experiment not 1793. The Hydrogen wiki page reports it correctly. The website cited (http://elements.vanderkrogt.net/element.php?sym=h) does say 1793 in its header, but if you read the explanatory text below, it references the correct naming year twice. That 1793 in the header appears to be a typo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MC152 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Yttrium

What do you make of what's said here? https://books.google.com/books?id=EFzuCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=beryllium+1828+yttrium+1828&source=bl&ots=-xmLzhddbd&sig=dDPDYLMsN8WQ_5VHTM2Hj-zM23c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjH75bin8TaAhWDesAKHRcPBms4ChDoATABegQIABA0#v=onepage&q&f=false If it's not true, I feel we can consider Wöhler the isolator of Y since we're considering Ørsted the isolator of Al. Squee3 (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Why exactly would it not be true? Indeed this means that Rose (1843) should likely be considered the isolator of yttrium, since he postdates Mosander's removal of terbium and erbium. Double sharp (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Noble gases

Wouldn't helium be the first noble gas discovered technically? I know that they found out that the noble gases were a thing when they discovered argon, but helium is a noble gas. So can you please fix it?Porygon-Z 03:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)

The article says Argon in 1894 was the first noble gas to be *isolated* on Earth. Helium was observed/discovered in 1868 in the Sun, so it could not be isolated at that time. So the article was not strictly wrong, but I have now clarified the helium entry a little. Dirac66 (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

plot of year of discovery

Another version of the plot showing the date of discovery that includes the Chemical Symbols. Plot of year and accumulative number of elements discovered

Platinum

Platinum was known to native Americans before Columbus; shouldn't it be placed in the first table with a note about European discovery? - Soerfm (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done (unfortunately almost nine years late). Double sharp (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Bismuth

Why Bismuth is in the unrecorded list when it's clear steated that it was discovered in 1753?OTAVIO1981 (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. I've moved it under recorded discoveries. Skydiver (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably because of this. It was identified as a distinct element in 1753 but was known and used well before that. In that respect it is a bit like Zn. Double sharp (talk) 09:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I've added the Inca use of bismuth in the article. Double sharp (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)