Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Guidelines

Regarding style guide we have to document the following for any element,

1. the chemical reactivity of the element itself, in particular for metals corrosion, reactivity to acids/bases heat etc.
2. trends in coordination number, types of bonding, the role of oxidation states where applicable and similarities to other members of the same group and adjacent elements etc. etc.
3. a narrative on the binary compounds
4. a narrative of organometallic compounds.

-Axiosaurus

I would also like to see the "biological role" section more standardized. In particular I would like to see it applied to every element that is essential to some normal metabolic or life process of some living organism. I'd like it to show whether

1. the element is part of some essential process of some organism, and if so a brief hint as to what some such processes are and what some such organisms are,
2. the element has therapeutic uses in the treatment of some conditions of humans or of some domesticated animals or domesticated plants or other domesticated organisms,
3. the element is toxic to some organisms.

--Eldin raigmore (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Element articles are usually NOT about the elemental forms

Following a discussion at Talk:phosphorus: The element articles are about the main source/use/history of anything containing the element as a dominant component, not the elemental form. About the uses of phosphorus, we dont want to delude readers into thinking that white or red phosphorus is very really dominant - that angle give undue weight to a relatively modest aspect. The content should instead reflect the fact that phosphorus mainly occurs and is used as oxides. The article on lithium, similarly, should not be mainly about lithium metal but about the minerals that are sources of Li⁺, the compounds of Li⁺, and the applications, which again are mainly Li⁺-containing materials. The manual of style for elements articles specifies:

1 Characteristics

1.1 Physical

1.2 Chemical

1.3 Isotopes

1.4 Occurrence

2 Production

3 Compounds

4 History

5 Applications

6 Biological role

7 Precautions

Sections 1.1 and 1.2 are allocated to the properties of the elemental form of the element. For some elements, say Ti, the dominant uses involve the elemental form (Ti metal), in which case #2 (production) and #5 (applications) would emphasize (but not exclusively describe) the production and use to Ti metal. Please let me know if these views do not reflect consensus. Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Since we do not presently have subarticles on the isolated element and its properties, for most elements, most of this info has been hitherto done by the major element article. I think this reflects the expectation that most people would rather see the stuff on the isolated element in the main article ON the element (if it will fit), rather than in some spin-off. This tends to "overweight" articles on elements for which the elemental form is hardly ever used or even seen (say ytterbium), toward information on the isolated element which is actually rare. For elements like titanium and neon where the element is almost the only thing used industrially, it's not an issue. And yet I would not change it, simply because (again) people expect to see the element properties and uses HERE, if anywhere (this is how most encyclopedias do it). Only if uses of the element are very common and contain so much information as to need subarticles due to space limitation, should they be spun off (example: carbon).

That's only an opinion. IT means that personally, I'm happy to see (say) most of the metallic lithium info and the pure elemental bromine info, in the main lithium and bromine articles, distributed in many sections, but compound uses spun off into other articles-- even though these are by far the most common uses for the element over all (> 75% for lithium and even more lop-sided for bromine). SBHarris 00:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I recommend that you codify your recommendations into the MOS, they seem like a reasonable starting point. We talking about weighting here. In phosphorus, where I have been editing lately, we would describe that the majority (about 90%) of phosphorus processing and apps are based on oxides but give greater weight (verbage) to the elemental forms.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Re-writing history

Let's be clear here. Any particular WP project does not own the article(s), neither do the editors that produce it. The section above appears to have been written on the basis that WikiProject Elements has the right to claim articles such as phosphorus and to demand that articles are written (re-written) in accordance with its (inflexiblely interpreted) guidelines. WikiProject Elements is perfectly entitled to express an interest in articles, to help improve them, grade them according to its classification (other than awarding GA and FA) and to produce Manuals Of Style (MoS). There may be other WPs that also have an interest in articles, for instance chemicals, business, etc. In some respects I find the MoS somewhat supprising for a WP that claims to be WP Elements, it seems as if it should belong to WP Compounds, there appear to be a strong basis against elements (i.e elements = bad, compounds = good). 1.1 Physical and 1.2 Chemical should be precisely those physical properties and chemical properties. Much of the comments above seem to be based on a lack of understanding of phosphorus, not an understanding; and a desire to re-write or perhaps "white-wash" history.

Firstly phosphorus does not exist in its elemental form, most of it is in mineral form in the ground as phosphates so if elemental phosphorus is needed it has to be produced. Very little iron is dug out of the ground as iron, its (also) found as oxides. Using the argument above, most of the natural iron is present in the earth as oxides, so an article on Iron and steel that covered the industrial use of iron and steel would also have undue weight. However, most of the Iron article is about iron, not iron oxides. I belive that the Iron balance is right, but not if the above certeria are to be inflexibly applied.

Elemental phosphorus has been produced and used in elemental form; in tonnage and hundreds of tonnes per day/per week. Many compounds, such as phosphates, can be produced without the need for elemental phosphorus by producing a suitable phosphorous-acid and reacting it; but some do require the elemental form, such as phosphorus-sulfur compounds and phosphides. The phosphorus article is very much a "work in progress", I don't see the balance as being right at present (both as it existed in June and its July rehash) and I've done more edits any any other editor on the article, but I'm not claiming ownership and I see that lack of balance as consequence of peicemeal improvements to the article by different editors with different interests and sources not an intentional WP:UNDUE weight, more a lack of content in some areas. For much of the 19th/20th century there were two competing routes to making "things" from phosphorus: (the thermal route) phosphate rock to white phosphorus, some of which was "burnt" to give a pure acid; and (the wet route), make an impure acid and purify it. The thermal route was much more importance, but it needs a lot of energy and fell out of use industrially when energy costs rose in the 1960/70s (but within living memory). The article as it is currently being rewriten reputedly in accordance with WP:Elements MOS appear to attempt to deliberate re-write history - (quote) production is through the acid (unquote). This is boarding on nonsense. Much of the large tonages of elemental phosphorus were used in the past, for uses that we tend not to do nowaday, such as white phosphorus matches, white phosphorus warfare and polyphosphate detergents, but the process existed and so should be covered in the article. Historically, red phosphorus and phosphorus sesquisulphide were important replacements in matches for the hazardous white phosphorus. Commercially, phosphorus compounds are important in the food industry, but they are not yet in the article. They were also very important, as polyphosphates, in detergents, but caused environmental problems and were withdrawn/banned. This is not yet in the article and presumable, will be whitewashed out. Only phosphate fertilisers appear to be acceptable to WP:Elements.

Overall, the MOS in the section above does have some merit, but they must be applied flexiblely: in some cases the element form (or metalic form) will be important and compounds will perhaps be discussed via {{main}} and in othercases the opposite may be more relevant. Commercial availability / supplies of bulk quanties appears to have no relevance whatesoever to WP:Elements, which is somewhat supprising. Often there are several ways that a product/compound can be made, and this may differ depending on whether laboratory or industrial processes are to be used. This decision may be economic grounds, commercial availabity, and/or safety. Whilst this appears of no interest to WP:Elements, since it is totally ignored in the MOS, it may well be of interest to other WP's and readers. So such topics should not be "banned" mearely because WP:Elements claims a article is their's and such topics are not in the WP:Elements MoS. Pyrotec (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Pyrotec (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Since I am doing most of the editing on P these days, I will respond to your concerns.

• It is indeed a good to remind editors that projects (like WP:Elements) do not control articles. I dont report to WP:Elements. My main beef with the element articles is that the production part at least vaguely reflect industrial reality and that the compound section cover the main classes of compounds.
• The phosphorus article has an excellent lead section on the various allotropes and the production part is short but will be expanded.
• I plead guilty to emphasizing that most phosphorus is processed by the acid process, but it is the truth. I also feel a romantic attachment to the reductive process but it is a small fraction of the process stream and declining. That having been said, we will have a hefty section on making white P. It would be helpful to mention the energy costs. And naturally the history section will place even more emphasis on this method and its historical role.
• The compounds section is still lacking but the version I replaced was a discussion of quantum theory and bonding concepts vs compound classes. You are absolutely correct that we need more on polyphosphates.

I probably missed some of your points but hopefully covered most. One approach would be to list the sections of the article and then we could start compiling what is missing.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Where to put the problem-child "history" section

If there exists a very good lede for an element (which is nearly always the case), the reader will have been exposed to the basics of the properties, appearance, occurance, uses, and so on, of an element, and will not be side-tracked by starting immediately with human history as #2. Unfortunately these guidelines suggest shoehorning "human history" between occurance and production, which is a bad place, since occurance, as minerals, leads very naturally into production. Nor is there often any other good place to put human history. It was stuck near the end of the bismuth article, where it interrupted the flow nearly any other place I put it, except to start the article after the lede.

Where do you begin an article? At the beginning! That's (after overview) history and etymology. Although this suggests beginning with the history of human knowledge of the element, then properties and chemistry. Rather than leave human history till after the "natural history" of the element in the universe (what made it after the Big Bang, etc). There's a reason not to delay human history and etymology, since once you start with the "natural history" in nucleosynthesis (and isotopes), that leads inevitably to abundances (and isotopic abundances) in the solar system and Earth, occurance discussion, minerology, ores, production, uses, and so on. Where then to interupt for the historical record, then? So, I think best to get the human history out of the way, before we start on the properties and chemistry, or at least right after these, since the rest is almost inevitable once you start with the natural history in the universe.

I would suggest that we change our guideline policy in this matter. I don't think any of these rules should be really firm, since elements differ in how well the sections naturally "segue." But for most, we still have the problem I encountered in bismuth, where the human history is left till way toward the end, before we get to biology and toxicology. SBHarris 17:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where I fall on this suggestion. But I do submit that it would make our articles more approachable to the general reader, though at the expense of the technical reader who wants to cut to the chase and know the scientific details. Most of the contributors to this wikiproject are more akin to the latter technical group, though I think as a whole we strive to be sensitive to the former general-reader group. Certainly an idea worth considering. YBG (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Lower case letters for elements and no borders for table.

Sorry if I am wasting your time, but I would like to know why these elements in table have lower case initial letters.

Group 1 elements

3	lithium	2, 1	[He] 2s1
11	sodium	2, 8, 1	[Ne] 3s1
19	potassium	2, 8, 8, 1	[Ar] 4s1
37	rubidium	2, 8, 18, 8, 1	[Kr] 5s1
55	caesium	2, 8, 18, 18, 8, 1	[Xe] 6s1
87	francium	2, 8, 18, 32, 18, 8, 1	[Rn] 7s1

Another example

Z	Element	No. of electrons/shell
28	nickel	2, 8, 17, 1
46	palladium	2, 8, 18, 18
78	platinum	2, 8, 18, 32, 17, 1
110	darmstadtium	2, 8, 18, 32, 32, 16, 2

Also for many groups (10,11,12 etc.) the table used is not a wikitable. In my browser, they are seen without borders and with white background. Take for example;

H																	He
Li	Be											B	C	N	O	F	Ne
Na	Mg											Al	Si	P	S	Cl	Ar
K	Ca	Sc	Ti	V	Cr	Mn	Fe	Co	Ni	Cu	Zn	Ga	Ge	As	Se	Br	Kr
Rb	Sr	Y	Zr	Nb	Mo	Tc	Ru	Rh	Pd	Ag	Cd	In	Sn	Sb	Te	I	Xe
Cs	Ba	*	Hf	Ta	W	Re	Os	Ir	Pt	Au	Hg	Tl	Pb	Bi	Po	At	Rn
Fr	Ra	**	Rf	Db	Sg	Bh	Hs	Mt	Ds	Rg	Cn	Uut	Fl	Uup	Lv	Uus	Uuo
		*	La	Ce	Pr	Nd	Pm	Sm	Eu	Gd	Tb	Dy	Ho	Er	Tm	Yb	Lu
		**	Ac	Th	Pa	U	Np	Pu	Am	Cm	Bk	Cf	Es	Fm	Md	No	Lr

I searched the Manual of Style but does not found an order to do so. Even the colour table of this project page has the two features I pointed out.Vanischenu m^Talk 13:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

In regard to your first question, why the names of elements are not capitalized, it is because they are common nouns, not proper nouns. Consequently there is no specific rule, we simply follow the general rule in English to capitalize only proper nouns.

As for your second question, perhaps you could point out the specific page you are referring to to facilitate a discussion of the specifics. YBG (talk) 09:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Project style guidelines

I notice that Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Guidelines is mostly about what the reader can see. I suggest that this project develop and document a series of decision guidelines that would be broader, i.e., encompassing differences in wikimarkup that would not be visible to the reader. We should not put anything on this list before reaching a project-wide consensus. Many other projects have style guidelines, and there is a general idea that some project-specific guidelines are necessary where the more general guidelines are inadequate, either because they aren't specific enough or because what works well in general has disadvantages in a particular content area. Our wikiproject has several unique characteristics: (1) A relatively limited area of subject matter that grows very slowly, and (2) a small but dedicated cadre of volunteers with a history of collaboration. We could, for example, codify spelling style (aluminum/ium), notability guidelines for new elements, and use of templates and infoboxes. None of these things should be considered forever set in stone, and we should always be willing to reconsider any decision when a request is made by an editor newly involved in our content area. I would appreciate your thoughts about (1) whether this is a good idea in general and (2) what are some areas where we have already reached a consensus and (3) what are some areas we might benefit from codifying new wikiproject guidelines. YBG (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)