Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 4.

Article alerts

Redirects for discussion

24 Sep 2025 – 氮 (talk · edit · hist) →Nitrogen RfDed by ArthananWarcraft (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Good article nominees

15 Oct 2025 – Titanium (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Reconrabbit (t · c); start discussion

Good article reassessments

05 Oct 2025 – Hafnium (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c); see discussion
27 Sep 2025 – Europium (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Peer reviews

06 Aug 2025 – Aluminium (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by R8R (t · c); see discussion

Requested moves

21 Oct 2025 – Rare-earth element (talk · edit · hist) move request to Rare earths by ArionStar (t · c) was not moved; see discussion

Articles to be merged

10 Sep 2025 – Nitrogen compounds (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Nitrogen#Chemistry and compounds by 1234qwer1234qwer4 (t · c); see discussion

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

RSS

Atom) · Find Article Alerts for other topics!

FA	A	GA	B	C	Start	Stub	FL	List	Category	Disambig	Draft	File	Portal	Project	Redirect	Template	NA	???	Total
29	0	96	103	132	96	33	0	172	320	3	2	117	1	22	8,906	228	10	1	10,271

TrophyBox

NUBASE2020

Updating the lists of isotopes to NUBASE2020 is now complete. There may still be new data after the March 2021 publication date that isn't cited, including unmentioned new isomers, but newer isotopes (as well as data from the same publications) are believed to be accounted for. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Now I am trying to extend this update to pages on the elements, on individual isotopes, and finally to List of nuclides (which can be reformatted when it has all updated data). Some of this, such as keeping half-lives consistent (up to rounding) one would wish were automatic, though I know that's not necessarily an easy task. But in order to do this, I have to use the same standards: Nubase2020 should be the sole source for nuclear data it contains (unless there is more recent work to cite) and superseded all older sources, less importantly the latest versions of AME and CIAAW for atomic weights. It should not be needed to give a citation to Nubase for every sentence that uses a fact from it (as is not done on the isotope pages) as that would be not particularly helpful and difficult to make consistent. In general there is more 'junk' to clear out than on the isotope list pages; and trivia is no less trivia for having a citation. So that's what the IP edits to such pages are, and I'd appreciate being, if not helped, then at least not hindered in dealing with this mess.

I'd like to ask also: is there a complete list of all isotopes that currently have their own pages? This would be useful to check. 2601:441:8500:B870:0:0:0:F1A7 (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If needed I would like to draw the attention of someone capable of addressing the issue to Template_talk:Infobox_isotopes_(meta)#Atomic_weight_references. I know that should not seem urgent but it has been three years since the original discussion of the matter. 2601:441:8500:B870:0:0:0:F1A7 (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not found any way of determining what isotopes/nuclides currently have their own page. I was considering changing the link for each isotope at List of nuclides to the isotope rather than the element so as to ensure (barring any isomer-designation problems) that every such page is linked to, and may have to adopt this solution though I don't consider it ideal to send users to the middle of the table. 2601:441:8500:B870:E0BA:CF17:F8D7:7D9C (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you could elaborate on the reason you want to determine which isotopes/nuclides have pages we can make better suggestions. Links to redirects named for isotopes would not be distinguishable from links to pages and a sea of red in the List of nuclides would not be great in my opinion. I don't understand the issue of "middle of the table". Johnjbarton (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Isotope content page was created some time ago to answer this exact question. ^Complex/_Rational 23:34, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That category is even maintained automatically. My goal here was to link each entry on List of nuclides to the individual page if it exists, and otherwise to the main 'Isotopes of ...' page. Linking all to the individual isotopes results (as I'm sure you know) in not red links but in links that jump into the middle of the isotopes page at the same nuclide the user just looked at; though consistent with some other isotope links on Wikipedia it seemed to me possibly confusing and less helpful. 2601:441:8500:B870:2881:42FE:869A:88DE (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks that is clearer. I think a user clicking on ²⁹Si should land on Isotopes_of_silicon#Silicon-29, not the intro to Isotopes_of_silicon. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are 64 of the 987 nuclides in that list of pages, not all of which (and none of the stable ones) are linked now. I have also noticed/remembered that the link will redirect to the section of the isotopes page in lieu of a separate page, and perhaps even more isotopes have that. Presumably even more of them should have one or the other, so redirecting in every case might not be terrible, even though I still don't see how it's more useful to be put in the middle of the list. 2601:441:8500:B870:B95E:3BB6:B1A7:3A16 (talk) 03:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have finished, and updated List of nuclides appropriately. Unfortunately I can't say that if another version of Nubase arrives, there will not be the same amount of work required. But until then, I believe only cleanup work remains. 73.228.195.198 (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Four new isotopes, information behind a paywall

A new isotope discovery just dropped, but I can't access the relevant paper or find a preprint thereof to extract additional information that may be in the paper, particularly a lower half-life bound from time of flight:

Tarasov, O. B.; Sherrill, B. M.; Dombos, A. C.; Fukushima, K.; Gade, A.; Haak, K.; Hausmann, M.; Kahl, D.; Kaloyanov, D.; Kwan, E.; Matthews, H. K.; Ostroumov, P. N.; Portillo, M.; Richardson, I.; Smith, M. K.; Watters, S. (4 September 2025). "Discovery of new isotopes in the fragmentation of Se 82 and insights into their production". Physical Review C. 112 (3). doi:10.1103/573p-7fjp.

It's also not yet in the InspireHEP database. The four new isotopes are ⁶³Sc, ^65–66Ti, and ⁶⁸V; one candidate event for ⁶¹Ca was also observed. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:00, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: I'll be able to access it at my library next week and I'll update the articles then. ^Complex/_Rational 20:16, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ComplexRational: It has been over a week and this still has not been done. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: I downloaded the journal article but I've had a lot of IRL responsibilities the last couple of days with tight deadlines; once those are handled, I'll get around to updating the pages. ^Complex/_Rational 14:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: there is no additional information in the article that could be added to the isotopes table, not even a clearly-stated lower bound from time of flight. We'll have to wait for follow-up studies. ^Complex/_Rational 03:20, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines

It looks like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Elements/Guidelines is defunct. However I think editors are still resisting changes to the intro of Elements pages based on folklore guidelines. So I'm unsure how to deal with a good faith edit like this one by @DividedFrame which changes a WP:Feature article lede. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the editor in question. I removed an arrow that pointed to the "O" for oxygen (if this has some sort of meaning, it should be reverted and a note added IMO) and added an article ("it has atomic number 8" sounds wrong to this native speaker). I was unaware there were any element-specific guidelines; thanks for the mention. -- Brad (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the arrow, it was added improperly but I missed it. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Europium

Europium has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Hafnium

Hafnium has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]