Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements

 Main
talk Templates
RELC Articles
RELC
Stats Periodic Table by Quality
By importance Pictures Isotopes Periodic Table Graphics (PTG) Participants
WikiChem IRC Links
 

Article alerts

Redirects for discussion

• 26 Sep 2026 – G-block (talk · edit · hist) →Extended periodic table RfDed by Kepler-1229b (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Featured article candidates

• 27 Sep 2026 – Praseodymium (talk · edit · hist) was FA nominated by Praseodymium-141 (t · c); see discussion

Good article nominees

• 25 Sep 2026 – Ytterbium compounds (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Praseodymium-141 (t · c); start discussion
• 24 Sep 2026 – Neodymium (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Praseodymium-141 (t · c); see discussion
• 22 Sep 2026 – Lanthanum compounds (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Praseodymium-141 (t · c); start discussion
• 20 Sep 2026 – Samarium compounds (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Praseodymium-141 (t · c); start discussion
• 20 Sep 2026 – Praseodymium compounds (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Praseodymium-141 (t · c); start discussion
• 19 Sep 2026 – Erbium compounds (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Praseodymium-141 (t · c); start discussion
• 15 Sep 2026 – Niobium compounds (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Praseodymium-141 (t · c); start discussion

Requested moves

• 23 Sep 2026 – Natural abundance (talk · edit · hist) move request to Isotopic abundance by Johnjbarton (t · c) was moved to Isotopic abundance (talk · edit · hist); see discussion

Updated daily by AAlertBot — Discuss? / Report bug? / Request feature?
Click to watch (Subscribe via  RSS  Atom) · Find Article Alerts for other topics!

FA	A	GA	B	C	Start	Stub	FL	List	Category	Disambig	Draft	File	Portal	Project	Redirect	Template	NA	???	Total
29	0	94	107	135	92	31	0	170	318	0	0	115	1	22	8,919	228	0	0	10,261

TrophyBox

Move proposal: Natural abundance -> Isotopic abundance

Please join the discussion on Talk:Natural_abundance#Requested_move_23_September_2026 Johnjbarton (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: change "trace" -> "(unstable)" in isotopic abundance tables

I believe every element has an infobox with a column labeled "abundance". These columns are sourced to NUBASE2020, an authoritative source. Many elements have entries with the word "trace". I propose to change all such entries to "(unstable)" for the following reasons:

1. The authoritative source does not use "trace".
2. The authoritative source only lists values of isotopic abundance for stable isotopes; our "trace" occurs for unstable isotopes.
3. The word "trace" together with the column heading "abundance" is easily confused with a trace abundance of the chemical elements, or Abundance of elements in Earth's crust.
4. The sum of isotopic abundance times the isotope mass gives the atomic weight. For elements like Radon or Radium, all isotopic abundance are "trace", giving a nonsensical atomic weight, which is why these elements don't list one.
5. Omitting the column entry to exactly match the source would resulting confusing empty columns.
6. "(unstable)" would be consistent with the use of "synth" for synthetic isotopes.
7. The first entry would be (unstable) giving more details.

We could drop the parenthesis, but I think it helps the reader understand that this a comment. The implementation would be in one template to change the keyword trace to emit "(unstable)" and add the keyword (unstable) with an optional followup to change the templates to the new keyword. Please reply Support/Oppose/Comment. Thanks to @DoubleSharp for, well, sharpening my proposal. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Support changing the categorization, oppose the word "unstable". Although, as discussed, the term "trace" is hard to define consistently for all possible cases, I believe "unstable" will be even more confusing (or even misleading) for the average reader. That is because in the current scheme, "primordial", "trace", and "synthetic" are all subsets of "unstable". For instance, someone viewing the list of uranium isotopes might ask why ²³²U is "synthetic", ²³⁵U is "0.7%", and ²³⁶U is "unstable" – all three are clearly unstable, but they would all be labeled differently. If we have to provide a link to a lengthy definition of a categorization term – which also is not commonplace and unambiguous in the scientific literature – it may not be the best choice of term.

I'll also note that the most widely used term seems to be "naturally occurring radioactive material", though this does not distinguish primordial and non-primordial radioisotopes, so I can't propose anything better than classifying shorter-lived isotopes by origin (which is also what some sources do): radiogenic (actinide decay chains), cosmogenic (there are some clear lists published), and long-lived fission products. ^Complex/_Rational 14:37, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

But what is better than (unstable)? I guess we could use "radioisotope", seems a bit long.

One issue I failed to note exactly: Trace radioisotope is a radioisotope that occurs naturally in trace amounts (i.e. extremely small). Note "trace amount", which is incorrect for a isotopic abundance which is a ratio/percent.

• That is because in the current scheme, "primordial", "trace", and "synthetic" are all subsets of "unstable". We could replace "synth" with "unstable" in a later step.
• ...I can't propose anything better than classifying shorter-lived isotopes by origin ... The column in question is isotopic abundance, not a classification of isotopes by origin. I think we are trying to accomplish too much in the column.

Johnjbarton (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

I kind of agree in the sense that it's silly to say ²³⁷Np is a trace radioisotope when it's totally dwarfed by human production, even though we kind of would have to do so to be totally consistent about saying that Np is pedantically speaking a natural element (which we do, according to sources). But it would alas be a slight shame to lose the common cosmogenics like ¹⁴C and the marking of the daughters of the ²³²Th, ^235>U, and ²³⁸U decay chains. Double sharp (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused. The ²³⁷Np listing as 'trace' does not tell the story of its human production; neither would 'unstable'. The neptunium article says This isotope, and the isotope neptunium-239, are also found in trace amounts in uranium ores... which is an example of using "trace" as an abundance which is not an isotopic abundance. So removing 'trace' from neptunium is a win.

The only change to carbon would be one word, 'trace', changing to 'unstable'. What is lost? ²³²Th would not change at all. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Isotopic abundance should use significant figures of the source.

Template:Isotopes/main/format-percent/format-number cuts the sig figs to 3 for na, natural abundance. But ²³²
Th has an abundance listed in the sources as 99.98% which gets rewritten as 100% in Thorium which lists ²³⁰
Th as 0.02% for a total of 100.02%. We should not change the significant figures given in the source, it is part of the data. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Alteration of consensus for first sentence of elements

We have a guideline for the first sentence of chemical elements, I presume to avoid protracted arguments over 100+ elements. @Ryhjxhjnhf has been altering the first sentence: Thorium, Tin, Actinium, Rubidium. I think these changes should be discussed Johnjbarton (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes? Ryhjxhjnhf (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, so please explain why you are changing the lead sentence of articles in a way that is contrary to consensus. CodeTalker (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

ok, i won't edit anything else from now on, but keep the other element's etymologies that i've putted up. But since this is fair, if you see one where i've putted the etymology in when the etymology is already there, you can erase it from existence. (Indium should be the only exception since it is explained better.) Plus, i've mostly got these etymologies from Google, Wiktionary and various different dictionary websites. Keep in mind, my etymologies are at the main paragraph at the very front/start. I'm sorry. Ryhjxhjnhf (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I've undone the few edits that are against our discussed WP:CONSENSUS for the intro. That's how consensus and style-guidelines work on enwiki. DMacks (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Why should unsourced original research remain against consensus? Celjski Grad (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I am a 15-year-old in England, still in secondary/high school. cut me some slack! Ryhjxhjnhf (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

We're happy to help anyone join the editing community, but one of ways to be successful as an editor (or really anywhere in life) is to learn that there are rules we have all agree to follow. Part of being a community is letting each other know when they've made a mistake, and in turn accepting that we all sometimes make mistakes and learn when others tell us about them.

We actually have a whole Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors page with lots of friendly and useful tips. DMacks (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

i'm done, bye Ryhjxhjnhf (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

i am clearly not welcomed here. bye!!!!!!! Ryhjxhjnhf (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

vanish me!!! Ryhjxhjnhf (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

this account is gone for good! Ryhjxhjnhf (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Also, why were you nice then turned hostile!? Ryhjxhjnhf (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

answer me!!!! Ryhjxhjnhf (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

This is meant to be the nice people/users on Wikipedia, huh? Ryhjxhjnhf (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? There was nothing at all hostile in my comment; I simply asked you to explain your edits. I thought you might have a good reason for making them. I would explain further, but after the comment that you left on my talk page, I'm not really interested in communicating with you any more. CodeTalker (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

[Redacted] I think that everyone is against [redacted]. So, when I saw your comment, I thought that you were being hostile towards me. I am sorry for that. [redacted] They call me names (some of which are absolutely vile) and I hated myself. I thought I wasn't good enough. Ryhjxhjnhf (talk) 00:26, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

@Ryhjxhjnhf A bunch of people spent quite a bit of time to agree on consistent start for the Elements pages. Your changes were not terrible but they amounted to spray painting over other people's work. These kinds of specific guidelines are uncommon on Wikipedia but you managed to hit them right off, sorry. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and working together involves communications and disagreements. I know the top page says "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but anyone can also disagree with your edits and undo them. These undos are not personal, we are just trying to preserve the work we agreed on. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:24, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry for that. I'm sorry for the vandalism of other people's work. When I first got my account, I thought could do whatever I want and I meant anything. But of course, like a normal website, there are rules and guidelines you do have to follow in order to have a good reputation. My curiousity and ego got in the way and I won't let that happen again. (The only page I've edited that SHOULD stay is Edsel, since the first was ''Edsel is'' to ''Edsel was'' because Edsel is not in business anymore, infact it hasn't been for over 60 years and the other one was ''Areas served: North America'', because, of course, Edsel was American so I definitely did not need a citation for that (Probably not anyway.) Ryhjxhjnhf (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2026 (UTC)