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

Good article nominees

15 Oct 2025 – Titanium (talk · edit · hist) GA nominated by Reconrabbit (t · c) was promoted by PeriodicEditor (t · c), see discussion

Good topic candidates

10 Dec 2025 – Group 4 element (talk · edit · hist) was GT nominated by Praseodymium-141 (t · c); see discussion
10 Dec 2025 – Rutherfordium (talk · edit · hist) was GT nominated by Praseodymium-141 (t · c); see discussion
10 Dec 2025 – Hafnium (talk · edit · hist) was GT nominated by Praseodymium-141 (t · c); see discussion
10 Dec 2025 – Zirconium (talk · edit · hist) was GT nominated by Praseodymium-141 (t · c); see discussion
10 Dec 2025 – Titanium (talk · edit · hist) was GT nominated by Praseodymium-141 (t · c); see discussion

Good article reassessments

30 Nov 2025 – Lithium (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c); see discussion
14 Nov 2025 – Iron (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

12 Nov 2025 – Discovery of chemical elements (talk · edit · hist) move request to Timeline of chemical element discoveries by Uwsi (t · c) was moved to Timeline of chemical element discoveries (talk · edit · hist) by Jeffrey34555 (t · c) on 24 Nov 2025; see discussion
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

Articles to be split

04 Dec 2025 – Gold (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by ReyHahn (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	104	132	93	31	0	170	319	1	0	117	1	22	8,915	228	1	0	10,259

TrophyBox

Good article reassessment for Iron

Iron 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) 01:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reference with 14 new mass values

This reference updated the masses of 14 proton-rich nuclides from ⁶⁹As to ¹¹²Cs with mass measurements of ^87mMo, ^91mRu, ^95mPd, and ¹⁰³Sn. (The first of these is a 1/2− isomer that isn't in AME2020 or FRIB's Discovery of Isomers database.)

Xing, Y. M.; Yuan, C. X.; Wang, M.; Zhang, Y. H.; Zhou, X. H.; Litvinov, Yu. A.; Blaum, K.; Xu, H. S.; Bao, T.; Chen, R. J.; Fu, C. Y.; Gao, B. S.; Ge, W. W.; He, J. J.; Huang, W. J.; Liao, T.; Li, J. G.; Li, H. F.; Litvinov, S.; Naimi, S.; Shuai, P.; Sun, M. Z.; Wang, Q.; Xu, X.; Xu, F. R.; Yamaguchi, T.; Yan, X. L.; Yang, J. C.; Yuan, Y. J.; Zeng, Q.; Zhang, M.; Zhou, X. (11 January 2023). "Isochronous mass measurements of neutron-deficient nuclei from Sn 112 projectile fragmentation". Physical Review C. 107 (1). doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.107.014304.

However, Nies et al. (2025)^[1] updated some of the masses based on their measurement of ¹⁰³Sn. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you access it and update the relevant pages for me? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From third-party copies of the data in NNDC's databases (it is indexed as 2023Xi01), I have obtained all values except ⁶⁹As, ⁷³Br, ⁷⁵Kr, and ⁷⁹Sr. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Nies, L.; Atanasov, D.; Athanasakis-Kaklamanakis, M.; Au, M.; Bernerd, C.; Blaum, K.; Chrysalidis, K.; Fischer, P.; Heinke, R.; Klink, C.; Lange, D.; Lunney, D.; Manea, V.; Marsh, B. A.; Müller, M.; Mougeot, M.; Naimi, S.; Schweiger, Ch.; Schweikhard, L.; Wienholtz, F. (9 January 2025). "Refining the nuclear mass surface with the mass of Sn 103". Physical Review C. 111 (1). doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.111.014315.

Etymology in the lead?

Some elements like osmium and helium mention their etymologies in the lead, some like iridium and promethium do not. What's the consensus here? ~2025-36756-19 (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both iridium and promethium include etymology in their introductions. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean like in the very first sentence. This is an inconsistency between articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-36853-74 (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support moving the parenthetical etymology out of the first sentence for osmium and helium if consistency is important. The origin of the names of some elements is rather involved and in almost all cases a kind of historical trivia, not necessarily the most notable aspect of an element. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this should be a standalone section like Tin#Etymology, or part of the history section like in Bromine#History. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that any etymology longer than say a sentence should not be in the intro and in History makes sense. However a short summary of etymology somewhere in the intro seems ok to me. I am against making every element article start out with etymology for consistency. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have compiled a table in my sandbox (Special:Permalink/1324504634). Every element infobox mentions the etymology, and most elements mention this information in the lead and the history section.

Pie chart

Lead (7)
History or discovery section (15)
Standalone etymology section (5)
Lead & history (60)
Lead & etymology (16)
History & etymology (3)
Lead, history, & etymology (12)

Pie chart of where information about the etymology can be found, other than in the infobox. If the etymology is a subsection of the history section (19 elements), it is counted separately from the rest.

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting data, thanks for compiling it. I am now wondering if standalone Etymology sections actually make sense at all since we are always going to have a History section; at best it is an arbitrary separation, at worst it introduces redundancy and a possibility for contradiction. I would be in favor of always putting the etymology within the History section, preferably integrating it in the prose rather than a subsection. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅📬⋅📜 15:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is most natural in every context. Let's go to it. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Lithium

Lithium 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) 01:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting of an isomer mass with an unmeasured ground state

Kimura, S.; Wada, M.; Fu, C. Y.; Fukuda, N.; Hirayama, Y.; Hou, D. S.; Iimura, S.; Ishiyama, H.; Ito, Y.; Kubono, S.; Kusaka, K.; Michimasa, S.; Miyatake, H.; Nishimura, S.; Niwase, T.; Phong, V.; Rosenbusch, M.; Schatz, H.; Schury, P.; Shimizu, Y.; Suzuki, H.; Takamine, A.; Takeda, H.; Togano, Y.; Watanabe, Y. X.; Xian, W. D.; Yanagisawa, Y.; Yeung, T. T.; Yoshimoto, M.; Zha, S. (8 October 2025). "Precision Mass Measurements around Mo 84 Rule Out ZrNb Cycle Formation in the Rapid Proton-Capture Process at Type I X-Ray Bursts". Physical Review Letters. 135 (15). doi:10.1103/2dyn-q7wp.

One of the new masses reported is ^78mY (77.944220(16) u), but the ground state ⁷⁸Y was not measured and remains unmeasured. The authors estimate that the excitiation energy of ^78mY is "approximately 300 keV". How should this be reflected in the table? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:37, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on individual isotope being merged into "Isotopes of..." pages

Several actions of User:Choucas0 just popped up on my watchlist, for example, merge+redirecting Oxygen-16, Oxygen-17, and Oxygen-18 into Isotopes of oxygen. I couldn't find a recent discussion about this, but isotopes themselves are an area of WP where I have not edited and do not know the current thoughts, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Isotopes is listed as mostly-inactive. So I want to get input from WTELEMENTS folks about this. DMacks (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clarify that I am not proceeding out of a desire to merge isotopes pages in a systematic fashion and that this is the start of a larger campaign on my part. I considered the merits of each one separately, and have no plan to do more at the moment. I merged these three, as well as Nitrogen-13 and Beryllium-10 into their parent articles, because I simply believe it makes much more sense to have them there and that they have very little chance to ever grow past start-class on their own. These five pages were all around 20 years old, one of them with a 15 years old maintenance tag. Merging them also allowed for the removal of a lot of duplicate info, sometimes word-for-word paragraphs, and some more needs to happen on Isotopes of oxygen. I want to reassure anyone wondering that I am not coming for developed and clearly notable on their own pages like Carbon-14 or Helium-3 next if that is the worry. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅📬⋅📜 21:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think these mergers are reasonable for the reasons given and the results look good. In future I suggest that you post to the Talk page first to avoid misunderstandings. A simple post on the receiving page would be adequate IMO, but the Wikipedia:Twinkle > Tag > Merge tool makes the full process simple. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Nies, L.; Atanasov, D.; Athanasakis-Kaklamanakis, M.; Au, M.; Bernerd, C.; Blaum, K.; Chrysalidis, K.; Fischer, P.; Heinke, R.; Klink, C.; Lange, D.; Lunney, D.; Manea, V.; Marsh, B. A.; Müller, M.; Mougeot, M.; Naimi, S.; Schweiger, Ch.; Schweikhard, L.; Wienholtz, F. (9 January 2025). "Refining the nuclear mass surface with the mass of Sn 103". Physical Review C. 111 (1). doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.111.014315.

[1]