Talk:Chemical element

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chemical element article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 12 months

Elements Top‑importance

	Chemistry portal This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Chemistry Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemicals High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Materials High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Materials, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Materials on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MaterialsWikipedia:WikiProject MaterialsTemplate:WikiProject MaterialsMaterials
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This article is written in British English with Oxford and IUPAC spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise; aluminium, sulfur and caesium) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide and chemistry naming conventions, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is part of a former featured topic candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 7, 2007	Featured topic candidate	Not promoted

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change

By 1914, eighty-seven elements were known, all naturally occurring.(See Timeline of chemical element discoveries) The remaining naturally occurring elements were discovered or isolated in subsequent decades, and various additional elements have also been produced synthetically, with much of that work pioneered by Glenn T. Seaborg.

to

By 1914, eighty-seven elements were known, all naturally occurring. (See Timeline of chemical element discoveries). The remaining naturally occurring elements were discovered or isolated in subsequent decades, and various additional elements have also been produced synthetically, with much of that work pioneered by Glenn T. Seaborg.

or

By 1914, eighty-seven elements were known, all naturally occurring (see Timeline of chemical element discoveries). The remaining naturally occurring elements were discovered or isolated in subsequent decades, and various additional elements have also been produced synthetically, with much of that work pioneered by Glenn T. Seaborg.

Jiminy Cricket the Third (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done VQuakr (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isotopes

Isotopes are mentioned in multiple sections but there is nothing about them in the lead. I think that should be rectified. Praemonitus (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boyle section rewrite

Rewrite needed of the Boyle section; it's like 75% blockquotes. Quotes should be limited in their usage, as discussed at MOS:QUOTATIONS. VQuakr (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AutoTOC

On “Category:Wikipedia categories named after chemical elements”, i removed “{{CatAutoTOC}}” on the grounds that it is unnecessary; the category has well under 200 subcategories in it, so all members of the category are easily visible at the same time. Okay? Solomonfromfinland (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want edit first sentence as such

But @Remsense doesn't want it, I want other peoples opinion

Like so:

A chemical element is an atom identified with a specific number of protons in their nucleus, known as the element's atomic number; or, it can also refer to a chemical substance solely composed of such specific atoms. As such these substances cannot be broken down into other substances by chemical reactions. ModernDaySlavery (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will reiterate that your formulation is idiosyncratic, as it does not read like any analogous statement that I've read in sources. (Compare Britannica's entry.) I think there are two interrelated reasons for that: firstly, it reads much more like a dictionary entry than the opening paragraph of an encyclopedia entry (we are not a dictionary). Secondly, it's wrong: your articulation is simply not how "chemical element" is generally defined. Instead, you have introduced an extension (is an atom) that you've extrapolated yourself, as far as I can tell. As common-sensical as it may seem to you, others should not be expected to take your word for that, so this statement must be avoided if it's original research on your part. Remsense ‥ 论 04:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about this revision then? (It's just that current formulation sounds very weird and unnatural, below is just a rewording with exactly the same meaning, it reads more naturally):

A chemical element is a chemical substance solely composed of an atom with a specific number of protons in its nucleus, known as the element's atomic number. As such, these substances cannot be broken down into other substances by chemical reactions.

Also look at this encyclopedia entry https://thoughtco.com/what-is-a-chemical-element-604297 :

"A chemical element is a substance consisting of only one type of atom. In other words, all atoms in an element contain the same number of protons." ModernDaySlavery (talk) 04:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that as a clear downgrade in coherence and elegance. Could you articulate what you feel is gained over the present wording? (And not to quibble about sourcing here, but it's worth pointing out that I agree with the limited discussion onsite so far about ThoughtCo (né About.com) characterizing it as a pop science source of marginal reliability for our purposes.) Remsense ‥ 论 05:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I think its obvious but let me explain,

First of all its more succinct. (My version is 41 words 250 characters vs your version is 46 words 287 characters)

Second your sentence is 3 different sentences that read almost unrelated to each other however they are intimately related. My version is only 2 different sentences. ModernDaySlavery (talk) 05:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A 5-word reduction across two sentences is wholly immaterial here. The point of such an optimization would be a passage that is clearer and faster to read; I can detect no such effect for the reader in this instance. Likewise, whether there are two sentences or three means literally nothing: the sentences are very clearly related, and they develop the definition in a natural sequence. Not sure what else to say here—except you're potentially experiencing tunnel vision and are having trouble reading it like a reader would, rather than as someone who's been tinkering with different arrangements of the same words for too long. (I can relate.)

Even if there were meaningful improvements rather than just quantifiable differences here, your version omits any indication that elements are the basic units in the domain of chemistry (i.e. an elucidation of chemical in chemical element), as opposed to the more granular domain of particle physics. That is an enormous loss. Remsense ‥ 论 07:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is this revision then:

A chemical element is a chemical substance that cannot be broken down into other substances by chemical reactions. An element solely consists of atoms that are identified by the number of protons in their nucleus, known as the element's atomic number.

or this one:

A chemical element is a chemical substance that cannot be broken down into other substances by chemical reactions. The only particle that constitutes a chemical element is the atom. Elements are identified by the number of protons in their nucleus, known as the element's atomic number. ModernDaySlavery (talk) 09:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both are, to me, noticeably more awkward in diction and word choice. The current wording is fine. Remsense ‥ 论 06:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]