Noticeboard: (edit · watch · refresh · history · archive · Track changes to project articles) Should Group 12 elements be taken out of the transition metals element category and placed with the "other metals?" Comment here Should mentions of isotopes in article prose be in the form of 239Pu, plutonium-239 or Pu-239? Comment here.

The current Chemistry Article Improvement Drive (ChemAID) is: Bring Sodium hydroxide (Assessment comments | talk) to A-class or above. Every month a different chemistry-related topic, stub or non-existent article may be picked.Please improve the article any way you can.

WikiProject Elements	(Rated Project-Class)	ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements articles
Chemistry portal v • d • e This page 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.  Project  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.

FA	A	GA	B	C	Start	Stub	FL	List	Category	Disambig	Image	Portal	Project	Redirect	Template	NA	???	Total
16	7	19	70	66	60	136	2	54	247	1	5	1	2	3,163	5	3	102	3,959

TOC	Article alerts	Archives
Contents 1 Neutronium isotopes 2 Problem due to Template change 3 History sections in element articles 4 Request third opinion 5 New elements 6 Pageview stats 7 Move group 12 to "Other metals"? 8 Truss (chemistry) 9 Technetium FAR notice 10 Proposed png → svg replacement 11 Ununoctium on the Main page 12 Electron configurations and images 13 Emission Spectra 14 Chemistry in its Element 15 Very bad photo of elemental calcium 16 Ferroneous 17 Pronunciation guides - getting it right 18 Lawrencium needs more references 19 article ratings	Articles for deletion 30 Sep 2009 – Isotope map (0-55) (talk) has been deleted; see discussion. Featured article candidates 4 Nov 2009 – Krypton (talk) is not promoted. Featured article reviews 21 Sep 2009 – Technetium (talk) is nominated by Cirt. Good article nominations 8 Oct 2009 – Molybdenum (talk) is promoted to GA status; see discussion. Peer review 21 Nov 2009 – Peer review opened for Radon (talk) by Nergaal. Today's featured article 9 Oct 2009 – Ununoctium (talk) was featured on the main page.	Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

[edit] Neutronium isotopes

I'll abide by WikiProject consensus, but I don't really think neutronium is an "element" for the purpose of the project, and so shouldn't have the full infobox links, the article (not yet written) isotopes of neutronium and the categorycategory:isotopes of neutronium, etc. If consensus is that it is an element, I'll withdraw the CfD, but not the merge tags for dineutron and tetraneutron. Hypothetical isotopes shouldn't have articles unless they also have hypothetical properties, IMHO. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not very favorable to deleting the category isotopes of neutronium, or removing it from the elements categories. I agree that much what is known about neutronium and its isotopes are hypotheticals, but they are noteworthy hypotheticals, with serious research being done to them. Perhaps the articles could be rewritten to make it clearer that they about about the hypothetical properties of these elements (which are non-controversial as far as they are concerned), but this already seems to be quite clear.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to play down the importance of neutronium, but I find it hard to consider it a chemical element. I would call it either a state of matter or a challenge for particle physicists. Perhaps the nearest related example is muonium, which is definitely considered by chemists to be an exotic form of hydrogen, despite its 2 µs half-life: at least you can do basic chemistry with muonium, something which you can't do with "neutronium". Physchim62 (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a limitation of language mostly. In French we just call them "élements", not "éléments chimiques". No one would think of doing chemistry with clumps of neutrons (although there is radiochemistry, but that's not really chemistry in the sense implied by the chemical of chemical elements).

You could say that neutronium is sort of "chemically neutral", since it can't chemically react with anything. But that's just me rambling on more than anything else. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

dude aren't neutron stars made of neutronium? so maybe 'terrestrial conditions', yup, and it's not obvious that you can't build things out of neutrons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.107.1.165 (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Problem due to Template change

The cleanup listing bot is no longer getting all our articles due to the fact that we now have two Templates the old Chemical Element, for all the article except the elements and isotopes for which the new Template WikiProject Elements. The bot is only dumping results for the old template, reducing the number of articles in the project from 242 in June to 113 in July. I posted a request to the User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings and hope he can help.

I wanted to see the improvment in July for theclean up, because it came quite away since march

• 6 March 234 articles are assigned to this project, of which 99, or 42.3%, are flagged for cleanup.
• 4 June 242 articles are assigned to this project, of which 42, or 17.4%, are flagged for cleanup.

--Stone (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I would add another issue: the old half of the templates has "references" at the bottom linking to Chemical_elements_data_references. Most infobox values are taken from there and thus removing that line causes confusion. Editors start adding "citation needed" tags. Would it be possible to restore that line? Materialscientist (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright I've fixed the problem. The alerts and listings now use the newer {{WP Elements}} template. I've went through the list of things that still linked to {{Chemical Element}} and converted them to {{WP Elements}} and {{Chemistry}} as needed. The alerts will be fully operational as of tomorrow, and the listings will be a bit behind (Bot needs to update, and about 100s or so were not yet converted and will not be listed until the next data dump, which should be in 3-4 weeks from now). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] History sections in element articles

All of the articles on elements that I have encountered have a section entitled "History", which seems to be misnamed. One would expect a history section to contain information on the history of the element itself (for synthetic elements such a history might be meaningful), but elements don't really have histories per se. Instead, what you find in the history section is primarily information on the discovery of the element and perhaps it use. Might it not be more appropriate to title these sections something along the lines of "Discovery"? Cool3 (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Discovery is much too narrow for the topics usually discussed there. I don't see why anyone would expect from the word "history" anything specific (like "history of the element itself"). I also don't think it is correct to say that elements have no histories per se. Materialscientist (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right in that much of the information found within an element's "History" sections pertains primarily to the discovery of that element. There are, however, several articles which contain other historical information: platinum discusses the attempts to create malleable platinum; helium discusses the early extraction and applications of the gas. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 11:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the history sections describe – correctly – information about the element that is historical in nature. In a similar way, History of wine describes historical information about a product which is still around today. Physchim62 (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request third opinion

To prevent a potential edit war on the article Solid, I am asking the project members to vote here. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New elements

I started to get all the elements which were discovered, but never made it into the PSE. I already created some articles and will try to start more. I have a good list of possible names, but I wanted to have references for the discovery first, so it will take some time. Bohemium, Helvetium, Panchromium , Ilmenium, Pelopium are the first dianium might be the next. A category for those near miss elements would be nice! --Stone (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Other article already exist Ausonium, Didymium, Hesperium, Coronium.--Stone (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice. Have you considered merging them all into one article, such as Former names of chemical elements ? I'm afraid individually, they will never grow larger than stubs, but together, this could be a nice historical GA. Materialscientist (talk) 09:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to have seperat articles and a longer article, which will start out as a list to combine everything. The history of the elements is somewhat complicated. There are several destinct groups of discoveries. The pre-Mendeleev's is a bunch of elements later to be found something else or found and forgoten ones. The Mendeleev and Mosley gap search ones which were hunted down because they should go into the gaps of the PSE. The I found a line it must be a new element ones, which are purely spectroscopic and only there because this method was sucessful with helium. The nuclear ones most of this stuff is name controversy and problems in reproducing the experiments. The name for the overall article is hard to find, due to the difference in history of every name!!--Stone (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sequanium is now available.--Stone (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Wasium is now available.--Stone (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Gnomium is now available!! I like it it is one of the cool ones. Secretly hiding in cobalt only influencing the atomic mass, only to save the periodic table of Mendeleev form inconsistencies. Cool theory, but..... --Stone (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Austrium and Decipium are now available!! --Stone (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That's cool and all, but could you also add them to their modern name category (aka Ausonium categorized in Category:Neptunium)? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I added them to the right categories.--Stone (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Carolinium, Berzelium and Davyum are now available.--Stone (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Lucium is now available.--Stone (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Elements to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 02:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. This will certainly save me a bit of time. Does anyone desparately want me to continue publishing the Elements Report? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 06:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool - thanks. This does duplicate much of what Cryptic was doing. Cryptic - I will miss the vital and core icons and the spike info is also very useful. Would be great if you could work work with Mr Z-man to see if at least the core/vital part can be added. :) --mav (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I always liked the periodic tables where you can easy see what is blamish and what is in the showcase! I would be glad to have this.--Stone (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep - me too. Updating that and the periodic table by quality are really needed. --mav (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty then, the yeas have it! I'll keep publishing the element reports. I'll start working on the August data in the next day or so. --Cryptic C62 · Talk

I made the pageview request for the isotopes taskforce BTW. This way we can more easily identified the in-demand articles, potential expansions and so on. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, the new edition is done. I'm having problems uploading new versions of the periodic tables. I've posted a notice at the Village Pump. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The image issue has been resolved, and the new tables have been uploaded. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool - thanks. Periodic table is going to be a bear... Iron may be more fun to work on. --mav (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Move group 12 to "Other metals"?

The element category for zinc was recently changed on the wiki from transition metals to post-transition metals. Previous discussion about what element category group 12 should be in resulted in maintaining the status quo of including it in the transition metals b/c it often, but not always, is considered to be part of that category. IUAPC's 2005 Red Book recommendations (on page 51) states pretty much the same thing but the American Chemical Society's Periodic Table does not include group 12 in the transition metals. I think part of the reason that the status quo was kept last time was due to the difficulty of changing all the nav table images. The updated elementbox template (when fully implementated in all element articles) makes it much easier to change things. I'm willing to table this until all element boxes are converted but still wanted to see what everybody thinks we should do. Note that, post-transition metal, by itself, could not be a perfect replacement for our "Other metal" category b/c it does not include aluminium and the post-transition status of mercury is not as clear. But I see no problem with stating that in element boxes (such as in zinc) when appropriate. What say you? --mav (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this seems like a low priority which means I'm going to ramble. I'm pretty sure that ACS isn't taking a position that's any different or more rigid than IUPAC. Here ACS seemed to want to distinguish between main group elements and transition metals, so they labeled group 12 elements as transition metals. But here they have a nifty flash gizmo that can better reflect overlapping categorizations, so they didn't include group 12 elements as transition metals. Group 12 are just in the "metals" category. But here ACS seems to go back to having group 12 labeled as a transition metal in their low-tech but nevertheless stylish velour beach towel depiction. It all depends on editorial decisions about what can or should be presented to a general audience in a particular format and setting. My preference at Wikipedia for now would be to keep group 12 colored as a transition metal in the periodic table images because coloring these elements as "other metal"s would imply that smart folks who call these elements transition metals are wrong when they are actually using an acceptable IUPAC convention. If Wikipedia gets a nifty gizmo for overlapping categorizations like on that ACS page then we could eliminate the "other metals" category and I'd do what ACS does with transition metals in their flash gizmo. The categorization of zinc in its element box as a post-transition metal might be the most descriptive, specific category in which to place the element. Calling it a transition metal would be less specific and some people would disagree, but according to IUPAC, it would not be incorrect. But I don't think it's worth sacrificing specificity in editorial decisions about the element categories in their element boxes in order to conform with editorial decisions about element categories in the coloring of our periodic table. My personal preference is that it would be good for the Elementbox template to support up to about five different element categories for each element. For example, Palladium belongs to the categories of Noble metals and Platinum metals in addition to Transition metals. The result for zinc would be that Wikipedia would reflect the real contradiction that some smart folks call zinc a post-transition metal and other smart folks call zinc a transition metal. Even though only a dumb folk would call zinc both a transition metal and a post-transition metal, Wikipedia should list both in its elementbox to reflect the differing conventions. Well-written Transition metal and Post-transition metal articles would help to resolve the apparent contradiction. Finally, the Transition metal and Post-transition metal articles should be edited by someone with easy access to this article...which might be me...in a couple weeks...if noone else does it. Flying Jazz (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Pending something better, I just added a {{{series comment}}} parameter to the elmentbox template. Zinc changed back to a transition with a comment just below that saying that it is also considered to be a post-transition. More explanation should be put in a ref note. --mav (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

All elementboxes should be converted now. --mav (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

the status of mercury is clear i think

then we would have a category with just zinc and cadmium

it's all sort of arbitrary, we could put aluminium on top of scandium just as well, but that's not what people do —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.133 (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Truss (chemistry)

I am going to create this article about the truss, but it really needs a picture. http://www.apsidium.com/element/theory/truss.htm Maybe we should have a Category:Truss elements. Truss elements:

1. Hydrogen
2. Beryllium
3. Magnesium
4. Scandium
5. Yttrium
6. Cerium
7. Thorium
8. Unbitrium
9. Unsepttrium
10. Bibiquadium

etc.! Attinio (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Is there any legitimate reliable source which uses the term truss element? I am unable to find any acceptance of this term. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I found no credible source for Truss element and I would not add the category or the article. The webpage you give as source is neither good nor does it tell what the truss should do in the context of chemistry. Is there a good book on truss elements?--Stone (talk) 07:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Found apsidium. Attinio (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• You also appear to have gone through and added all of these so-called truss elements to a category. I have reverted these edits until it can be shown from a reliable source that the creation of such a category would be appropriate. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

apsidium.com is a website full of creative theories, speculation about non-existent elements, etc. Not a reliable source. --Itub (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Technetium FAR notice

I have nominated Technetium for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed png → svg replacement

Would anyone object if I globally replaced commons:File:Isotopes and half-life 1.PNG with commons:File:Isotopes and half-life.svg? -- BenRG (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Replaced. -- BenRG (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ununoctium on the Main page

Here we have another place for some work. The article was promoted January 2008 and no alternative texts for the images are present, and one dab link to unknown exists. The good thing is all the external links work. We have till the 9. October. --Stone (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed alt text and dab link to unknown. Materialscientist (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Electron configurations and images

Just wanting some input/clarification for this request for new electron configuration images for three elements. /Lokal_Profil 23:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Emission Spectra

People here might be interested in my proposal here to standardize our diagrams for emission spectra. —Jkasd 00:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Chemistry in its Element

At the request of User:Beetstra, I'm proposing to (re-)include the links the the Royal Society of Chemistry's Chemistry World "Chemistry in its Element" series of podcasts among the external links. Before they were contributions were reverted, they were either at the end of the list of links or among them in alphabetical order. Does anyone have any views on this addition? The original discussion began on User_talk:Grunkhead.

In my opinion, the podcasts often give an additional viewpoint from a professional chemist or science writer on a particular part of the element's history, use, etc. that would not deserve their own section on the Wiki page, but would qualify well as "additional interesting information". The source, the Royal Society of Chemistry, is strong. My links to the RSC are minor: I'm a professional research chemist and member of the RSC. Thus, I wouldn't consider them spam or even a solicitation/advert. Grunkhead (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As reverting editor, I will weigh in as well. I have been listening to the one for Potassium, and found that the text was more about the chemical name etymology than actual information about the element. I would suggest to put a link on List of chemical element name etymologies, or give every element a reference to their own podcast. They do make a good source there.

I don't want to suggest this is spam, or done for promotional purposes, I just feel that these links don't properly follow the external links guideline, failing parts of WP:ELNO (don't tell much which is not told in the document, tell more about etymology than about the subject itself, etc.), and well, we don't have to link to every resource on potassium anyway (something that might already be questionable for the webelements, as that information is also largely already included in the wiki pages). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Call me grumpy, but I can hardly think of any chemical element article that needs any external links. I see external links as useful mostly for "official" things. For example, an article about the ACS definitely needs an external link to the official website of the ACS. But there are no official websites for the elements. Sure there are many excellent and interesting websites with information about the elements; in fact too many and it is not our job to list them because we are not a web directory. (Obviously I'm talking only about links in an "External links" section. We should certainly have links in the references section if a website was used as a reference.) --Itub (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a bit of experience with science podcasts on other topics. I understand Itub, but probably he also takes without offense that he is too harsh with suspected spam :-). IMO, podcasts are invaluable - they attract teenagers, who love their ipods, to have something new in there, and to download "cool science stuff" to try, and some find it fun. Not only teenagers. But. A sound link is "same" link as others - every one could be relevant or not, this is to be checked by listening. Same with other legitimate WP audio links - many record old, incorrect versions of the article. Thus I do support (non-commercial) podcasts. Even if it just talks about names, it is already a good start - we do explain names, in details, in every elements article, don't we? Some people are fond of names and even go to war for a single IPA letter :-D Materialscientist (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Very bad photo of elemental calcium

The untarnished elemental calcium cannot be told from any other silvery metal. Doesn't anybody have a better shot? Incidentally, the most dramatically different thing about elemental calcium is how it burns: it gives off a magnesium-bright light, but rose-red. It's very pretty, but rarely seen (flares and red fireworks are magnesium metal plus strontium salts).

Incidentally, the strontium metal photo is not all that great, either. SBHarris 07:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Done for calcium (not sure the flame color is right). Don't see better pics for strontium for now. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's much better. If you ever get a chance, ignite some elemental Ca as you would Mg (it's about as difficult, and you'll need a torch). It's very bright, red, and quite lovely. SBHarris 07:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Saw the flame on the net. I think we've got some pure Ca, but granules, not easy to make a picture (rod would be better). Materialscientist (talk) 08:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ferroneous

I think it is good for deletion, but I have no time for a proper look! Thanks.--Stone (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Mav has already deleted it. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!!--Stone (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation guides - getting it right

User:Cybercobra has added simple English pronunciation guides to the element articles, alongside the existing IPA ones. He is now insisting that elements ending in -ium are pronounced "ee-um" rather than "i-um". Nobody I know says them that way. It makes me wonder whether these pronunciation guides actually add any value. I don't see any consensus to use them and they seem redundant to the IPA ones. If they are to remain they should be accurate and I suppose that means making them verifiable. Seems a lot of hassle for very little return. Thoughts? --John (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

They are pure mechanical translations of the IPA into respelling pronunciation versions via the respelling key. There is no originality involved. Further, they are very helpful to the 95% of readers who don't know wtf IPA is, much less how to use it. Also, please verify for me: You're suggesting the "i" in -ium is pronounced "ih" or "aye"? Again, I encourage you to read the respelling key and/or the IPA for English guide. Perhaps your local dialect/accent is different enough that an alternate IPA pronunciation is necessary? --Cybercobra (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The 'i' in '-ium' endings is pronounced "ih", not "ee". --John (talk) 01:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to prove you wrong then. (all emphasis in the following is mine)

Dictionary.com: Calcium: non-IPA pronunciation "kal-see-uhm", IPA: "kælsiəm"

Help:IPA_for_English's pronunication of IPA "i": the "y" in happy, the "i" in "serious"

WP:RESPELL for IPA /iː/ or /i/: "ee" like in "feet"

Please provide a source that your pronunciation also exists. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Please see WP:RS for what we mean on this project by a reliable source. None of these qualifies. --John (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The entry in question is derived from the Random House Dictionary by Random House Inc., a major publisher. Again, I ask for any source whatsoever for your pronunciation. Whether or not you trust the "IPA for English" or respelling key pages is immaterial given the first quoted respelling pronunciation is directly from said dictionary itself and uses the "ee" to which you object. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster likewise gives \ˈkal-sē-əm\, and in its key gives: \ē\ as "y" in "easy". --Cybercobra (talk) 03:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Which supports my point; it is 'y' as in 'easy' and not 'ea' as in 'easy', as your version suggested. Oh, and you don't need to ping me each time you reply, I have this watchlisted. --John (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not understanding your point; as far as I can tell, both the "y" and the "ea" are pronounced the same. Merriam-Webster agrees: "Pronunciation: \ˈē-zē\". Just for clarification, "ee" in the respellings is pronounced as in "see". --Cybercobra (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That just doesn't make sense to me. Here's a question; when you pronounce "lithium", how do you say the two 'i' sounds, the same or differently? --John (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Differently. The first is (not a formal respelling pronunciation) "ih", the second is "ee". Webster's gives "li-thē-əm"; as in WP's respelling pronunciations, "i" denotes for former sound, and "e"s are used for the latter sound. I don't see how the "i" in -ium could be the former sound, which would make the fragment pronounced "ih-um"; it sounds plain awkward doing 2 "vocal-chordy" (don't know the technical term) sounds in a row like that. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Cambridge gives /ˈlɪθ.i.əm/ , and the pronunciation guide gives the second vowel value as being like the second vowel in 'happy'. So it may indeed be an WP:ENGVAR thing, as you suggest above. My own background is that I am Scottish, a Chemistry teacher for over 20 years, and a qualified English teacher. The -EE- pronunciation guide looks totally wrong to me. Can I ask again, where was the consensus to add all these pron guides in the first place? --John (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I was bold and did not think explicit getting of consensus was necessary as this did not seem controversial; indeed, I added them to nearly all the elements and yours is the first complaint I've encountered. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

you guys are getting phonemes and phones mixed up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.139 (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The vowel of bit is what's called a checked vowel, meaning it has to be followed by a consonant. Thus, the -ium ending couldn't have /ɪ/. Keep in mind also that our pronunciation guide makes a distinction between /ɪ/, /iː/, and /i/, the latter of which is realized as [ɪ] in some pretty prominent dialects. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 00:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

So, the respelling guide just needs some tweaking? It currently gives "ee" for both /iː/ and /i/, from which I interpret someone with happy tensing (which includes speakers of American English?) wrote that part of the guide. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It would seem as such. Though Happy-tensing is making its way into RP as well, apparantly. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

So, is this right John?:
How I'm interpreting John pronounces it:

How I pronounce it (American English/California English):

--Cybercobra (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

An official source (1:55) suggests it's e-um: [1]. ;-) - Wolfkeeper 02:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, so, can anyone suggest how the other pronunciation should be transcribed? --Cybercobra (talk) 08:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lawrencium needs more references

I was shocked to notice today that Lawrencium has a grand total of 2 inline citations, plus a couple of non-inline references. For a non-trivial article of its length, this seems really unacceptable. Help is greatly needed to improve this situation!—Tetracube (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] article ratings

I went through pretty much all the non GA/FA articles we have and I have tried to re-rate them more consistently among them, based on a general view of how well organized, how broad, and how well referenced are they. I have rated a few as A which means that to me it appeared that they are ok organized and pretty much have everything the guidelines require; with a bit of work, they can/may be submitted for GAN. B's are ok articles, but which may for example require a non-stubby chemistry section. C's are missing more than one noticeable section and have only slightly more than 10 refs. Start's are just above stubby and usually have under 10 refs. If anybody cares and wants to change some of the ratings feel free to do so. Nergaal (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, mate. Somehow I missed the massive update in the quality log. I'm updating the report and tables right now. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)