Template talk:Infobox element/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Infobox element. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Feedback
I've created some pages with all boxes, with parameters converted from a recent snapshot of the element articles. User:Femto/Elementbox01, User:Femto/Elementbox02, User:Femto/Elementbox03, User:Femto/Elementbox04 feel free to copy or edit. Quick and dirty but enough for a first check. (Take your time checking what needs to be done. I really like my text editor, but right now I'd be happy not having to see this data within the next two weeks at least :)
Some incoherent thoughts and suggestions.
I think the final name should be Template:Elementbox (not Template:Element)Someone really has to announce these efforts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements.- There's the problem with the 3 densities of phosphorus allotropes and 2 vapor pressure tables.
Keep the "name" param for testing but the real template should use a "pagename" magicword instead. (need to handle special case "mercury (element)")- I made {{PAGENAME}} the default, and only if {{{name}}} is used will it show up. MZMcBride
- Number of ionization energies: no need to count them, replace with simple flag whether to show "more" link or not.
- Have the articles include the "phase color" param for all elements and make "phase" a simple unparsed entry?
- "Oxidation states comment" is not a comment on oxistate, actually refers to something different: should rename to "oxide is" or something like that, like in "its oxides are acidic"
- Series: don't check variants ("halogen"/"Halogens"), unify article code instead (to lowercase plural). How are cases like "presumably halogens" handled?
- series comment= are for the ones that don't use an actual series name. The other issue I will fix later. MZMcBride
- The series color codes are available for transclusion from Template:Element color/Transition metals etc., no need to hardcode in the template.
- Are you talking about using the hex code instead of "black," etc.? That was done just for conformity in the template code. The values are exactly the same. MZMcBride
- I mean the color codes of the chemical series could be implemented with something like
{{Element color/{{{series}}}}}, without a separate #switch block each time. Femto 15:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- I mean the color codes of the chemical series could be implemented with something like
- Are you talking about using the hex code instead of "black," etc.? That was done just for conformity in the template code. The values are exactly the same. MZMcBride
- Parameters should include a description of the units where possible. Also rename some, to fold onto a single line? example:
| heat of vaporization kJ per mol= | Pauling electronegativity= | boiling point K= | bp C= | bp F= | 1st ionization energy= | 2nd energy= | 3rd energy= | more energies=yes | vapor pressure 1=200 | vp 10= | vp 100= | vp 1 K= | vp 10 K= | vp 100 K=
- Yeah these can be changed pretty easily. Just make the edits you'd like on the usage list above and I'll fix the code to match the list. MZMcBride
- Okay. Next fortnight. :) Femto 15:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah these can be changed pretty easily. Just make the edits you'd like on the usage list above and I'll fix the code to match the list. MZMcBride
- Can we include a (usually undefined) comment parameter by default for every row, just in case? One shouldn't have to hack the template code just to put an additional citation after a value. When there's no way to insert custom code like now with separate entry rows, the template must be flexible.
- Not exactly sure what you mean here. MZMcBride
- With this template it will become impossible to insert conventional table code to make a customized entry row. Including a comment is not always appropriate as part of the template parameter in front of the value. Thus there has to be some means of including additional comments with the data, just in case it needs to be mentioned that a value is only valid on tuesdays. Or to add a cite. Or like the link for the covalent radius of fluorine. Femto 15:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Not exactly sure what you mean here. MZMcBride
Femto 21:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I changed the test pages to the format that I imagine, and edited the usage above. Let's see if you can get it to work with the changed parameters, and then we'll see what I forgot. Femto 21:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the changes to the usage. Will make the edits tonight. --MZMcBride 21:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed the ElementBox in the page about Carbon. In the isotope section, is there a way to (Or will someone just do it) link to the Carbon-14 page? Not all isotopes need links, but this one is near and dear to me, I knew it's discoverer. Chris 23:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Also, I hope to have this template implemented within the next month. --MZMcBride 03:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Can we add a table entry on the specific heat capacity value with the unit J g−1 K−1 ? This is the most important value when dealing with physics (as opposed to chemistry). Please see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Specific_heat_capacity /Jonas
There is no space between a prefix symbol and its unit symbol
Please fix {{Infobox nitrogen}} so it doesn't have any "m W" in it. And whatever others are screwed up in a similar way.
Preferably so that it does have "mW" rather than some other convoluted expression.
Can someone with more experience with this template do that properly, or would you rather I just wade in and try to fix it myself? Gene Nygaard 04:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know if it counts as a convoluted expression, but I replaced the "m" with "× 10−3". If you can fix it so that it shows mW, go ahead. --Itub 11:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I could have done that much myself and thought of doing so, but it looks much more clumsy than it needs to be, and I was hoping someone could make a more general fix (one that could be used for other parameters as well). Gene Nygaard 13:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- My suggested fix would be to stop hard-coding the units as part of the template. But that would require a lot of work. --Itub 13:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
"Series" to "Element category"
Consensus at Talk:Periodic table (standard)#Chemical series was that Wikipedia has been using the term "Chemical series" incorrectly when referring to categories of elements. Right now "Series" and "Group" in the Elementbox template both link to "Group" to reflect this confusing state of things even though "Group" always means vertical column. Element categories (currently called "Series") should link to the new Collective names of groups of like elements article through the term Category or Element category in the box. Ideally, this template and all the infoboxes would be changed. Hopefully there is a bot that can do these things fairly quickly 108 times for us, but I'm not familiar enough with this template to ask a bot or a bot-maker for help. Could someone who knows what they're doing implement the change? Flying Jazz 00:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
some help with {{Infobox ununoctium}}
I am trying to input two phases and a reference (i.e. liquid or solid "< ref>") and I cannot do this without a red-link or two extra ]] at the end (this is because the infobox adds and automatically). Thanks. Nergaal (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Update list of elements with .svg images, but we still got a lot to do.
So, I update the list of the elements that have .SVG images, but as far as I can see only those from 1 to 24 and up after 119 have .SVG images. Anybody working on making these? --Henrikb4 (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I fixed something
To accommodate the free neutron article, I changed the image line this:
{{#if: {{ifequal|{{{symbol}}}|n<sup>0</sup>}}|[[Image:Quark structure neutron.svg|250px|center]]|[[image:{{{symbol}}}-TableImage.{{#ifexist:Media:{{{symbol}}}-TableImage.svg|svg|png}}|250px|center|{{ucfirst:{{{name|{{PAGENAME}} }}} }} in the periodic table of the elements]]}}
It simply tests if "n0" is the symbol; if so, it shows the neutron image. If not, it acts as it usually does. 69.183.4.168 (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oops, forgot it login. That was me - MK ( talk/contribs ) 08:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Include EC numbers in Element fact boxes
I suggest to include EC number in Element fact boxes, as CAS number is already. I've made a template for this purpose: Template:Elementbox_ec_number. --Eivindgh (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Include Refractive Index
I suggest that we should include refractive index to the miscellaneous section of the infobox. We have the speed of sound, why not properties related to the speed of light? Thricecube (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Most elements don't have a (real) refractive index for visible light, surely! Physchim62 (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Styling tweaks
Currently this template does not present itself using the "infobox" class, which means that it looks out-of-place compared to other infobox templates. I've made some edits to the new sandbox which correct this. A comparison between old and new can be found on the new test cases page. If there are no objections I'll roll this out soon. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- As there has been no opposition, I've rolled this out now (along with on {{elementbox header}} and {{elementbox header2}}). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
update per project talk
I still need to go over the edits made after my fork to see if they can be merged back into the template. But please feel free to tweak things (especially field organization). --mav (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
For some reason, class infobox bordered imposes some really ugly borders on the tiny periodic table in the navigation part of the infobox. It also left aligns headings. Both are really ugly and not what was agreed to on the project's talk page. So I changed it back. I do like the slightly darker color and lighter line weight of that class though. If somebody can figure out how to add that but keep the ugliness from happening again for the tiny periodic table, then that would be great. --mav (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sorted. Unfortunately,
class="infobox bordered"insists on overriding the border values of every single cell therein. I've fixed this by going through every individual row and cell in the sub-templates and addingstyle="border: none"to them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)- Thanks. I just re-centered the headings using the 'center' tag. I'm sure there is a better way to do that but it seems to work. --mav (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Hm. There also seems to be a bug with IE whereby stating a font size within a div yields text that is cut in half (issue might be something else though). I replaced that with an ugly hack using small and big tags. Would greatly appreciate it if somebody could figure out what is going on and fix it. --mav (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Fixes
The following fixes and changes were made today;
- Bug fixed that makes mess of second image. Two images now allowed which will stack vertically.
- Bug fixed so image size parameter now overrides default.
- Image size parameter added for second image.
- Added "appearance" coloured heading, to enclose the appearance description, images and image captions.
- Fixed bug which caused image comment (captions) not to be displayed.
- Image comment parameter now available for both images.
- Crystal structure moved to Miscellaneous from Atomic properties as requested on project page.
SpinningSpark 17:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Nice work. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Why thankyou! SpinningSpark 17:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
More fixes
- Fixed "Physical properties" heading - was only displaying if "Phase" parameter was not null.
- Fixed "Appearance" heading - same bug as above due to cut and paste.
- Fixed "Atomic properties" heading - was only displaying if "Crystal structure" was not null. This is especially not useful as "Crystal structure" is no longer under the "Atomic properties" head.
I have taken the view in all the fixes above that it is better to have a heading with no data than to have data with no heading (and I have not found any cases of the former in any event). SpinningSpark 17:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
requested features?
appearance(I meant) pronounciation- spin column for the isotopes section
Nergaal (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- You already have an "Appearance" parameter. What is it you think is missing? SpinningSpark 15:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Where would you like the spin column to be positioned? Also, is there an abbreviation that can be used for nuclear spin, it will be a bit of squeeze without abbreviating. SpinningSpark 22:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Include viscosity of elements in liquid state?
Would it make sense to include viscosity of elements in the liquid phase? Chemboxes already have viscosity of liquids at standard temperatures. This data is available from sources such as NIST and IUPAC. vedge (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Known problems
As of 13:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC), this template and templates that transclude it look significantly different in:
- Firefox 3.5
- IE 8
- IE 8 with compatibility view
- Opera 9
I have not tested other browsers but I would expect additional differences.
Perhaps more important, elements with temporary-name 3-letter abbreviations, such as today's featured article Ununoctium (2009-10-09), do not clearly show the 3rd letter of the name in the browsers listed above. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Could you upload screenshots to illustrate this? Is this resulting in visual artifacts, or just slight layout changes? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Element with mass number
The {{Element2}} family of templates' comment pages redirect here. That is what my comment concerns.
I was just editing [1] and I would like to be able to format the element with the atomic number only. The text refers to the element, the number of protons, and "no stable isotopes" or "two isotopes" etc, so the first part is not to a specific nuclide. So, I have to format it manually.
So, rather than Element2 "ignoring the mass number" third argument (which it figures out for itself anyway from the element name?), perhaps giving it anyway can format it suitably for this purpose.
I ended up deciding to use Template:PhysicsParticle directly, so at least the formatting is consistent and it will pick up any relevant style sheet tweeks.
Długosz (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Phase and Phase comment
I see whatever goes into Phase becomes wikilinked, where Phase comment does not, but phase comment is not displayed unless phase is set as well. For Template:Infobox ununbium and others, the phase is "unknown", and this is improperly wikilinked. Does anyone know how we could get unknown not to get a wl, or do we need to modify the script? (Perhaps by displaying Phase comment even if Phase is unset.) --JaGatalk 11:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Periodic table
That periodic table in wikicode at the top takes a pretty long time to render in a browser. Is it really a good idea? --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's an HTML table (no images, as far as I can see). It should have near-zero rendering time for browsers.... --MZMcBride (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it's quite a lot of HTML. I would guess a small image would actually render quicker. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- It is near instantaneous in my browser. Do you have a slow connection or an obsolete browser by chance?—RJH (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- It does render fast now. I will come back if I see it render slowly again. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- It is near instantaneous in my browser. Do you have a slow connection or an obsolete browser by chance?—RJH (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it's quite a lot of HTML. I would guess a small image would actually render quicker. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- A more important concern is that it's likely to render the infobox almost useless in screen readers. As cute as the code is, it may well be a good idea to ditch it in the long run. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Do SVG images work in screen readers? That might serve in place of HTML code. But then you'd have to build an image map.—RJH (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Template looks like shit in print.
There's nothing that can be done for the periodic table as long as Ticket #759 is open (see right, we should probably hide it for now, using {{Hide in print}}), but there are other issues that needs to be solved. For one, the infobox doesn't render as an infobox at all, but rather as an incoherent mess.
It is possible that a sub template is causing the problem. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've created a sandbox at Template:Elementbox/Sandbox, and testpages at Template:Infobox actinium/sandbox and User:Headbomb/Sandbox/Actinium for testing purposes. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've placed the current version at Template:Elementbox/Print, so at least we're seeing infoboxes now, rather than big messes. If anyone wants to tweaks anything, just test it in the sandboxes. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Would replacing the small perio tables and the overlapping images with png image maps help? We also have inconsistent rendering issues between browsers with that area. The images could be created from screenshots of each infobox. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 16:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes definitely. If not in the main template (aka the one seen on wikipedia could be the usual tables), we could have a
|table_png=, which would be used by Template:Elementbox/Print. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes definitely. If not in the main template (aka the one seen on wikipedia could be the usual tables), we could have a
- Would replacing the small perio tables and the overlapping images with png image maps help? We also have inconsistent rendering issues between browsers with that area. The images could be created from screenshots of each infobox. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 16:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've placed the current version at Template:Elementbox/Print, so at least we're seeing infoboxes now, rather than big messes. If anyone wants to tweaks anything, just test it in the sandboxes. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Electron shell image unreadable and inaccessible
While reviewing Caesium for featured article status (see review), I noticed that its infobox's electron shell image 
was unreadable. I looked at the other elements, and the electron shell images were unreadable everywhere, even the image 
in Hydrogen. Also, the images had unhelpful alt text such as "Electron shell for Caesium", which doesn't describe the image to visually impaired readers as suggested by Wikipedia:Alternative text for images #Essence. Since the electron-shell image is already linked-to elsewhere in the infobox, there's no need to put it on the screen in an unreadable and non-WP:ACCESSIBLE form, so I removed it. Eubulides (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- A representation of the number of shells for each element has been in this template and ancestors for over five years. So I put it back. The only part of the image that is unreadable is the completely redundant line at the top and the even more redundant element symbol. Ideally, I'd like to have a different set of images that did not have those parts, but we have what we have. Due to other issues, we will likely replace this part of the template with PNGs image maps for each element. But not yet. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 23:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- As I understand it, when the image was put in there originally, it was rendered much larger, and was therefore readable. It's not readable now. Looking at the images reproduced at the start of this thread, the electron shells are not readable. The only thing that's readable is the central colored dot, and perhaps a moire-like pattern around it; the representation of shells cannot be made out or understood. The information about elctron shells is clearly visible elsewhere in the infobox, in textual form, with a wikilink to the image; for example, Caesium's infobox says this:
- The tiny icon is useless for representing the electron shell: in contrast, the text expresses the same information clearly, and has a wikilink to the same page that the icon links to. Furthermore, the alt text for the tiny icon does not follow the guidelines for alt text, as it doesn't explain the essence of the image. (I am tempted to say that the alt text should merely say "unreadable diagram with a colored central dot", but that would be a bit snarky....) Perhaps we can fix the problem later, with a proper fix for the alt text; but in the meantime the template shouldn't display images that are WP:ACCESSIBLE to neither sighted nor visually impaired readers. Eubulides (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- The only inaccessible parts are the redundant ones that are useless to sighted persons as well. Thus there is no need to explain those parts in the Alt text. Nobody is at all harmed by the current image and having it displayed provides useful visual information about the number of shells that goes far beyond any text giving the number of shells. The image needs to stay. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 00:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't follow the previous comment. The images in question (examples of which are on this talk page, in this thread) are useless to sighted readers: they don't convey any useful information at their tiny size (42px width). The full-size images are useful, but they're on some other page, not in the pages generated by this template. It's not true that "Nobody is at all harmed by the current image": someone who's accessing Caesium with a screen reader will have to listen to unnecessarily repetitive words, because both links to the file page will be read aloud. However, perhaps a different solution could be used: we can mark the image as being purely decorative in the W3C sense, in that it doesn't present any information that is not already present in adjacent text (which is true for this particular case). I tried that; what do you think? I agree that an image map would work better here (and would also solve the alt text problem); in the meantime I hope this workaround will do for now, as it addresses the WP:ALT issue. Eubulides (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't that overridding the current use of alt for the main image? Nergaal (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- It is changing the tiny icon, so that instead of acting like this:
- the tiny icon has "
|link=|alt=" and acts like this: - The visual appearance is identical, but the "
|link=|alt=" version has a purely decorative image for its tiny icon, and this image does nothing when you click on it and is ignored by a screen reader and therefore does not have an WP:ACCESSIBILITY problem. The "(image)" in the text links to the same image anyway, so no information is lost by this change. Another possibility, that would also work WP:ACCESSIBILITY-wise, would be to use the tiny icon (with appropriate alt text) in place of the "(image)": something like this: - This approaches fixes the problem (the duplicate wikilink to the electron shell's file page in a different way. Eubulides (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't that overridding the current use of alt for the main image? Nergaal (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't follow the previous comment. The images in question (examples of which are on this talk page, in this thread) are useless to sighted readers: they don't convey any useful information at their tiny size (42px width). The full-size images are useful, but they're on some other page, not in the pages generated by this template. It's not true that "Nobody is at all harmed by the current image": someone who's accessing Caesium with a screen reader will have to listen to unnecessarily repetitive words, because both links to the file page will be read aloud. However, perhaps a different solution could be used: we can mark the image as being purely decorative in the W3C sense, in that it doesn't present any information that is not already present in adjacent text (which is true for this particular case). I tried that; what do you think? I agree that an image map would work better here (and would also solve the alt text problem); in the meantime I hope this workaround will do for now, as it addresses the WP:ALT issue. Eubulides (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- The only inaccessible parts are the redundant ones that are useless to sighted persons as well. Thus there is no need to explain those parts in the Alt text. Nobody is at all harmed by the current image and having it displayed provides useful visual information about the number of shells that goes far beyond any text giving the number of shells. The image needs to stay. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 00:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) Whatever you do, make sure to update Template:Elementbox/Print as well. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I can't modify Template:Elementbox/Print; it says "Creation and editing of /Print subpages has been disabled" due to security issues. So I left it alone. I'm not sure what I'd do anyway: is alt text even applicable for print? Eubulides (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Removal of fields
I'd like to ask why the 'Pronounce' row was removed from this infobox without discussion. This has messed up multiple element articles by concealing the migrated pronunciation information. This change was made by user Mav with this edit, and the Pronounce field wasn't the only row that was removed.—RJH (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Entirely unintentional, so readded. I created a copy of the template, worked on it to slim-up the table, and then pasted that back. Something went horribly wrong in that process. Sorry about that. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 00:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Phew, that's a relief. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Pronunciation
I would like to propose that a row be added to this infobox, underneath the name, where the pronunciation information can be placed. This would help avoid the irregular wrapping issues that can occur with the pronunciation entry in the lead (when the browser is a certain width), and improve the flow of the text. The same technique has been employed with various astronomy infoboxes and it has (IMO at least) worked out well. See, for example: Jupiter, Andromeda (constellation) and Canopus. Thank you for your consideration.—RJH (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Anybody?—RJH (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds fine to me. --mav (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Since nobody objected to the idea, I was "bold" and added it into the infobox. The pronunciation entries have been added into the Xenon article as an example.—RJH (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's one thing to add it to the infobox, another to remove it from the ledes. I've suggested a compromise where the dictionary pronounciation is left the lede, and the IPA, which few can read, is put in infobox (or both). One editor has argued that it interupts the flow of the lede sentence of have a pronounciation. My argument is that it interupts the flow at least as much to realize that you can't even say "copernicium" correctly, so what's the point in learning anything more about it until you can? And worse still, was its name before that, which was ununbium. I'll bet even the average chemist doesn't get either one right. I suppose I'm irked a little by these things, since they seem to be written by chemists FOR chemists. There's no pronunciation guide for periodic acid in the lede, and yet (as Asimov points out someplace) you can probably tell a chemist from a layman by how they say that word. YOu can even tell organic chemists from biochemists by the way they say "acetylcholine." SBHarris 19:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Possible factors to consider: (1) per WP:LEDE, the lede is intended as a summary of the article, but the article does not discuss the pronunciation; (2) the notation for the pronunciation is jargon, per WP:JARGON, and every instance should be tagged with a {{clarify}} template until it is explained in terms the average reader can understand; (3) pronunciation rules are the proper demense of a dictionary, and wikipedia is not a dictionary, and (4) the pronunciation jargon is still available in the infobox.—RJH (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- It's one thing to add it to the infobox, another to remove it from the ledes. I've suggested a compromise where the dictionary pronounciation is left the lede, and the IPA, which few can read, is put in infobox (or both). One editor has argued that it interupts the flow of the lede sentence of have a pronounciation. My argument is that it interupts the flow at least as much to realize that you can't even say "copernicium" correctly, so what's the point in learning anything more about it until you can? And worse still, was its name before that, which was ununbium. I'll bet even the average chemist doesn't get either one right. I suppose I'm irked a little by these things, since they seem to be written by chemists FOR chemists. There's no pronunciation guide for periodic acid in the lede, and yet (as Asimov points out someplace) you can probably tell a chemist from a layman by how they say that word. YOu can even tell organic chemists from biochemists by the way they say "acetylcholine." SBHarris 19:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- (Outdent) Re: periodic acid: there's always WP:BOLD. And there's already a footnote (the very first one!) that explains its proper pronunciation, albeit without IPA or respelling.
- As for pronunciation keys in general, I suppose it's OK if it's a single set of parenthesis with a single key (e.g., "Silver (ˈsiːlvɚ) is a chemical element ..."), but definitely not what the Mercury article used to be, with multiple alternative names, each with its own set of multiple pronunciation keys, including Latin for heavens' sake. And I definitely prefer IPA to that horrendous butchering of English orthography called respelling, but I'll concede that I'm probably in the minority in that regard. Any alternative pronunciation keys, perhaps including the "main" one, should go into the infobox. Or, if that's not good enough, put it into its own section. I say again, that an article about a chemical element does not have pronunciation as its chief subject, so why should we sacrifice the readability of the lede for the sake of pronunciation?
- So I propose the following compromise: include a single pronunciation key in the lede, within a single set of parentheses, and with all other keys and alternative pronunciations and what-not in the infobox, or in their very own section, complete with any requisite elucidations, if it's really that difficult to pronounce the element's name. (And for the record, I'm not even a chemist by profession.) IPA is preferred for the pronunciation key chosen for the lede, but I'll even concede to respelling if that makes more sense to most people.—Tetracube (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- I suspect your average reader is not going to be IPA literate, so in the case of Sbharris' example, it is unclear to me how the presence of /koʊpərˈnɪsiəm/ is going to help in the slightest for somebody trying to pronounce the word (without necessitating drilling down and learning IPA). Even koe-pər-NIS-ee-əm is somewhat obtuse, although I could live with that. :) I'm also unclear why pronunciation keys are even needed for everyday words like gold, silver, carbon, sodium or neon. Yes a footnote with a clarification of the pronunciation meaning would help, but again that disrupts the flow.
- I'm not sure what the best solution is; I thought that putting the IPA encodings in the infobox would satisfy both sides.—RJH (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that pronunciation keys for common words like gold, silver, carbon, etc., are totally spurious. (The only people who would find that useful is second-language learners, in which case Wikipedia isn't really the right place for it.) At the most, they should go into the infobox, but definitely not in the main text.—Tetracube (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- How would you feel then about moving the pronunciation to the second row in the Infobox? I.e. just under the name. That way it is immediately visible and does not disrupt the layout or flow of the lede.—RJH (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Tetracube, I agree that for most scenarios, pronunciations for common words like "gold" are unnecessary, but I think it's worth including the pronunciations as a matter of consistency. It's better to have unnecessary pronunciations than to have to argue about which element names are hard enough to pronounce to justify a pronunciation key. I think RJHall has a good suggestion immediately above. I move that we take that route, wait a week or two to see how it works, and then reevaluate the issue. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 17:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that pronunciation keys for common words like gold, silver, carbon, etc., are totally spurious. (The only people who would find that useful is second-language learners, in which case Wikipedia isn't really the right place for it.) At the most, they should go into the infobox, but definitely not in the main text.—Tetracube (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree.—Tetracube (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- For me consistency is the important thing. People will learn to look in the infobox if they know it is there. The present solution, Post May 7, where it is only in the infobox, is the best compromise given the discussion above. Dave3457 (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree.—Tetracube (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- We already have consistency. There's no need for a change here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- The reason for the change was presented in the first paragraph of this discussion, and it had nothing to do with consistency. Your unilateral reversion isn't helping to address the issue.—RJH (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- We already have consistency. There's no need for a change here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
What might be really slick is if the pronunciation information appeared in the upper right corner of the article page (much as the astronomical coordinates appear in the upper right of NGC 2169 with the {{Sky}} template).—RJH (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- The use of the upper corner for coordinates is an agreed standard across the project. We'd need to have a central discussion if we were to consider moving pronunciation there as well. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Understood.—RJH (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- What about the upper left corner? Just a thought.—Tetracube (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately that's normally occupied by "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia".—RJH (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- What about the upper left corner? Just a thought.—Tetracube (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Reverted
I hadn't actually realised that RJHall had gone ahead and bulk-moved the pronunciation out of the ledes while adding this code. This is wholly inappropriate: it isn't for three guys on a template talk page to decide to do away with a well-established convention of including the pronunciation in the lede of articles. For now I've reverted the addition to the infobox (as it's not yet clear that this is a good idea anyway) and am in the process of reverting the bulk-removal of pronunciation data from the ledes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've restored it here, as there's an argument that it could be included in both. It shouldn't be included solely in the infobox, however: at least, not until there is a broader consensus that this is appropriate across the project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Could you point out the broad discussion that established this as a convention? It doesn't appear to be in the MoS. Putting the pronunciation in the first sentence of the lede is a poor convention at best.—RJH (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- If it weren't a convention then you wouldn't have needed to edit hundreds of articles to reverse it, would you? I'd rather this discussion were continued centrally, rather than in three places at once (here, my user talk, and on the Astronomy WikiProject where, curiously, you're arguing that it's convention not to include pronunciation in the lede even though there evidently hasn't been discussion there either), so feel free to pick one and we can move all the discussion there. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hundreds of articles? I think you exaggerate. To my immense relief, the vast majority of articles don't bother with the pronunciation annoyance in the lede, which could also be considered a convention. (Including almost all the astronomy articles.) But I agree, I would like this to be settled as part of the WP:MoS. Having a consensus there would be preferable to arguing that we should keep it the same out of habit. Should the discussion be opened on the WP:MoS talk page?
- Your statement about the astronomy WP argument is mistaken. I am inquiring what the groups' preference is before taking action.—RJH (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- If it weren't a convention then you wouldn't have needed to edit hundreds of articles to reverse it, would you? I'd rather this discussion were continued centrally, rather than in three places at once (here, my user talk, and on the Astronomy WikiProject where, curiously, you're arguing that it's convention not to include pronunciation in the lede even though there evidently hasn't been discussion there either), so feel free to pick one and we can move all the discussion there. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- My apologies: I was counting my reverts, which included both your edits and Tetracube's. There were over a hundred in total, but I shouldn't have attributed all of the original edits to you (I think Tetracube was responsible for the majority). And my comment about the astronomy project related to this revert's edit summary, rather than your (neutral) comment at the astronomy project talk. I think MoS talk would be the best place for this: either that, or WT:LEDE. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Pronunciation: New compromise
I have what I feel is a good compromise. The strongest argument for putting it in both the info box and the lede is that, particularly with an element like Xenon, the first thing you what to know about the element is how to pronounce its name, and an individual does not necessarily know to look in the info box. Not putting it in the lede seems inconsiderate to those who are not chemists. However, the problem with putting it is the lead for an element like Xenon is that it has two different pronunciations and things can become quite lengthy, particularly if you do it right and not only include the IPA pronunciation but the dictionary pronunciation. (I lament the english Wikipedia’s consensus to use IPA.) My suggestion is to put all the pronunciation information in the infobox and put something like “ (Pronunciation: Refer to infobox) “ in the lede of select elements. Repeated user will learn to just look over it. And occasional uses, even if an element has nothing in the lede will learn to look in the info box.
This is a compromise, that seems to satisfy all of the concerns and is the one that I am presently supporting. Dave3457 (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- The redirect to the infobox sounds good to me. Now, if we could have both IPA and standard phonetic in that box, please? If Merriam-Webster can put in ab initio • \ab-ih-NISH-ee-oh\ for the word of today [2], how is it that Wikipedia's chemists feel themselves too academically correct to lower themselves to what the most popular on-line dictionary does? Is this about teaching people, or showing off? SBHarris 00:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree but its not chemists being “academically correct” its about being Wikipedia correct. I would happily substitute IPA for the Respell template whenever I felt the urge but the most one could or should do at this point is include it along with the IPA. That seems to be condoned in the Respell template. Note that the Respell is include in the infoboxes that I've checked. One could also include a few of the audio files that Wiktionary links to as some of them are hard to get your tongue around. Freedom like that is one of the advantages of having it in the infobox and then directing people there. Dave3457 (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Pronunciation: Refer to infobox" would be an ugly self-reference. Infoboxes are not supposed to contain material essential to understanding an article, and ideally articles should not have to refer to themselves in the prose. Furthermore, the text "Pronunciation: Refer to infobox" itself is about as long or even longer than many of the examples it's supposed to replace. As I've said, though, it is not for the few editors who visit this template talk to agree to dismiss a widely-used convention (indeed, one which was used on practically all element articles prior to this discussion) based on personal preference. I think that this is a good time to have a central discussion on whether we want articles to contain IPA in the lede sentence, and if this is the debate which kicks that off then great. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- To be honest I am having second thoughts about the “Refer to Info box” thing. In fairness my thinking was that because it would be the same for all elements, it would become “invisible”. That being said I would still support it for elements that have more than two pronunciations.
- To be honest I am having second thoughts about the “Refer to Info box” thing. In fairness my thinking was that because it would be the same for all elements, it would become “invisible”. That being said I would still support it for elements that have more than two pronunciations.
- P.S. Let me be clear, I think Tetracube was wrong to remove the pronunciations from the ledes and Cunningham was write to put them back. Dave3457 (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
MoS Discussion
I opened an exploratory MoS discussion entry on this topic here. Please comment.—RJH (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe add Curie point to the list?
Only where applicable, of course.Tweeq (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Moved
I moved {{Elementbox}} to {{Infobox element}}; I'll leave it to someone more familiar with their working to decide whether & how the sub-templates need to follow it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Note that there were active discussions on the Elementbox talk page. I'm not sure an archive was entirely appropriate.—RJH (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- I checked all of the discussions, and if I'm not mistaken, the only one still open was "Pronunciation", which I transferred back to this active Talk page.
- Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm also concerned about the subpages of {{Elementbox}}. It appears that only the /doc page was moved and appropriately changed to reflect the move. What about {{Elementbox/headers}} and, especially, {{Elementbox/Print}}? There're also {{Elementbox/Sandbox}}, {{Elementbox/sandbox}} and {{Elementbox/testcases}}. I'm not certain, but I think that's all of them. Should one or more of these also be moved?
- — Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 09:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- I checked all of the discussions, and if I'm not mistaken, the only one still open was "Pronunciation", which I transferred back to this active Talk page.
Okay, all of the above mentioned subpages of {{Elementbox}} have been moved so that they are now under {{Infobox element}} (all except {{Elementbox/Sandbox}}, for which I have suggested Speedy Deletion). Does anybody know of a bot that will move all the other pages as depicted here, here and here? And how do we handle that last one, the Category? How is a Cat moved? Anybody know?
— Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 10:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Either ping a friendly admin, or ask Andy to do it. The onus is on people who move pages to clean up after themselves. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, Chris! It appears that Andy does not feel familiar enough to finish the move. I'll see if I can find an admin who can help. There is a security problem with the /Print subpages, but I got help to move that one, so maybe one of those admins will be able to guide me. Thanks again!
- — Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 18:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Hazards and those kind of things
Allthough most of the time the information sought in this lemma will related to the element, sometimes the question might be: "How do I handle this stuff?". Is it possible to include a section, preferably in the same layout as in the template:chembox, discribing R/S or H/Pphrases and the GHSpictograms? Please T.vanschaik (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Superconductivity
What do you think of a section regarding the superconducting properties? I could imagine showing critical temperature and critical field at a given pressure and whether it is type I or II. Michbich (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Might be worth discussing (I am undecided yet, leaning to support). We've got a list with some data and refs here. Superconductivity is an important property even for a layperson, and we already mention some (e.g. thermal) data which look less significant to me. Materialscientist (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- This idea was motivated by my observation that the article Indium completely omits to mention the superconducting properties. (I did not check all the other articles.) Having an extension to the Infobox template will allow to quickly transfer the info from the data table into the relevant articles. Michbich (talk) 09:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Changed "Oxidation states" link
I could not figure out why "Oxidation states" would link to an article that starts with
"Not to be confused with oxidation state."
So I changed the link from Oxidation states to Oxidation states
Hope I didn't break anything DS Belgium ٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ 22:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from , 2 November 2011
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On Bromine's Page there is an error on the chart to the right with the electron configuration. First off, all of the elements are wrong in this category since it is displaying noble gas configuration. Secondly, the configuration is configured in correctly. It should state [AR] 3d^10 4s^2 4p^5 (^ means to put the following characters in superscript). The page currently has swapped the 3d orbital with the 4s orbital because that is the way it follows the Aufbau diagram from the overlapping, but the correct format to write the electron configuration is lowest power level to highest. Please edit this error. I Thank you.
24.239.214.172 (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Not done: {{edit semi-protected}}is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. The formula can be changed at Template:Infobox bromine. — Bility (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Elements beyond Cn
All element symbols beyond Cn are garbled: 114Uuq (Template:Infobox ununquadium) appears as 114Uu - and the "q" has disappeared. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Part of the "u" is chopped off! Double sharp (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Liquids and gases
Why do liquids appear as blue and gases as green? Liquids should appear as green and gases as red (per Template:Periodic table). Double sharp (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Infoboxes created using this templete now tagged for deletion
Would somebody like to explain to me why? I do not see any violation of the MoS. [3]. I do not find the separate editing of infoboxes onerous, and it has many things to recommend it, like ease of formatting. Infoboxes exist for a reason. Templates to make them exist for a reason. SBHarris 23:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oh I'd guess it's over redundancy, per WP:TFD#REASONS. I figured some of the template purists would get to these eventually. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
History section added
After a good discussion and a sandboxing match, I added a History section (discovery and such). Talk was at [5]. -DePiep (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC).
Mass Number
I wanted to add a mass number section, but thought I would discuss it here first. It was a request that was featured in the feedbacks. --Farzaneh (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've put he template code 1:1 into
{{infobox element/sandbox}}. Go ahead! -DePiep (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)- But wait. I am not into this, please clarify. There is:
- Mass number
- Atomic mass (hatnote: Not to be confused with atomic weight)
- Atomic weight is redirected to: Relative atomic mass (hatnote: Not to be confused with atomic mass)
- a. So #2 has a hatnote to a redirect. Is that OK?
- b. Relative atomic mass "Not to be confused with atomic mass" eh, it is a Redirect from there?! How do we dis-confuse?
- c. Somewhere, not too far off, the difference between mass number and relative atomic mass must be made clear to a reader (e.g. me). -DePiep (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that it is rather confusing. So, mass number is a number; the number of certain particles. Just like the other two, it can be different in the isotopes of an element. Atomic mass is the mass of a given isotope. Atomic Weight a.k.a Relative atomic mass is a standard referring to the average atomic mass of an element published by some standardisation body. These two are a little confusing, but mass number less so, as it refers to the total number of protons and neutrons in an isotope of an atom. Arguably, it is a property of an isotope rather than an element, but it is commonly associated with the most common isotope of a given element. So I think it can be added, and later expanded to include different isotopes for heavier elements. --Farzaneh (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Or here is another idea: have the mass number in the isotope-specific section. So contributors can add it for any isotope they see fit.--Farzaneh (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Step 1: I see [6] in the sandbox. That would give, after my -weird number- edit [7], this:
{{Infobox lead/sandbox}}. -DePiep (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)- I like how it looks.--Farzaneh (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- (Wait. That is not the "isotopic-specific section". It is the "general properties" section. Is there something I do not get yet?). -DePiep (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Right. I first put it in the general section, and then thought it might be a good idea to have a different mass number for every isotope. Will now move it to the isotope-specific section. --Farzaneh (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- If it is isotope specific, it should be added to each isotope row (subtemplate prepare, individual element templates edit). They are:
- Prepare for a tough talk & test, likely at WT:ELEM. -DePiep (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Step 2: disentangle "atomic mass", "atomic weight", "relative atomic mass". -DePiep (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- What do you think is a good way of making it clearer? All three articles explicitly say that the concepts should not be confused. When we have the new template entry, the fields will have different values and different units. Also, relative atomic mass is a property of an element, but the other two are properties of every isotope, so that would also help clarify. --Farzaneh (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know! I was asking you. It is not clear to me. WT:ELEM? -DePiep (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- What do you think is a good way of making it clearer? All three articles explicitly say that the concepts should not be confused. When we have the new template entry, the fields will have different values and different units. Also, relative atomic mass is a property of an element, but the other two are properties of every isotope, so that would also help clarify. --Farzaneh (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Step 1: I see [6] in the sandbox. That would give, after my -weird number- edit [7], this:
- Or here is another idea: have the mass number in the isotope-specific section. So contributors can add it for any isotope they see fit.--Farzaneh (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that it is rather confusing. So, mass number is a number; the number of certain particles. Just like the other two, it can be different in the isotopes of an element. Atomic mass is the mass of a given isotope. Atomic Weight a.k.a Relative atomic mass is a standard referring to the average atomic mass of an element published by some standardisation body. These two are a little confusing, but mass number less so, as it refers to the total number of protons and neutrons in an isotope of an atom. Arguably, it is a property of an isotope rather than an element, but it is commonly associated with the most common isotope of a given element. So I think it can be added, and later expanded to include different isotopes for heavier elements. --Farzaneh (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Heat capacity: Constant volume or pressure
I brought this up in the Helium discussion. For gases, heat capacity measured under constant volume or under constant pressure need to be distinguished. The unsuspecting reader of the Helium page, for instance, will read the number and use it in his constant volume calculations and get wrong results, as the number specified is for constant pressure. But nowhere this is indicated! Therefore for gases (gaseous at measurement temperature) there should be an indication like "(const. pressure)".
Now it would be simple to change the title "Specific heat capacity" in Template:Infobox_element, but that is not what we want: 1) it would be changed in ALL element's infoboxes, even where in fact constant volume is assumed, 2) it would be shown even for non-gaseous elements where it's not wrong but irrelevant. I think the proper way would be to allow two different type of entries in the Template:Infobox_helium (for instance). It almost looks to me as somebody already tried to do something like it (there is an alternative "heat capacity 2="), but it does not do what I'm talking about.
I do not understand too much of the syntax and formalism of the template pages, so - if this can be agreed upon - can somebody more knowledgeable do the appropriate changes? WikiPidi (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- As noted on the helium talk page now, this particular helium heat capacity of 20.786 J/mole/K is exactly 2.5000 R (to 5 sig digits!), so obviously it's constant pressure heat capacity for a monatomic gas. Furthermore, exactly the same figure is given for the the other 4 noble gases Ne,Ar,Kr,Xe. This is fishy, as real substances rarely show the same heat capacity to 5 sig digits, even when it is the correct one. Even fishier still, radon is also listed as having the same heat capacity of 20.786 J/mole/K, which means this is certainly a calculated not a measured value, since nobody has collected enough radon to measure its heat capacity to that value (radon itself produces so much heat from its own decay that this would be a difficult and perilous measurement to even get an estimate for). SO at this point I have to say is TILT. Calculated values from theory should be marked so.
So we have a systemic problem not only of no conditions being marked, but a calculated value being used without warning.
SBHarris 17:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, I answered this on my User Talk page but it did not carry forward to this place:
- These values are not necessarily wrong. Kinetic gas theories show that either constant pressure or constant volume heat capacity are simple functions of physical constants (as you found, it's R*5/2, or R*3/2, respectively), i.e. independent of gas dependent parameters. So this boils down to the question of to which degree the noble gases behave like an ideal gas. AFAIK at normal conditions the deviations are really quite tiny, so I tend to believe these numbers.WikiPidi (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Did anybody ever bother to consider actually fixing this issue? WikiPidi (talk) 09:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Do I understand you right: the current figure
sand wording is not necessarily wrong, but we still need to be more specific in these elements? -DePiep (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Do I understand you right: the current figure
You mean this way:
| row | infobox parameter | Links to | Label (visible text) | Example: He | Example: Cu | Unit | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | heat capacity= |
Heat capacity | molar heat capacity | <blanked> | 24.440 | J·mol−1·K−1 | Existing, no changes |
| B | heat capacity (constant pressure)= |
Heat capacity | molar heat capacity (constant pressure) | 20.786 | <blank> | J·mol−1·K−1 | |
| C | heat capacity (constant volume)= |
Heat capacity | molar heat capacity (constant volume) | x | <blank> | J·mol−1·K−1 |
Notes:
- <blank> input parameters do not show at all.
- Exact formatting: to be decided later (first let's get the facts right)
- Is a calculated value note, as SBHarris proposed, needed? If so, only at the new input (B, C)? -DePiep (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Conversion to Template:Infobox
The conversion to {{Infobox}} format has been done recently in the Chinese Wikipedia at zh:Template:Infobox element. It may be copied here with translation and slight changes. Yinweichen (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yinweichen well, I took the bait! Below are talks about my version. -DePiep (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Change Infobox element to use {{Infobox}}
We have some 125 element infoboxes (see Category:Periodic table infobox templates). All are using the metatemplate {{Infobox element}}; the master template, basically a table-building box. I am preparing to change that master box into a standard {{Infobox}} (Template:Infobox is the mastertemplate, the enwiki standard for all infoboxes).
The changes are coded in {{Infobox element/sandbox}}. Below I'll describe the changes. Some questions are open. You can check changes for your favorite element going #Check your favorite element. For any favorite element, you can preview and check all changes. Please do so. -DePiep (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Changes/new formatting
- Use {{Infobox}}, the enwiki standard infobox formatter. We leave the handcrafted HTML table buildup. {Infobox} nicely formats all boxelements like headers and data by HTML styles and classes. It serves screen variants and mobile devices well (they say). It has the nice feature of "no data, no row show". Our new infobox will use all of these features. It is from a high-order design, and I trust it. I feel no need to re-create specific layout.
- Title, abovetext and subtitle. Help me. I have not figured out how to present these boxelements. Of course "Gold" should appear in top somewhere, but what with "75Au" or "Au"? Suggestion are welcome.
- Font coloring. Removed (the font color of header texts, like the green for liquids). These all black now: no legend, made bad contrast, unimportant property.
- Section changes. The infobox will open with the element picture. That is element-specific and I think that should be the flag attraction (what would a reader expect to see when clicking silver?). The periodic table has moved lower, because that is more of a classification (so less element-specific). Other PT-properties have moved in there too. It is a section now ("Gold in the periodic table"). But I'm not sure about exactly which data should go where. Suggestions anyone?
- The Appearance section header is gone, because we don't need a header that says something like: 'this is a picture'. The 'appearance' data (text) stays. Also, each image has a caption, below the image and so less confusing (unchanged, but it will get a more clear position).
- Value presentation. This is about out scientific facts, not layout or makeup. It is where the numbers and units must show good & great.
- Having seen most the infoboxes and all their data, I think we we need these options by structure:
number_unit_(at-state)[ref]_comment[ref2] -or, with more data- prefix_complicated_value_(at-state)[ref]<br>comment[ref2]
- The prefix usually is entered in the number parameter like
|boiling point K=white: 127. It is like|crystal structure prefix=white:). By sense, this should be an unbracketed specifier. (alpha/beta; white/black). It should not be a at-state detail (bad to show "(2 °C)" as a prefix). - The number+unit (=value) is the core. Will no wrap any more. Even when multiple (K/C/F, or K+Pa) this is core.
- An at-state detail (like "(at 25 °C)") should be a suffix and bracketed. This is not a specifier, so reduce importance.
- Any reference must be after the value, not before the unit (as it is today). So we write:
12 MPa[1]not12[1] MPaany more. For this, most parameters now have their new reference option:|Melting point ref=<ref>some reference here</ref>. After the big template change, all element infoboxes can splice the ref into this separate parameter. Then they will show the effect. - Any _comment goes at the end of all the input, and without any edits (no brackets or italics are added ever). But sometimes a newline <br> is inserted, after multiple values like with
|electron configuration comment=. When any comment needs a reference, it can be added to the _comment parameter directly (no separate parameter). -DePiep (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- The prefix usually is entered in the number parameter like
Examples
- Using the new _ref and _comment parameters:
- heat capacity=680<ref>...</ref> ''(extrapolated)'' now produces:
Molar heat capacity 680[1] (extrapolated) J·mol−1·K−1
New
- heat capacity=680 (number only)
- heat capacity ref=<ref>...</ref> (new; the <ref>...</ref> link belongs after the unit)
- heat capacity comment=''(extrapolated)'' (new; any free text, will be at end of the value line after a space).
Molar heat capacity 680 J·mol−1·K−1[1] (extrapolated)
- More complicated
- heat capacity 2=alpha: 680 (number + prefix)
- heat capacity 2 ref=<ref>...</ref> (note: the "_ref" is a suffix, after the "2")
- heat capacity 2 comment=''(extrapolated)<ref>...another...</ref>'' (can have its own reference; "_comment" is a suffix).
Molar heat capacity alpha: 680 J·mol−1·K−1[1] (extrapolated)[2]
- boiling point K=275
- boiling point ref=<ref name="Haire"/<> (no unit "K" for the "_ref")
- boiling point comment=(comment is for after three temperatures) (no unit "K" for the "_comment")
&tc. -DePiep (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Changes in parameters
- This list is outdated and incomplete
| parameter | note |
|---|---|
|pronunciation 2= |
To put respell in a second line, below IPA. |
|electrical resistivity unit prefix= |
Allows "n" to show correctly both:
|
|band gap= |
Will show now. Si, Ge |
|oxidation states comment= |
Will not add parenthesis any more (add them in parameter text when needed) |
|crystal structure prefix=|crystal structure prefix 2=
|
Allows prefix for crystal structure; like "alpha:" or "white:". |
|crystal structure 2= |
Changed from |crystal structure2= (space added), standard parameter numbering
|
|atomic properties comment=|physical properties comment= |
New name for |atomic properties=, |physical properties= (treated as comment)
|
|ionization energy 1=|ionization energy 2=|ionization energy 3= |
New name for|1st ionization energy=, |2nd ionization energy=, |3rd ionization energy= (use standard numbering in parameters)
|
|Curie point K= |
Replaces |Curie point=, unit is K (Fe only).
|
| boiling point pressure heat capacity pressure |
Removed all, not used |
| etymology | Removed. Use |naming=
|
| phase color | Removed. No font coloring |
parameters list
|
|---|
|name= |image name= |image size= |image alt= |image name comment= |image name 2= |image size 2= |image alt 2= |image name 2 comment= |appearance= |pronounce= |pronounce ref= |pronounce comment= |pronounce 2= |atomic mass= |atomic mass 2= |atomic mass ref= |atomic mass comment= |symbol= |left= |right= |above= |below= |number= |series= |series ref= |series comment= |group= |group ref= |group comment= |period= |period ref= |period comment= |block= |block ref= |block comment= |boiling point C= |electron configuration= |electron configuration ref= |electron configuration comment= |electrons per shell= |electrons per shell ref= |electrons per shell comment= |physical properties comment= |color= |phase= |phase ref= |phase comment= |density gplstp= |density gplstp ref= |density gplstp comment= |density gpcm3nrt= |density gpcm3nrt ref= |density gpcm3nrt comment= |density gpcm3nrt 2= |density gpcm3nrt 2 ref= |density gpcm3nrt 2 comment= |density gpcm3nrt 3= |density gpcm3nrt 3 comment= |density gpcm3nrt 3 ref= |density gpcm3mp= |density gpcm3mp comment= |density gpcm3bp= |density gpcm3bp ref= |density gpcm3bp comment= |density gpcm3mp ref= |melting point K= |melting point C= |melting point F= |melting point ref= |melting point comment= |sublimation point K= |sublimation point ref= |sublimation point comment= |sublimation point C= |sublimation point F= |boiling point K= |boiling point F= |boiling point ref= |boiling point comment= |triple point K= |triple point ref= |triple point comment= |triple point kPa= |triple point K 2= |triple point 2 ref= |triple point 2 comment= |triple point kPa 2= |critical point K= |critical point MPa= |critical point ref= |critical point comment= |heat fusion= |heat fusion ref= |heat fusion comment= |heat fusion 2= |heat fusion 2 ref= |heat fusion 2 comment= |heat vaporization= |heat vaporization ref= |heat vaporization comment= |heat capacity= |heat capacity ref= |heat capacity comment= |heat capacity 2= |heat capacity 2 ref= |heat capacity 2 comment= |vapor pressure 1= |vapor pressure 10= |vapor pressure 100= |vapor pressure 1 k= |vapor pressure 10 k= |vapor pressure 100 k= |vapor pressure ref= |vapor pressure comment= |vapor pressure 1 2= |vapor pressure 10 2= |vapor pressure 100 2= |vapor pressure 1 k 2= |vapor pressure 10 k 2= |vapor pressure 100 k 2= |vapor pressure 2 ref= |vapor pressure 2 comment= |atomic properties comment= |oxidation states= |oxidation states ref= |oxidation states comment= |electronegativity= |electronegativity ref= |electronegativity comment= |number of ionization energies= |ionization energy 1= |ionization energy 1 ref= |ionization energy 1 comment= |ionization energy 2= |ionization energy 2 ref= |ionization energy 2 comment= |ionization energy 3= |ionization energy 3 ref= |ionization energy 3 comment= |ionization energy ref= |ionization energy comment= |atomic radius= |atomic radius ref= |atomic radius comment= |atomic radius calculated= |atomic radius calculated ref= |atomic radius calculated comment= |covalent radius= |covalent radius ref= |covalent radius comment= |Van der Waals radius= |Van der Waals radius ref= |Van der Waals radius comment= |crystal structure prefix= |crystal structure= |crystal structure ref= |crystal structure comment= |crystal structure 2 prefix= |crystal structure 2= |crystal structure 2 ref= |crystal structure 2 comment= |magnetic ordering= |magnetic ordering ref= |magnetic ordering comment= |Curie point K= |Curie point ref= |Curie point comment= |electrical resistivity= |electrical resistivity ref= |electrical resistivity comment= |electrical resistivity at 0= |electrical resistivity at 0 ref= |electrical resistivity at 0 comment= |electrical resistivity unit prefix= |electrical resistivity at 20= |electrical resistivity at 20 ref= |electrical resistivity at 20 comment= |thermal conductivity= |thermal conductivity ref= |thermal conductivity comment= |thermal conductivity 2= |thermal conductivity 2 ref= |thermal conductivity 2 comment= |thermal diffusivity= |thermal diffusivity ref= |thermal diffusivity comment= |thermal expansion= |thermal expansion ref= |thermal expansion comment= |thermal expansion at 25= |thermal expansion at 25 ref= |thermal expansion at 25 comment= |speed of sound= |speed of sound ref= |speed of sound comment= |speed of sound rod at 20= |speed of sound rod at 20 ref= |speed of sound rod at 20 comment= |speed of sound rod at r.t.= |speed of sound rod at r.t. ref= |speed of sound rod at r.t. comment= |tensile strength= |tensile strength ref= |tensile strength comment= |Young's modulus= |Young's modulus ref= |Young's modulus comment= |Shear modulus= |Shear modulus ref= |Shear modulus comment= |Bulk modulus= |Bulk modulus ref= |Bulk modulus comment= |Poisson ratio= |Poisson ratio ref= |Poisson ratio comment= |Mohs hardness= |Mohs hardness ref= |Mohs hardness comment= |Mohs hardness 2= |Mohs hardness 2 ref= |Mohs hardness 2 comment= |Vickers hardness= |Vickers hardness ref= |Vickers hardness comment= |Brinell hardness= |Brinell hardness ref= |Brinell hardness comment= |band gap= |band gap ref= |band gap comment= |CAS number= |CAS number ref= |CAS number comment= |first isolation date ref= |discovered by= |discovery date= |discovery date ref= |first isolation by= |first isolation date= |named date ref= |named by= |named date= |history comment label= |history comment= |naming= |predicted by= |prediction date= |prediction date ref= |isotopes= |isotopes comment= |series color= |engvar= |
Parameters
Naming scheme: ("_ref" is the suffix as in |melting point ref=
|_2=|_3=|_ref=|_comment=|_2_ref=|_2_comment=
- Technically:
All parameters should show correctly before and after the move. Only formatting can change.
After the move, all the templates can be edited to show the references in new form (after the unit). (so, split the reference link from |boiling point= to new |boiling point ref=. Name change params: both names are accepted in the new version. Then there is a period where we can change the para names per template. A next version will not use the old parms any more. This is not an issue. -DePiep (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
To compare: (page Template:Infobox <element>/testcases):
Comments
- I've had a quick look at the side-by-side for Fluorine and the new version looks much better. --Mirokado (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Comments also appear at Wikipedia talk:Elements. -DePiep (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Done
Done [8] -DePiep (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Molar volume
@DePiep: I've added this parameter to the template, so that I can list the value for astatine. Is their a lag before the updated template shows in the element i.e. I just had a look and it isn't showing in astatine. Also, how do we get the units to be auto added which in this case are gm3·mol–1. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Will add it tomorrow (you added it to a documentation page only). btw, that's cm3·mol–1 I understand. -DePiep (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Done
|molar volume= |molar volume unit prefix= |molar volume ref= |molar volume comment=
Leave prefix blank (for cm3/mol). Set to =d for gases (for dm3/mol). -DePiep (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Looks good, thank you; I moved it to just after density since that's what its normally associated with. Sandbh (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Oxidation States
I find that some elements the oxidation states are listed from most positive to most negative, and for some the other way around. Why? I plan to go through them all and make them consistant, but before I do I want to check if there is some reason for the inconsistency I am missing.Nick Beeson (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Was talked about here, at WT:ELEMENTS last March, with other notation issues. Scroll down to bolded "About ordering" for your question I guess. -DePiep (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Check your favorite element
You can take a good look at how your favorite element will look like in the new proposed {{Infobox element/sandbox}}. You are invited to check and comment. The example element is gold (and helium is a nice example). Page Testcases contains a demo with all parameters used.
For the example element gold, 74Au, pages of interest are:
| index | |
|---|---|
| Testcases |
- gold
- {{Infobox gold}} or
ibox(Eto edit) - {{Infobox gold/sandbox}}
/s - {{Infobox gold/testcases}}
/t
- {{Infobox gold}} or
- (These page links can also be found at Template:Infobox gold, bottom of documentation page).
By preview
| index |
|---|
To see the new infobox for gold:
- 1. Open
{{infobox gold}}to edit (E) - 2. Change top line:
{{infobox element
into
{{infobox element/sandox
- 3. Preview
- 4. Check, enjoy and respond
- (Of course, you should not save the sandbox version in the live page).
By sandbox page
| index |
|---|
The sandbox page saves the new version. This allows for more checks.
- 1. Open the
{{infobox gold}}to edit (E) - 2: Copy all code
- 3. Open
{{Infobox gold/sandbox}}, to edit or to create (/s) - 4. Paste the full code
- 5. Change top line code
{{infobox element
into
{{infobox element/sandbox
- 6. (Option for some page speed: remove the
{{documentation}}line at the bottom) - 7. Save
- 8. Check, enjoy and respond
To compare old/new side-by-side
| index |
|---|
- 1. Create #By sandbox page as described
- 2. Open
{{Infobox gold/testcases}}(/t) - 3. Enter this text:
{{Infobox element/testcases header}}
- 4. Save
- 5. Check, enjoy and respond
Notes for the side-by-side comparision
Some notes about this side-by-side check of {{Infobox element}} layout, as presented in {{Infobox gold/testcases}}. Quality of this comparision depends on: make sure that the /sandbox is a copy of the live code (that is, {{infobox gold}} input is copied into {{Infobox gold/sandbox}}). Then the /t (/testcases) page has a diff link to show the diff. The live {{infobox gold}} can be improved at any time, as wiki goes. But do not edit that infobox to adjust presentation to the new proposal. (The new general {{infobox element}} layout & handling must cover that all, correctly).
- Recap
- Edit the live infobox for facts as you think needed
- No need to edit the live infobox to fix layout issues
- For good quality check, keep the sandbox and live {infobox gold} the same. (/sandbox follows live code; then use
{{Infobox element/sandbox|...) - Report any issues and questions here.
Nomenclatura
Boxelement names
| Abovetext | |
|---|---|
| Subheader | |
 Some image caption | |
| Header | |
| label | data |
| Header | |
| label | data(line1)<br> data(line2) |
| Below-text | |
In a scientific value we have value=number_unit. Never ever the space is may be a newline (so, a nowrap in between). See also {{convert}} for this.
Let's say a "value" is the "number+unit" part. (for the infobox, "data" makes the whole righthand cell still).
- (Archiving note: this section belongs to the 2014 discussion to [[Template_talk:Infobox_element/Archive_1#Change_Infobox_element_to_use_.7B.7BInfobox.7D.7D|Archive 1/Change Infobox element to use {{Infobox}}]] (instead of wikitable). It was not archived because it was not timestamped. I will archive this now. -DePiep (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC))
Include EC Number (EINECS)?
I suggest that the EC Number (EINECS) is included. It could be placed after CAS Number. Eivindgh (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Re Eivindgh. Unlike {{Chembox}}, this infobox does not have a list of external identifiers. Looks a bit too much, IMO. If more editors feel a need, we could add them (or add an 'external resources' box in a bottom section?) -DePiep (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Template:Infobox element/periodic table: Improvement
- (Copy/pasted [9] by 5.43.78.13 from this subpage, to centralise Infobox discussion. -DePiep (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@DePiep: I made table 100% wide inside infobox, with main block centered in the middle. Now everything is to the left...
Selfref link is not working, so it is possible to check if we are on the main (article) page and exclude [[ ]] leaving only bold (as it currently appears on desktop but not mobile).
When is scrolling activated? --5.43.78.13 (talk) 06:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
You can see how sr:Водоник (using this template with additions I tried to apply) displays for me in mobile view on latest Chrome, Firefox and IE11 (screenshots). On desktop it's also working good; don't know how and where you got empty box or scroll bar...
--5.43.78.13 (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- (end of copy/paste) -DePiep (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- My recap. All is mainly about mobile view (m.v.), while desktop view (d.v.) seems unaffected or minorly so. Recently, TheDJ made two great improvements to this micro-PT in {{Infobox element}}: removed loads of whitespace (cell padding added when in m.view), and adding cell borders in m.v. The edits were edited in live directly [10], and copied into the E119+ sub-periodic table [11]. Effect was that the micro periodic table now is within regular Infobox width see hydrogen, ununennium=E119).
- Also, some edits related to this micro PT were made by IP 5.43.78.13, some of which I reverted (for example for being undiscussed, unhelpful code, blocking other features, etc).
- Also done: element self-reference by name or symbol in this box now just bold, not self-linked any more. No effect, just code change.
- Open issues (note: most are more relevant in m.v., and do not affect d.v. greatly). Remember, to test, one needs to check hydrogen, ununennium after these pages have been purged (cache cleaned)):
- Bug: in ununennium, the extra period (for elements 119 and up) does not show correct. It should be a nice extra period, with a placeholder-"asterisk" extra row below (as we a re used to wrt lanthanides, actinides). Today this does not show correct in my m.view. A true bug then. -DePiep (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Infobox usage: question still open on whether the neighbour-elements should be kept in here (the left/right, above/below arrows).
- layout and options: IP 5.43.78.13 proposes centralising the micro PT, not left-align. However, this requires css code "!important", that is overruling lower css settings (in the bare PT, and in the element cells then). As this is too crude and giving maintenance difficulty in the future, I oppose this code. Also, for page-navigation handling (more below re scrolling) I oppose the centralised positioning.
- The PT does not allow horizontal scrolling in m.v. Even now that the PT is nicely within regular Infobox width (at last!), we need scrolling option because and when the clickable cells are so small a User might need to zoom in to be able to click the right cell. And after zoomig, a scroll might be needed to get the right PT place. So that's why we dearly need scroll option. The cost now is that the bottom neighbour elements (left-right neighbours) are centered over the whole width, not just the PT-witdh only. A minor cost, compared with the usefulness of scrolling.
- Most options could tested in the sandbox, also other code options. Requires a sandbox stack etc., but worth it.
- re 'where did I see an empty box'? After I purged hydrogen, my mobile view had this periodic table box empty (showing nothing). I had no time available to do further research.
- re the [[sr:Водоник]] mobile views you added. Yes they look great, no problem in sight. However, they skip the scroll problem. A mobile smartphone's screen is only wide enough to show the infobox (no text next to it). Then if you zoom in (to go to a specific element to click on), you only see part of the periodic table. That's when you need to scroll horizontally.
- So when there is this overview, a central PT looks great. But when you need to manipulate the page, that is more important. So a left-handed and scrollable PT serve this better (and look a bit worse). -DePiep (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I have found solution for centering table and not affecting it inside at all: Wrap data22 in {{Infobox element}} between following: (newline) {{{!}}style="margin:0 auto !important", (newline) {{!}} (current data22 content) (newline) {{!}}}.
Using !important is really useful here because it will center table to the center in mobile, without it it gets centered but halfway. It is not going to be developed more and more so that !important makes problems; it can be removed even if so as centering is not really necessary.
I applied this to sandbox. --5.43.78.13 (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Will take a look later on. I'm not sure the template not going to be developed more. -DePiep (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- It appears, after ths edit, that the PT became broken in mobile view (extra column of whitespace between groups 1 and 2; filling out to 100% width?). I note the curious ZWJ adding. -DePiep (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Will take a look later on. I'm not sure the template not going to be developed more. -DePiep (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- New idea: I propose to remove the extra border around this periodic table. Adds useless whitespace and lines, the infobox itself is organised well enough. -DePiep (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- I meant on this part (template inside it can and will be improved, and this addition does not affect it), and that it is easy to remove it so that nothing is broken because centering is not really essential on all devices and/or by any cost.
- I don't agree about removal of border because it might cause problems (elements could go right to the infobox border etc.). What whitespace or lines do you think of, and what infobox organisation (except the fact that we have left and right infobox default borders) has to do with borders around this PT that is put into it as one data without label? --5.43.78.13 (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't understand the first part. You think the removal is related to centering?
- So for you that is: no problems = no objection)? The problem you mention will not occur (there is always the infobox border). Anyway, that's for sandboxing. -DePiep (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- No, !important in data is related to centering (forces it on mobile) and can be easily removed if causes problems during eventual template development in this part of its code.
- I said in my comment that there is infobox border and that table cells could stick to it (on left and upper side) in some case and beside this it would visually look worse in general, so for me there are objections (to be clear, I disagree with the proposal of removing borders). I asked you what whitespace or lines do you think of when saying they are useless and what infobox organisation has to do with borders? --5.43.78.13 (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Could you give screenshot of broken PT? For me, it displays properly in Chrome, Firefox and IE, both desktop and mobile. I doubt it got broken because it was simple change: instead of colspanning two and broking proper alignment I used one normal column as it was before and added one more that was missing in order to complete table (this second column was encompassed with previous fix using colspan=2 and was intended for enabling scrolling as I remember; now it is separate, second column).
- PS ‍ is not "curious adding" but zero-width joiner, character that can be used when one wants to be sure table cell will display as with any other 'real' content but wants for-selection-empty cell (empty by other means too). --5.43.78.13 (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)