Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements

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

Article alerts

Articles for deletion

• 05 Jun 2026 – Heavy metals (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Lophotrochozoa (t · c); see discussion (5 participants)
• 05 Jun 2026 – Toxic heavy metal (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Lophotrochozoa (t · c) was closed as merge by Vanamonde93 (t · c) on 13 Jun 2026; see discussion (5 participants)
• 05 Jun 2026 – Neptunium compounds (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by UnbihexiumFan (t · c) was closed as merge by BhikhariInformer (t · c) on 12 Jun 2026; see discussion (5 participants)

Good article reassessments

• 05 May 2026 – Tungsten (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c); see discussion
• 12 Apr 2026 – Americium (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by Z1720 (t · c) was closed; see discussion

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

FA	A	GA	B	C	Start	Stub	FL	List	Category	Disambig	Draft	File	Portal	Project	Redirect	Template	NA	???	Total
29	0	94	104	136	93	30	0	170	319	1	2	115	1	22	8,914	228	0	0	10,258

TrophyBox

Current consensus

Give what we've established about the exact wording of lead articles and placement of etymology-related information, might we need a "current consensus" boilerplate across all the element articles, like Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus? Consensus about specific elements' articles, such as the proper scope of Phosphorus with regards to its compounds, might also go there. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:33, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree that this would be helpful, though hopefully shorter than the example given. I suggest we start with a project-level page, eg Wikipedia:WikiProject_Elements/Element lead paragraph to describe the consensus and provide a Talk page to amend it. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

A rudimentary draft has been made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Current consensus. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:05, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Does this make sense for a consensus description for Sulfur?

The biology section of the article should focus on the following information: sulfur-based chemosynthesis; the sulfur cycle; the element's presence in cysteine and methionine and role in protein folding; and sulfide centers of metalloproteins. Important molecules containing sulfur should be mentioned, but not in a manner that overemphasizes these compounds against elemental sulfur.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:54, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

This level of detail, a subsection of a single element, seems like belongs on Talk:Sulfur. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I have intended to transclude this page such that element-specific items appear only on certain pages. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:02, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I discovered Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Guidelines, which is defunct. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:17, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Where, exactly, was it decided to create Introduction to the heaviest elements (now Superheavy element#Introduction) as a transcludable on nobelium and heavier? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:06, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

So far, I have collected general consensus points going back to /Archive 36. There is a noticeable overlap in scope with MOS:CHEM; should some information from that page be moved into this one? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Tungsten

Tungsten has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Quantum graphics

While researching consensus against using Bohr model representations of atoms, I discovered an interesting proposal from 2013 about plotting quantum ground states for elements. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:30, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

List of isotopes : Technetium - Missing Discovery year header

For Z=43 , Technetium : the column header for Discovery Year is missing.

Michel Béliveau (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Np and Pu oxidation states

On the neptunium and plutonium chemboxes, the common oxidation states are listed as +5 and +4 respectively. However, I contest this. The plutonium compounds article says that +3, +4, +5, and +6 are all common for Pu, and says that they are all common for Np. The neptunium article also says that +4 and +5 are the most common oxidation states (+4 in solids and +5 in solution). I propose changing the common ones for both to +3, +4, +5, and +6.

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 23:21, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Please see the archived discussion: What is a "main oxidation state"? and the template data page I just updated.

We chose

• Greenwood, N. N., Earnshaw, A. (2012). Chemistry of the Elements. Germany: Butterworth-Heinemann.

to define the "common" oxidation states. Personally I'm fine with any similar reference we agree on, applied consistently across the elements. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I really do NOT agree with some of these 'main' oxidation states. I personally think that locking the main oxidation to just one source is kind of irrational, but oh well, I do not have an alternative. Although, we do sometimes change the main oxidation state by consensus in the respective element page, like in the case of rhenium, so is that route still valid? For example, no modern inorganic textbook lists -4 as a main oxidation for tin. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 22:34, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I concur with Keresluna here. While we can reasonably assume that a textbook will be good for most elements, I think at the point where it contradicts every other source we shouldn't stick to one source so tightly. I can't find much sources about neptunium's oxidation states, but the ones I can all seem to suggest that +4, +5, +6 are the main stable oxidation states of neptunium: see , . The first of the two I think is the best for this one, as it says that +4 and +6 are stable and relevant oxidation states in the environment, even though +5 is stated to be more common. The Wiki article itself even states that +4 is a common oxidation state [in solids], so not listing +4 in the infobox seems contradictory.

Especially since we have precedent from the rhenium article, I again propose that the common states of neptunium be changed to +4, +5, and +6*, and the ones for plutonium be changed to +3, +4, +5, and +6. I believe this should also be done for other articles; Keresluna brought up removing the -4 state of tin as common, and the uranium compounds article says that +4 and +6 are both common for uranium, so it should probably be changed for that as well.

*Originally I had said +3, +4, +5, and +6 for neptunium, but the source I linked appears to be copying the infoboxes from Wikipedia, and I want to avoid citogenesis.

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 01:11, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Right, and the plutonium article says that plutonium has 4 common oxidation states (which are very likely +3, +4, +5, and +6), so the plutonium article is contradictory as well.

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 01:13, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The source

• Nilsson, K., & Carlsen, L. (1989). The migration chemistry of neptunium. Risø National Laboratory.

says Under environmental conditions neptunium should exist predominantly in oxidation state V ... This is consistent with our core source.

The core source is simply the starting point. All other oxidation states which have reliable sources can be added to the infobox.

Before we settled on a single source we had over and over again discussions about the oxidation state values. In my opinion, interesting aspects of the elements oxidation state belong in the article, not bury in verbage in the Talk pages.

Perhaps we need a different word than "common". Maybe we need a different core source. In my opinion we don't need free for all. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the source does say that the predominant state is +5, but if +4 and +6 are both common (even if less common), environmentally relevant, and stable (all claims also included in the source) then it seems misleading to not list them as common oxidation states. If I wasn't a huge neptunium or plutonium chemistry nerd then looking at the articles would make me think that the ones not listed are rare and/or exotic oxidation states which isn't true. At one point I was in fact misled into thinking that these were rare oxidation states based on the article. Also considering that the most common and important neptunium compound, NpO₂, is in the +4 oxidation state, I don't think we can call it rare. I agree that such nuance is not necessary in the chembox but as it stands the chembox is misleading (at least to me).

I understand wanting to stick to a source for all of the chemboxes but this becomes a problem when this leads to the chembox contradicts the article, as in neptunium, where the article implies that +4 is common but the chembox implies that +4 is not common. Maybe Greenwood & Earshaw should be used as a base but things should be changed if it contradicts most other literature, such as in this case with neptunium and plutonium, or with tin, or with uranium, or with rhenium. I agree with Keresluna that we shouldn't make claims about this off a single source.

Speaking of making claims off a single source, it would be rather ironic if I didn't have more than one source to support the claims I'm making, so see page 753.

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 03:16, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

My reading of the Yoshida review is that neptunium has a range of oxidation states, just like every other element, eg "Neptunium exists in an aqueous solution as ions of oxidation states from 3+ to 7+." So doesn't this source contradict your claim about +4 and +5?

If you want to use a different system, what is your specific proposal? Simply changing the "common:" values can't be the answer because they are sourced to G&E. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

p. 752: in acidic solutions without ligand, Np³⁺ is quickly oxidized to Np⁴⁺ by air.

p. 753: NpO+3 [the form of Np(VII) in acidic solutions] is quickly reduced to NpO2+2 by water

so Yoshida et al. do suggest that Np(IV), Np(V), and Np(VI) are the stable oxidation states. (pp. 91–92) also suggests that Np(VII) is unstable and is reduced, rapidly in acidic media and slowly in basic media.

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 17:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I am honestly not sure what oxidation states we should list for neptunium. Neptunium is a very complicated element, which is why I love it so much! But that also makes it hard to summarize its properties in a single part of the infobox section. I think that the best move is to say that the stable ox. states are +4, +5, and +6, as it seems that a majority of sources say that +4, +5, and +6 are stable whereas +3 and +7 are unstable. seems a better source for saying that the +3 state is unstable, at least under ambient conditions.

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 17:15, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I think for when we deviate from G&E we should source it the same way we already do for the non-common oxidation states, and change it to not be sourced from G&E.

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 17:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Are we limited to inorganic chemistry textbooks? Johnjbarton (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Keresluna and UnbihexiumFan. There are no doubt some advantages of sticking to a single source, but to me being inconsistent within a single article is a bigger problem. Double sharp (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

But what causes this inconsistence? Ultimately it comes down to different editors having different opinions about which criteria should be used to define "common". Different editors advocate different criteria or different values and that advocacy cannot be resolved by citing sources: sources draw the line differently because they have different agenda.

But it seems like that is what is wanted. However simply changing the values in the table labeled "common:" is not an answer. We need a way to attach reliable sources to the new values and make it clear that G&E does not verify the claim. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

For the non-common oxidation states, we already cite sources for them and put the refs next to them. Could we not do the same for common ones? like common: +4, +5, +6?

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 15:56, 26 May 2026 (UTC) UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 15:56, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Conceptually that is fine by me. Technically IDK you will have to see.

Since we have a older consensus on G&E, I guess each element will need consensus to change the common list? Johnjbarton (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I think this is a good method. We should start the 'common' oxidation states based on G&E, but amend the list with consensus on the respective element talk page with appropriate sourcing. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 18:37, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

In that case, should I go to the talk pages of Neptunium and Plutonium and propose changing the common oxidation states?

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 14:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Symbol	Template	Inconsistent article text/notes
Si	−4, +4	Is the Si4− ion common in silicides?
V	+5	"The chemistry of vanadium is noteworthy for the accessibility of the four adjacent oxidation states 2–5."
Mn	+2, +4, +7	"Common oxidation states of manganese are +2, +3, +4, +6, and +7,"
Cu	+2	"Copper forms a rich variety of compounds, usually with oxidation states +1 and +2,"
Ge	−4, +2, +4	"Germanium occurs mostly in the oxidation state +4 although many +2 compounds are known." Even +2 might not be added, let alone −4.
Tc	+4, +7	"Technetium exhibits nine oxidation states from −1 to +7, with +4, +5, and +7 being the most common." Although some sources claim +5 is important, there are no mention of Tc(+5) in article except briefly mentioned TcF5.
Ru	+3, +4	"The +2, +3, and +4 states are the most common."
Rh	+3	"The common oxidation states of rhodium are +3 and +1."
Pd	0, +2, +4	"Although Pd(IV) compounds are comparatively rare,"
Sn	−4, +2, +4	"and has two main oxidation states, +2 and the slightly more stable +4."
Sb	−3, +3, +5	"Antimony compounds are often classified according to their oxidation state: Sb(III) and Sb(V)."
W	+4, +6	"The most common formal oxidation state of tungsten is +6,"
Re	+4, +7	"The oxidation states +7, +4, and +3 are the most common."
Os	+4	"The most common oxidation states are +2, +3, +4, and +8."
Ir	+3, +4	"but the most common oxidation states are +1, +2, +3, and +4."
Au	+3	"but Au(I) and Au(III) dominate its chemistry."
At	−1, +1	As mentioned here, At(+3) is more stable than At(+1). Article didn't update newest chemistry of At.
Rn	(none)	+4 is unknown. Rn might be treated like a superheavy element with predicted oxidation states.
Pa	+5	"Protactinium exists in two major oxidation states: +4 and +5,"
U	+6	"The most important oxidation states of uranium are uranium(IV) and uranium(VI),"
Np	+5	See this discussion.
Pu	+4	See this discussion.
Md	+3	+2 is at least as important as Eu, see the notes on At.
No	+3	+2 is at least as important as Eu, see the notes on At.

I checked the articles and here are the inconsistencies, which have to be resolved. --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Great topic. The whole approach seems sort of an old fashioned. My cynicism perhaps.

Each of us could snark about the list above, but here are two: O^s8+ is common? I guess that is folk's way of saying that OsO₄ is a useful reagent and a nifty molecular compound, but there are really not many Os(VIII)'s. Re Si4+ vs Si4- in SiCl4 and K4Si (or similar Zintl phase)? Maybe just Si(IV). If people really want to push the common oxidation states maybe use the I, II, III convention vs +, 2+, 3+. I am joining this debate late, so feel free to ignore these remarks. You might try to draw @Dirac66: into the discussion. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps you have uncovered a user-interface problem. Osmium only lists +4 as "common:". The rest, including 8, are intended to mean "Also reported". I can see now that the display does not make this clear to readers even if it is clear to those editing the list of oxidation states. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, those less-common oxidation states need to be labeled as such. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:57, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

There aren't many Mn(IV) other than MnO₂, but this doesn't make Mn(IV) uncommon. Os(VIII) might be a similar case as OsO₄ can be formed from oxidation of osmium metal in air. Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 07:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Could we move the discussion about individual element oxidation states to their respective talk pages? Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 18:15, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

References

The problem of "common:" oxidation state in the infobox

The Talk page topic #Np and Pu oxidation states lead to a discussion about changing the "common:" values and even the name "common:". That got me thinking: many of the complaints and much of the discussion amounts to different judgement calls on what is or is not "common". Since I routinely alter Wikipedia pages to remove unsourced claims about what is "common" in various topics (edit summary: "no poll was cited"), I realized I had contributed to another such case in the oxidation state.

So I went back to the source that we have used for the "common:" entries:

• Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, Alan (1997). Chemistry of the Elements (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 33. doi:10.1016/C2009-0-30414-6. ISBN 978-0-08-037941-8.

What they say is the oxidation state number they tabulate are based on a modern update of periodic trends. So rather than "common" these are "values predicted by trends in the periodic table". As we know, these trends are very good in the bulk of the table but they lose power for high Z, just the cases we discussed above. I think using the G&E reference as the default makes good sense. (And in my opinion we've agreed to allow changes by consensus on each element page). But still "common:" isn't correct.

• Could we replace "common:" with a better label?
• Could we remove "common:" add add a footnote or reference that spells out the origin of these values?
• Other ideas?

I'll volunteer to implement whatever is decided. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it's helpful to list oxidation states that are predicted by periodic trends. I think listing common oxidation states here is fine, though we should make sure that they are actually common (see my complaints about Np and Pu). Alternatively we could instead list stable oxidation states, which might be more useful and more doable for superheavies. I personally would prefer we list stable ox. states, though I am but one individual and other people (and especially readers) might have different preferences.

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 02:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm unsure this will have the outcome you will like to see. Editors, myself especially, will insist that you cite sources that say specifically "common" (or synonymous language). That is, the list needs be verifably common, not "actually common". Johnjbarton (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

You appear to misunderstand what I am saying. By "actually common" I mean the oxidation states which most reliable sources agree are common as opposed to just what G&E says are common.

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 19:47, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, this idea is not implementable with this group's discussion, but here's an instructive perspective: set of common oxidation states are those for abundant mineral sources of the elements. B(III), Si(IV), Fe(II, III), Ti(IV), Mn(IV), Nb(V), Au(0), Hg(II), Ni(II), Ln(III) These oxidation states have been "baked in", literally. Apologies for the digression. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

we don't list the elemental forms in oxidation states, so... :P

Though I guess if we come to a consensus we could list Au(0) for metallic gold as well as X(0) for common elemental forms.

This one also runs into the problem I mentioned earlier, which is that it fails for superheavies. What are the abundant mineral sources of neptunium or plutonium? which is why we should just listen to me and let me handle everything and set up the ox states how I want it

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 00:10, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

It would be pretty strange to let "superheavies" dictate or dominate discussion of common oxidation state assignments. For me, that a clear case of WP:UNDUE. I mean, Ln is settled: III is the oxidation state. So we have actinides, of which, what?, two elements are terrestrially important? --Smokefoot (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Even though they are in the minority of elements, non-naturally occuring ones (I'm beginning to doubt my usage of "superheavies" for this one; it also includes e.g. technetium) are still elements and something has to be done with their pages. Potentially we could do something different with the common ox. states on the non-naturally occuring vs naturally occuring ones but I'd rather we not bring inconsistency. I suppose we could not list common oxidation states for those? But unless you support not listing them then I think we should try to stay consistent.

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 04:12, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

There's too many different plausible ideas of "common" people might have when speaking about that writing a textbook. Do you mean (as Smokefoot comments) what's common for finding the element in nature, or do you mean what's common in the lab, or do you mean what's common across a variety of compounds? (Noting for example Smokefoot's point that OsO₄ is a useful reagent but Os^VIII is kind of common only because of that compound.) For noble gases, do you mean "common" as in what's common once you force Xe into chemistry, which if you think about all of what Xe does isn't that common noting that all accessible Xe on Earth is Xe(0)? And if you talk about criteria that works for all elements, then while my heart kind of agrees as an f-block obsessive that this makes some kind of sense and that Np and Pu are not that crazy chemically and not that radioactive as to not have a bulk chemistry, for the average chemist there are two accessible actinides: Th and U.

This is beginning to sound like the problem is that we all know what it means, we could argue for slightly different answers and be able to defend them were we to be producing our own periodic table posters, but the problem is that different sources will mean slightly different things and so the only really neutral way to do it would be to not show what's common at all in the infobox, and leave it inferable from a source-based discussion of the chemistry. Double sharp (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Just to expand upon the recent comments, oxidation state was a Smokefoot implied, literally a scheme to organize oxides, which then was extrapolated to a guideline for chemistry, only to be subverted in the last 60 years into a score card or scavenger hunt for chemistry grad students needing a thesis topic (valuable work nevertheless). There may be no answer that makes sense here. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I guess this is why I support using "stable" instead of "common". It seems to me that it's easier to define. i.e. with neptunium (which I'm most familiar with) it seems it's easier to find sources on stable vs common. Then again, it's probably easier for the more stable elements, which are the majority, and everyone here seems to think we should prioritize those. Even for these elements, though, "stable" might be easier to define. At least for ox. states in aqueous solution, there seems to be a pretty obvious solution; which states can persist in aqueous solutions in ambient conditions. I don't know if there's a similarly obvious definition for "common" in this instance.

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 17:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

But what would you then do with Pb(IV)? It's obviously common if you look at organolead compounds, but in aqueous solution it is quite unstable. Or Hg(I), which disproportionates very readily in aqueous solution, but is well-known from insoluble compounds like calomel (Hg₂Cl₂).

This is the kind of problem I have in mind when saying that there's too many different plausible ideas of what "common" is. "Stable" likewise depends on whether you are looking at aqueous solution or solid compounds.

P.S. since this started with radioactives, I should also point out that strongly radioactive elements have a way of affecting their own chemistry through radiolytic decomposition of the water they are themselves dissolved in, even in dilute solution. If polonium were stable, I think Po(VI) would still not be common, but I think it would likely be more common than it actually is. So while I get the argument that all elements should be treated the same, nature itself argues against that for strong radioactives. Although yes, Np and Pu are not in the same league of instability as Po. Double sharp (talk) 06:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it is best to look at both aqueous solution and solid compounds. I mentioned aqueous solution there because I could most easily think of a definition of stable there. For solid compounds, I think "does it easily form stable, solid compounds in these oxidation states?" is reasonable, which would include Pb(IV) and Hg(I). Notably I do think this would change praseodymium and terbium to +3, +4 and uranium to +4, +5, +6, on account of their stable oxides. I suppose someone who doesn't think about f-block chemistry an unreasonable amount could probably think of some other examples with other elements.

I suppose there is indeed a problem with strongly radioactive elements. Neptunium and plutonium chemistry are altered by their radioactivity, but this doesn't alter their common oxidation states, at least for Np-237 and Pu-242/Pu-244, which are the most stable/easily accessible ones. I think we should look at the chemistry of the most stable isotope(s), as de facto we already do this for all the stable elements and it makes the most sense for unstable elements as it minimizes radiolytic effects.

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 15:58, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

...What does nuclear chemistry have to do with electronic chemistry? The idea that an atom can change oxidation states depending on which isotope it is, in my opinion, absurd. ~2026-31361-47 (talk) 02:51, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Unstable isotopes create radiation. Radiation creates free radicals. Free radicals react with the atoms, changing their oxidation state.

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 02:54, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this would have a serious effect on the oxidation state. After all, astatine still has like 7 outer electrons, and so would likely chemically react in a somewhat similar way to iodine, correct? Do free radicals actually interact a lot with atoms? I know of some cases where this is true, but to think like Np-237 and Np-239 for example have different oxidation states because of this is, in my opinion, a bit absurd. We should focus on like the non-radicalized form of the element — its closest to "natural" state where nuclear chemistry is not involved. ~2026-31361-47 (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

The oxidation of neptunium is accelerated by radiolysis, due to the formation of free radicals from splitting of hydrogen peroxide, so I think Np-237 and Np-239 would in fact show different oxidation states because Np-239 undergoes radioactive decay much faster than Np-237. According to Noble metal, polonium is oxidized by ozone generated from radiolysis. So it isn't possible to completely ignore these effects.

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 04:08, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I see. In these cases I'd rather go with the most common, stable, and likely based on the literature and periodic trends. ~2026-31361-47 (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

References

Mass edits

There are a couple of users (Vo1d sommoner and EggPudding77777) who are currently watchlist spamming the element articles with inconsequential edits, with Vo1d adding excessive wikilinks (often overlinking) and EggPudding removing wikilinks and whitespace (unnecessarily). Neither are using edit summaries well, if at all. Polyamorph (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

EggPudding is also changing the wording in the lead against consistency with other element articles. Polyamorph (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I think these editors should be pinged if they are mentioned: @Vo1d sommoner, @EggPudding77777.

I agree that the approach of systematically adding/deleting wikilinks across articles is annoying and I'd like to understand the motivation. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Adding links is a commonly suggested edit for new editors. There is often insufficient or unclear guidance as to how much linking is enough. I left a message regarding adding links to years (ex. 2026, 1943) which has been followed as far as I can see.

Removing whitespace... I don't know exactly why you would do it unless you percieve it as a problem + want to increase edit count. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

They're both at it (removing whitespace and no other changes), e.g., and . Polyamorph (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

If they continue, suggest reporting both users to WP:ANI. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:54, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy has an RfC

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. It involves colors and classification on an infobox, like that from the adoption of our current periodic tale colors in 2021. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:36, 5 June 2026 (UTC)