Wikijunior talk:The Elements

Special Articles
Before we go crazy adding special articles, I think we should consider which ones are going to be extremely short and could be combined with other special articles to make a more general article. MiltonT 14:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

A New Model of the Atom
This is an Atomic Model that corresponds more closely to Einstein's view of atomic structure. A New Model of the Atom attempts to make the Atom and Molecular Structure (atomic bonding) more intuitive and comprehendible without the use of Quantum Mechanics, yet maintaining the concept of "Quantum". Even if this model is ultimately wrong, it is still useful as a concept tool.[]

Pcfjr9 (talk)

Element Symbols
I have a collection of element symbols (I have already uploaded some) and will finish uploading them in a when I have time. Klingoncowboy4 20:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Developing Articles
I believe that articles should be moved to the developing articles section once some criteria are met:
 * 1) There are two or more contributors who contributed to the information of the article. This is a part of Wikimedia, after all, so we should have many contributors.
 * 2) All of the sections have something basic written and there are at least three interesting facts. Otherwise it doesn't have enough information.
 * 3) There is at least one image other than the periodic table position image and the element's symbol image. Kids like pictures, after all.

The current example is gold. It is obviously more developed than other stubs, in my opinion, hence the reason to place it in the section for more developed articles. This is merely my opinion, though. Feel free to disagree. MiltonT 03:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good criteria to me. I guess we could take the stub tag off when thay are moved as well. --xixtas 05:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to sure about point #1-this may be hard to accomplish. Otherwise #2 and #3 are fine as well.--Read-write-services 01:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with point #1 at least to the extent of two people reviewing the article, because I just did a cleanup of gold, which most people seemed to consider complete. There were numerous punctuation and spacing errors, and inconsistent use of italics.  At least one other set of eyeballs should be "tweaking" anything before it is "shipped". --Eliyahu 06:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Element-ary grammar
Anyone know if element names are proper nouns or not? I'm not sure whether or not they should be capitalized in sentences or not. MiltonT 05:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Element names are normally normal nouns, but sometimes they're shown as proper nouns. Wikisquared 20:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_element#Nomenclature element names are not to be capitalized as proper nouns even if the element name is derived from a proper noun. So they should not be capitalized. --xixtas 05:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is that so? Gugulethu Ndlovu (discuss • contribs) 16:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Elements are generic substances, hence common nouns rather than proper nouns. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 19:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Will this incorporate the 4 states of matter?
I'm just wondering if this article (when finished) will contain the basic 3 elemental states or all 4; and also at which temperature each element reaches a state. Sure this is Wikijunior, but there's no use in lying to kids. Wikisquared 20:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC) UPDATE: I was right! There's only mention of plasma and no actual article. I can't be bothered to create one though... Wikisquared 20:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We should definitely have information about plasma state. --xixtas 05:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi all,I created plasma and Bose-Einstein stubs this morning. My 11 year old daughter is learning about plasma in school at the moment-they consider four states of matter-presently. I agree, truth about states of matter wikijunior or not. Science is science.--Read-write-services 01:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We would be lying to the kids by telling them that there are only four states of matter. Ever seen list of phases of matter? Well, there are at least 20 states of matter, possibly 22 (depending on how you read the list), and there are likely more to come. More discussion is going to be necessary, I think. Cheers, Iamunknown 06:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Introductory material overwhelms intended content
All the introductory material for this book is far too extensive. This is not intended to be a chemistry book. It is intended to be a book about the elements. Perhaps some of this material should be forked to Wikijunior_Chemistry and we should decide what material here really adds to the overall mission of this book.

I think the best way to decide what introductory material is good for this book is to look at the actual concepts that crop up in the elements articles themselves (Compounds, gases, liquids) and briefly explain those things. Does anyone else have any thought on this? --xixtas 12:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

--Read-write-services 22:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Xixtas, I somewhat agree, if you like I could edit it right down, but I prefer to have the original Author authorise this before I go crazy!
 * I tend to leave articles as is to retain the original "feel". perhaps today I'll trim it down...


 * Hi. I think that much of the material is worthwhile and valuable. But I also think it has too much detail for this book. That's why I suggested copying it before pruning it back. When I read it it seems like an excellent starting place for a book on basic chemistry. --xixtas 04:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay this morning I did a rewrite with a structural edit, what do you think? also If I wish to rename an article such as "New!" how would I do this?--Read-write-services 23:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I made a few edits to the "New!" Article. I'm going to start putting together a Possible Table of Contents. I'm thinking of intertwining the introductory material with the articles on elements. I'm not sure how to integrate the extensive introductory material with the specific element articles. --xixtas 19:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Idea for Clarification
We might want to include the grouping each element is placed in (i.e. noble gasses, transition elements, etc....) and the element's common state of matter (i.e. gas, solid, liquid, plasma, etc...). That might make the individual element articles make more sense in relation to the picture of the periodic table. Considering our age group target, we could expect that our reader would want strong parallels between pictures and words. Any thoughts? Basejumper123 00:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps an informational box including this information? --xixtas 19:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Periodic Table Images
First of all, the periodic table needs to be filled out, but that's minor.

My concern is the periodic table images on each article page. The images are very good for showing information at a glance to people that know what it's showing, but the information goes beyond the scope of this book. I propose that a new set of images is made that is simplified. All that is necessary would be the periodic table with the specific element square highlighted. In the empty space can be filled with the symbol as it appears on the periodic table, so only one image is required per page. MiltonT 04:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I can upload the remaining images at any time that they are needed. However, if we are going to use a new set... Klingoncowboy4 20:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the proposed change. Can you clarify, MiltonT? Which image are we talking about? --xixtas 14:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think he is talking about the elements in Wikijunior_The_Elements/Periodic_Table though I could be wrong. Klingoncowboy4 17:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was talking about that periodic table. But I was also talking about the image that's on the upper left of each element page. There doesn't need to be all of that information in those images since it's not likely all of that will even be mentioned in this book. MiltonT 21:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

True, those image however, have the advantage of already being in Wikicommons. They also add an effect of adding the feeling of and advanced textbook without adding too much additional information. Klingoncowboy4 17:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure we want it to feel like an advanced textbook. Is this something like what you were thinking of MiltonT? --xixtas 05:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"The target age of this title is 8-12 years old." While feeling more advanced may make this more interesting to some (closer to the upper end of this range) it will propably discourage others in the lower end. I have a couple of 12 year old brothers who might find it interesting, but we need to also consider the full extent of the age range. Klingoncowboy4 18:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that leaving the more advanced information, without further explanation, while discussing the more basic information that is shown in the atomic symbol box, is the way to go. Children don't want to have to much information thrown at them, but at the same time there should be little "hooks" to allow the more advanced youngsters to springboard into higher-level topics.  This will help retain their interest and keep them coming back to the book again and again. --Eliyahu 08:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that decreasing the amount of information encapsulated on the periodic table graphic is a good idea, myself. If it the point was to create online information then we could direct kids where on the web to find out more. For a book, it needs to be more self-contained IMO. --xixtas 04:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

(Debating starting a new topic for this....) Whatever format is used, I think that the color of the text box showing the atomic symbol should match the color of the indicated square on the periodic table. In the gold example, the square on the table is salmon, for a transition metal, while the text box has a decidely purplish color close to (if not exactly) that of the actinides. --Eliyahu 08:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the color should match. --xixtas 04:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Reorder Questions
After working on a few articles, I'm finding that the question "What does it look (etc.) like?" should follow the question "Where is it found?" Because "Where is it found?" is the obvious place to talk about common compounds and molecules. If we've already talked about that, then it becomes much easier to include information about how, for instance, sodium cloride looks and tastes under sodium. This would make the text flow better and also allow us to introduce more relevant and interesting information about each element. --xixtas 14:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

PDF Version
At momement there is no way that we could consider releasing a PDF version of this book. However, there are several "complete" sections and the book is progressing quickly. Perhaps we should start working on a PDF now. Klingoncowboy4 22:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the book is coming along nicely, I'm really excited about how the team that has been building this book has been working together on it. I think we can make a printable version and PDF. But I think we should label them "Preliminary" or "Rough". --xixtas 01:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds goodKlingoncowboy4 22:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have started working on it. Klingoncowboy4 05:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

First Draft Done, this is obviously subject to massive change as the book evolves. This version has basic formatting and doesn't contain any of the pages on the elements themselves, as a result I chose to host the file on a file host account I have rather than wikisource. Klingoncowboy4 05:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Table of Contents
I've put together a Table of Contents that interleaves the dry chemistry material with the information on individual elements that I think will be more interesting for our younger readers. The idea behind the structure is to introduce a concept and then talk about an element that illustrates that concept. --xixtas 00:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Technical images versus wiki markup
I'd really like to have the specific technical images for each element &mdash; the "table image" and the "symbol on the periodic chart", e.g. File:Hydrogen.gif and File:H-TableImage.svg &mdash; generated from wiki markup so that it isn't necessary for each new element-page to get someone with technical expertise in image generation. It looks to me as if the "symbol" image would be reasonably straightforward; I don't understand the more complicated parts of the "table image", which appear to be to do with crystals and electron orbitals. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)