Talk:Chemical element

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2023

This sentence is confusing since it implies that atoms can have more than one atomic number. FROM: This is in contrast to chemical compounds and mixtures, which contain atoms with more than one atomic number.

TO: Ben said.This is in contrast to chemical compounds and mixtures, which contain more than one type of atom with different atomic numbers. CrazyCat138 (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done – I've changed it to ... atoms with different atomic numbers because "more than one type" appears redundant to "different atomic numbers" in the proposed replacement. Tollens (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2024

Change

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

to

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

or

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

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

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

Isotopes

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

Boyle section rewrite

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

AutoTOC

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

I want edit first sentence as such

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

Like so:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure I think its obvious but let me explain,

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

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

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

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

How is this revision then:

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

or this one:

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

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