Talk:Discovery of chemical elements

Discovery of the nonmetals was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 10 January 2024 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Discovery of chemical elements. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Elements High‑importance

	Chemistry portal This article is supported by WikiProject Elements, which gives a central approach to the chemical elements and their isotopes on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details.ElementsWikipedia:WikiProject ElementsTemplate:WikiProject Elementschemical elements articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Chemistry Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physics: History High‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by History Taskforce.

History of Science Mid‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 15, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed

Archives

Archive 1 - discussion prior to merge (2003-2005)

lead and tin

I took this out :Lead was first purified and clearly differentiated from tin by medieval [[Alchemy and chemistry in Islam|Middle Eastern chemists]]<ref name=El-Eswed>{{Cite journal|title=Lead and Tin in Arabic Alchemy|first=Bassam I.|last=El-Eswed|journal=Arabic Sciences and Philosophy|year=2002|volume=12|pages=139–53|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|doi=10.1017/S0957423902002060}}</ref> as lead and tin were purified and clearly differentiated from at least Mesopotamian times. J8079s (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a cite Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: The Archaeological Evidence By Peter Roger Stuart Moorey Published by EISENBRAUNS, 1999 ISBN 1575060426 J8079s (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is this supposed to mean ?

"The elements are listed generally in the order in which each was first defined as the pure element, as the exact date of discovery of most elements cannot be accurately defined."

What is this misconceived sentence supposed to mean? What does "defined as the pure element" mean ?? There is a problem with the word "defined". You can infer the existence of, discover, extract, measure, determine the properties of a chemical element, but you cannot "define" it. And what is a "pure element" ? All elements are "pure". Is the sentence intended to mean, the preparation of a sample of the element which is not mixed or compounded with any other element ? To what degree of purity ? For many elements, preparation of "pure" ( uncontaminated ) samples occured decades after the existence of the element was scientifically conclusive.Eregli bob (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gold and Queen Zer

Queen Zer I suggest never existed. There are lots of websites that mention her and her gold or turquoise burial goods, but many are plainly humbug, for example many date her to 5500 BC. The earliest mummies are no earlier than about 3300 BC. I can find this reference [1] to a queen Zur, wife of an Athotis.

I suggest that Zer is a old variant of Djer(Aka Athothis), and hence not a queen. Gold was found associated with Djer, see [:File:CeremonialFlintKnife-Djer.png] for example. This site purports to have a picture of the gold and turqoise bracelet found on a human wrist at tomb O, identified as the tomb of Djer. I'll mark the article as "dubious".

"widely known"

In the "Recorded discoveries" table is a column headed "Isolation (widely known)". I have no clue what this means. What is it that is "widely known"? The element? The person who isolated it? The fact that it was isolated? 86.160.83.63 (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smelting of iron / iron age

"The discovery of smelting around 3000 BC led to the start of the iron age around 1200 BC"

It needs to be clarified whether "discovery of smelting" refer to the smelting of iron or to the general technique. If the former, then why was there a 1800 year gap? If the latter, then it contradicts the statement earlier that "lead smelting began at least 9000 years ago". 86.181.201.159 (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible mistake

When referring to Carbon, "Samaritans" are mentioned. This might be a mistake. Perhaps, Sumerians are meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.29.164 (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.29.164 (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good entry title

"chemical elements discoveries" is not idiomatic English. I would say it requires an apostrophe ("chemical elements' discoveries", i.e. the discoveries of the elements) or, better, should be changed to "chemical element discoveries". 86.135.115.218 (talk) 10:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum

Platinum was known to native Americans before Columbus; shouldn't it be placed in the first table with a note about European discovery? - Soerfm (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done (unfortunately almost nine years late). Double sharp (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bismuth

Why Bismuth is in the unrecorded list when it's clear steated that it was discovered in 1753?OTAVIO1981 (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same thing. I've moved it under recorded discoveries. Skydiver (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because of this. It was identified as a distinct element in 1753 but was known and used well before that. In that respect it is a bit like Zn. Double sharp (talk) 09:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the Inca use of bismuth in the article. Double sharp (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of chemical elements discoveries → Timeline of chemical element discoveries – Per comment above, current title is not proper English. 86.146.106.166 (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – This should be a speedy move, in my opinion. --Article editor (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree that this ought to be an uncontroversial speedy move. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Chromium

The current entry for 'chromium' under 'Unrecorded discoveries' is inconsistent with the Chromium article which states:

"Chromium oxide was used by the Chinese in the Qin dynasty over 2,000 years ago to coat metal weapons found with the Terracotta Army. Chromium was discovered as an element after it came to the attention of the Western world in the red crystalline mineral crocoite (lead(II) chromate), discovered in 1761 and initially used as a pigment. Louis Nicolas Vauquelin first isolated chromium metal from this mineral in 1797."

--Kevjonesin (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the contradiction is with

"Chromium...Before 1 CE...Terracotta Army...China...Found coating various weapons in China because of its high strength and corrosion resistance"

with the reference Cotterell, Maurice. (2004). The Terracotta Warriors: The Secret Codes of the Emperor's Army. Rochester: Bear and Company. ISBN 1-59143-033-X. Page 102. Terracotta Army also says "chromium dioxide", using the same reference and others. Siuenti (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Chinese Wikipedia entry for chromium says "discovered in 1797". Siuenti (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking the Chinese Wikipedia, Siuenti.

It seems to me that the presence of 'chromium (di)oxide' on ancient artifacts is likely a weak, if not outright spurious, indicator of an early awareness of chromium as a distinct element. In light of which the chromium entry might better reside alongside other existing eighteenth-century (1700s) entries.

I did some 'snooping' as well. Found a chinahistoryforum.com entry examining the question in—fairly extensive—detail:

It seems clear the swords are not ‘chromed’ in the sense we understand it today, nor was the identified material used to coat them chromium as such, but a reduction of chromium in combination with other material (into Potassium chromate) and it may be that chromium was created in a reduction process rather than actual isolated.[2]

Much that is posted in casual articles about the weapons and their 'coating' may well be repeatedly recycled media simplifications/exaggerations. I'm thinking that unless some reputable scientific/academic source can be found explicitly attributing knowledge of elemental chromium to the ancient Chinese it would be best to categorize the chromium entry by the known 1700s dates.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, the ancient Chinese Cr claim is back? I could've sworn we'd gotten rid of it some time ago: it seems to keep coming back for some reason. I've taken it back out and replaced the Vauquelin entry for Cr (which is indisputable). Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zinc

When I typed in "When was Zinc discovered" in Google, it was discovered in 1746. But in the article, it was discovered before the Middle Ages. Should I change Zinc to "Discovered to Middle Ages?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erbium Is Awesome (talk • contribs) 22:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rasaratna Samuccaya

He was not a person. This is the title of a book. Double sharp (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Timeline of chemical element discoveries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antimony

I find the "in widespread use" for this element and the source given rather questionable. As far as I can gather, the sulfide (stibnite, Sb₂S₃), was used (in cosmetics) but not known as an element or metal until much later.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] The "in widespread use" bit implies the element, not a compound. Kleuske (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Moscovium - 2010? Really?

A lot of earlier sources (and even the Wikiepdia article on it) claim 2003, but why so recent here?

Same thing for the others. I'm sure flerovium was 1999 and livermorium was 2000.

Vandalism? Or something further?

8.40.151.110 (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IUPAC. The 2003 discovery did not meet IUPAC's criteria; the 2010 discovery of ^289,290Mc as daughters of ^293,294Ts did. Same with Fl and Lv; the initial discoveries did not meet IUPAC's criteria, but the later experiments did. Double sharp (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it on the element articles for Nh–Og, this time with hidden comments to deter others who might not be aware of this from changing it back. You can see all the IUPAC reports linked at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Elements/Links. Double sharp (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about, say, Ds, Rg, and Cn? Were those actually later or no? 8.40.151.110 (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No; for those, the original discoveries were confirmed. The IUPAC technical reports are here: Ds, Rg, and Cn. (Although arguably since the 1966 date from IUPAC for nobelium is from the date of publication of the papers, Ds and Rg should really say 1995 instead of 1994; I will change that.) Double sharp (talk) 04:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that after the IUPAC reports accepting the discoveries of moscovium and tennessine, there have appeared new articles noting some incongruencies in the decay chains (one, two). Burzuchius and I have remarked on this at Talk:Tennessine#Number of atoms and isotopes): the nuclides involved are probably still Mc and Ts isotopes and their daughters, but they might not be the ones claimed, and some of the more removed daughters may have been misidentified more significantly (the extremely short half-life of ²⁷⁷Mt to spontaneous fission that is claimed is rather unusual given its odd proton that should hinder this, but if it is not the daughter of ²⁸¹Rg but is instead the granddaughter of ²⁸⁰Rg via ²⁸⁰Ds, then it would make perfect sense as the even-even ²⁷⁶Hs). So it is plausible that in the future IUPAC will push back the discovery date even further, when future studies confirm these two elements beyond all reasonable doubt. (The names have already been officially assigned and will not change even if that happens, as it did with nobelium.)

It is honestly rather a pity that IUPAC has not commented on the discoveries of the first hundred elements. Different sources often give slightly different dates for some of them, and there are quite a few truly controversial cases such as lutetium and actinium. Double sharp (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The articles for Ds and Rg need to be updated as well. I see how Lu and Ac could be controversial. 8.40.151.110 (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The reason I chose this option is that otherwise it gets difficult to explain Nh. If you say Mc was discovered in 2003, then so was Nh, the year before the RIKEN team saw its first event, and so JINR should be the discoverers; but then it gets named Nh by RIKEN instead. Maybe rewriting it like Lu would be better. Similarly I'd add a note that Fl, Lv, and Og were discovered earlier but only published a bit later and recognised by IUPAC in even later experiments. But then if you use the earliest experiments for Fl and Lv the difficulty is that these seem to have undergone electron capture along the way, which would move forward the discovery of Nh; I think we would need to rewrite that like Pa.

All right, I seem to have convinced myself that it would work fairly well! So I guess I'll do it to avoid this confusion. Double sharp (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Timeline of chemical element discoveries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last stable element to be discovered

This article claims that "Hafnium was the last stable element to be discovered." The article on Hafnium calls it the penultimate stable element to be discovered. The article on Rhenium claims it to be the last stable one. I have no idea what's correct, just trying to point out the inconsistencies.--37.201.181.76 (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re was discovered in 1908 by Ogawa, but at the time the discovery was not recognised. In the meantime Hf was discovered, and so when Re was rediscovered in 1925 it looked like it was the last. I'll fix the Hf and Re articles. Double sharp (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question about As, Sb, Zn, Bi

They seem to have been discovered after classical times (or else why wouldn't they be "planetary metals"?) but before phosphorus. Since the discovery of phosphorus is famous as the first one recorded I would imagine arsenic, antimony, zinc, and bismuth as "unrecorded medieval discoveries" but I can't find a source that really makes sense of that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:71BA:CFD0:BDF2:8137 (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to define what a discovery is before the the modern conception of a chemical element was in force. Zinc, antimony, and bismuth were known for a long time but were not recognised as distinct metals until later. Double sharp (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's murky, yeah. I hope I have done justice to the antimony and arsenic entries. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. even Co was called a semi-metal upon discovery. :) Double sharp (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should Pd be 1802, and question about Mc, Ts, and Og

According to this it's possible that Pd should be 1802: http://www.vanderkrogt.net/elements/element.php?sym=Pd

Also, I've seen some sources claiming 2005 for Og and 2009 for Mc and Ts. Is that when the first events were seen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:B1FB:9425:19EF:D9E4 (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's complicated. Wollaston discovered the metal in 1802 (we know that from his lab book) and named it palladium the same year, but he only published the discovery (most unconventionally by offering samples which he had purified for sale in a Soho shop) in 1803. He first published on palladium traditionally in 1804 (although the paper was on rhodium, he mentioned palladium several times) and only disclosed that he had been the discoverer of palladium in an 1805 paper. As such, one needs to define what exactly one means by a "discovery", and then we need to remember that there is no definition that will apply equally well to 1669 (phosphorus) and 2009 (tennessine).

As for the superheavies: the first atom of oganesson was synthesised in 2002, but the discovery was not announced externally because its decay energy was the same as that of ^212mPo, a common unwanted side product in experiments aimed at producing superheavy elements. As such the ²⁴⁹Cf+⁴⁸Ca experiment was rerun in 2005, when two more atoms of ²⁹⁴Og were made, and publication occurred in 2006 (including both the 2002 and the 2005 data). The first atoms of ²⁹³Ts were certainly produced between July and October 2009 (see the discovery paper) and I have changed tennessine accordingly to 2009; moscovium on the other hand was first produced in 2003 in the ²⁴³Am+⁴⁸Ca reaction, although the IUPAC–IUPAP JWP only recognised its production as the daughter of tennessine in 2009. Since we are now going by dates of first generally accepted production rather than waiting for the JWP announcements, I've retained 2003 for moscovium. Nihonium is then treated as a case of roughly contemporarous independent discoveries (kind of like how bromine is treated now). Double sharp (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Si

Did Berzelius actually think he had discovered it rather than simply isolating it? It's mentioned in works of his from before 1823... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:C95:5EFB:69C9:5AB5 (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Depends how you look at it. By modern standards he was the discoverer, as no one before him had successfully isolated it; whether he thought of himself as such is quite another matter (you can read his original paper here in English and here in Swedish). Certainly fluorine was often mentioned in the literature before Moissan isolated it in 1886. It is fairly difficult to be consistent in such a list because we then have to deal with uranium: Klaproth thought there was a new element in the mineral he was examining, and he was right, but he claimed to have isolated it, and in that he was wrong. Yet he is pretty much universally acclaimed as its discoverer, and not Péligot. Double sharp (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I would say the discoverer would be the first person to recognize the existence of the new element. How could F have been included in the first periodic table if it wasn't discovered until 1886? If we're treating "earths/radicals" as their component elements, then Na and K could possibly be 1758, F 1771, Ca ?1755, and B, Al, and Si also in the 1700's. I know the theory of combustion wasn't put forth until the 1770's–80's, but it just doesn't make sense to me that Na, K, F, Ca, B, Al, and Si would be discovered so long after Y. I also tried to use 1808 for Al, Si, Be, and Zr (from Humphry Davy's paper naming them) but I was called out on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:C95:5EFB:69C9:5AB5 (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help with regard to Si, Al, Zr, Be, and Y? https://books.google.com/books?id=TPY4AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA135&dq=ittrium+1808&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwij3PbYl5_aAhUGxYMKHeiWBSsQuwUITDAG#v=onepage&q=ittrium%201808&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:C95:5EFB:69C9:5AB5 (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know what you think of this suggestion, pulled from the book I linked to above:

Potassium – Davy 1807

Sodium – Davy 1807

Calcium – Davy 1808

Barium – Davy 1808

Strontium – Davy 1808

Magnesium – Davy 1808

Yttrium – Davy 1808 (isol. Mosander 1843)

Beryllium – Davy 1808 (isol. Wöhler and Bussy 1828)

Aluminum – Davy 1808 (isol. Ørsted 1825)

Zirconium – Davy 1808 (isol. Berzelius 1824)

Silicon – Berzelius and Davy 1808 (isol. Berzelius 1823)

Boron – Gay-Lussac & Thénard 1808 (isol. Davy 1808)

Fluorine – Ampère 1810 (isol. Moissan 1886) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:C95:5EFB:69C9:5AB5 (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Going that way, wouldn't Al have to be 1787 and B and F 1789 (Lavoisier, mentioned in the article)? I think all this sort of thing is quite logical but that it can get us fairly far afield from the general consensus of reliable sources is (which is fairly inconsistent). We'd have to ask ourselves:

Is it a discovery if somebody mistakes a compound for the new element? (Uranium.)
Is it a discovery if somebody finds the element, but thinks it is a compound? (Chlorine.)
Is it a discovery if somebody finds the element but has by modern standards a completely wrong understanding of what it is? (Nitrogen and oxygen.)
Is it a discovery if someone predicts that a new element must be there, but has no means of finding it, but the new element becomes part of accepted theoretical chemistry anyway? (Not only Davy with Al and others, but also Mendeleev for Sc, Ga, Ge, and many others.)
Is it a discovery if evidence is presented for a new element but chemical isolation is not done, either due to location (helium) or short half-life (oganesson)?
Is it a discovery if someone correctly thinks there is a new element there but mistakenly thinks he has isolated it when he has not? (Urbain's claim for lutetium.)
Is it a discovery if someone claims to have found a new element, and was widely accepted as a discoverer, but later advances in chemistry shows that he cannot have found that element, but really found a different element which he did not claim? (Debierne's claim for actinium, which was probably protactinium; Ogawa's claim for nipponium, which he thought was eka-manganese but we now know was probably dvi-manganese.)
Is it a discovery if someone claims to have found a new element, but his claim is rejected, only to be reevaluated later thanks to advances in chemistry? (For some time there was doubt about polonium as an element.)
Is it a discovery if someone claims to have discovered a new element, was probably correct in hindsight, but he only found really convincing evidence for it later? What year should such a situation be placed under? (Lawrencium and flerovium.)

Trying to provide one-size-fits-all answers to these questions would provide interesting results, but as the TWG alluded to, absolute priority tends to mean absolute injustice. Really, this whole list exists only because of the tradition that the discoverer names an element. I think the best way to deal with it is just to follow the consensus of historians (Mary Elvira Weeks is an excellent start) and put enough explanatory information for readers to make up their own minds. Double sharp (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes for U and no for the others (Be, Zr, Sr, Y, Ba, Mg, and possibly others), but that one is a little confusing.
Yes.
Yes.
If the evidence is from the properties of its compounds (F, Al, Si, etc.) and not purely theoretical.
Yes.
Yes.
Unless they are definitively disproven if they are still widely accepted as the discoverer; not if they retracted their claim.
Unless the discoverer him/herself rejects the claim.
I'd keep the earlier year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:C95:5EFB:69C9:5AB5 (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable answers, even if not all sources would agree with them. Anyway, getting back to the point, we would need to push things back even further, because of this 1787 comment from Lavoisier: "We are probably only acquainted as yet with a part of the metallic substances existing in nature, as all those which have a stronger affinity to oxygen than carbon possesses, are incapable, hitherto, of being reduced to a metallic state, and consequently, being only presented to our observation under the form of oxyds, are confounded with earths. It is extremely probable that barytes, which we have just now arranged with earths, is in this situation; for in many experiments it exhibits properties nearly approaching to those of metallic bodies. It is even possible that all the substances we call earths may be only metallic oxyds, irreducible by any hitherto known process." He was discussing the "earths" he had listed, and from that list we would end up having to give him credit for discovering Mg, Al, Si, Ca, and Ba; then Davy would have named them (including Al and Si, which he could not isolate), and their isolation would come even later. Similarly Lavoisier's mention of radical boracique and radical fluorique rather implies by these standards that he discovered boron and fluorine. Double sharp (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I must admit that I'm not sure what you mean for #7. Using Debierne's example again, he claimed the discovery of actinium and today is still usually recognised as such, but the chemistry he recorded for it is wholly inconsistent with that known for actinium suggests that what he had at first was really what we now know as protactinium. Is it reasonable to credit him as the discoverer of Ac? Is it reasonable to credit him as the discoverer of Pa? This is the kind of difficulty I am talking about. Double sharp (talk) 06:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1787 for Mg, Al, Si, Ca, and Ba and 1789 for B and F actually make sense, especially if we're using 1794 for the rather rare and obscure Y. That said, the date that Davy named them still makes a lot of sense too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:75D7:1FB0:D1AB:1E30 (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yttrium isn't that rare: it's more common than lead. I don't think it's that remarkable that common-sounding elements got discovered later since they are more difficult to isolate, even if you know that they are there. Double sharp (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But if you know they're there then haven't they already been discovered? That's the way I see it... Also, I didn't know yttrium is more common than lead. Learn something new every day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:A594:E4D2:7948:BAC8 (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about we just change Al and Si to 1808 as outlined above and keep everything else the same? Let me know what you think of that idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:A594:E4D2:7948:BAC8 (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is what counts as knowing that an element is there. Take hafnium: Bohr certainly knew that element 72 would be found in zirconium ores, and motivated by his predictions Coster and Hevesy searched for it there and found it. Isn't this the same situation, just with periodicity and electronic structure substituted for an understanding of the role of oxygen in oxidation and a recognition that earths are metal oxides? If we would like to consider Lavoisier (who understood this) or Davy (who tried and failed to isolate them after Lavoisier had made his remarks) the discoverer of aluminium, when actually they just looked at alumina and realised that it must be the oxide of a metal they could not isolate, why don't we consider Bohr the discoverer of hafnium? (Strictly speaking Bohr was not the only one who predicted that element 72 should be an eka-zirconium at the time, but his prediction is certainly the most well-known.) After all, all samples of zirconium at the time already contained significant hafnium impurities. Double sharp (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you only have periodicity and electronic structure to go on then you haven't observed the element yet; that's not the case with the role of oxygen in oxidation and a recognition that earths are metal oxides if you're working with the oxide (which Davy was). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:84EE:DBA2:4565:26B0 (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we're using 1825 for Al and 1823 for Si then we'd have to use 1886 for F, which doesn't make any sense because it was clearly known to exist before then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:3DC0:9115:A25A:5AC5 (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think you'll find that it's quite common to consider fluorine to have been discovered in 1886, although this is usually the result of talking loosely when isolation is meant. This article on the history of fluorine clearly writes "Fluorine was the last of the halogen family to be discovered and separated, after chlorine in 1774, iodine in 1811, and bromine in 1826". For the most part, though, the article (along with Greenwood and Earnshaw) considers this to have been the isolation, and quietly ignores the question of discovery, because it is complicated. In the case of hafnium, because of its extreme similarity to zirconium, experimenters working on Zr had certainly observed Hf directly without knowing what it was because all their Zr samples were contaminated with it. Personally I think that this list is far too simplistic and of necessity treads roughshod over all the different degrees of claims (a fun one is lutetium, where both Urbain and von Welsbach claimed at about the same time to have found a new element occurring with Yb, and both were right, but only von Welsbach succeeded in isolating it – though Urbain mistakenly thought he had). By the same token, if we consider F to have been discovered in 1810, then that means that you can discover an element without experimental work simply by realising what the constituents of a substance must be, which creates fun questions about when Na and K were discovered. It also means that bismuth was discovered in 1753 by Geoffroy, who first managed to experimentally demonstrate that it is a distinct element, which itself causes problems because Agricola was well aware of bismuth far earlier. Furthermore the whole idea that identifying a compound counts as observing the element only really starts to make sense when the whole notion of what a compound is is sorted out – and that was still being sorted out in 1779 when Proust's law was formulated. Again, there isn't a way to apply consistent criteria across all 118 elements to a simple timeline without raising questions. Double sharp (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. It just doesn't make sense that an element could be named (and even its properties determined - keep in mind this was before the periodic table) long before it was discovered... does it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:3DC0:9115:A25A:5AC5 (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I've thought about it and I think everything should stay the same as it is right now. In fact, can we delete this whole section so it doesn't cause any changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:7116:FA47:EE6D:F1DC (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's all right. I don't see why the section would need to be deleted; it's useful to have these explanations and examples up to point people to to show that this is not as simple as a simple table implies it is. Double sharp (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cr

Should its discovery and isolation be the same date? Would that be 1797 or 1798? I can't tell from looking at the paper... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:8448:4D19:7809:37F:4C7D (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Hydrogen section

Antoine Lavoiser named Hydrogen in 1783 while reproducing the 1781 Cavendish experiment not 1793. The Hydrogen wiki page reports it correctly. The website cited (http://elements.vanderkrogt.net/element.php?sym=h) does say 1793 in its header, but if you read the explanatory text below, it references the correct naming year twice. That 1793 in the header appears to be a typo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MC152 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yttrium

What do you make of what's said here? https://books.google.com/books?id=EFzuCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=beryllium+1828+yttrium+1828&source=bl&ots=-xmLzhddbd&sig=dDPDYLMsN8WQ_5VHTM2Hj-zM23c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjH75bin8TaAhWDesAKHRcPBms4ChDoATABegQIABA0#v=onepage&q&f=false If it's not true, I feel we can consider Wöhler the isolator of Y since we're considering Ørsted the isolator of Al. Squee3 (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly would it not be true? Indeed this means that Rose (1843) should likely be considered the isolator of yttrium, since he postdates Mosander's removal of terbium and erbium. Double sharp (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noble gases

Wouldn't helium be the first noble gas discovered technically? I know that they found out that the noble gases were a thing when they discovered argon, but helium is a noble gas. So can you please fix it?Porygon-Z 03:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porygon-Z474 (talk • contribs)

The article says Argon in 1894 was the first noble gas to be *isolated* on Earth. Helium was observed/discovered in 1868 in the Sun, so it could not be isolated at that time. So the article was not strictly wrong, but I have now clarified the helium entry a little. Dirac66 (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

plot of year of discovery

Another version of the plot showing the date of discovery that includes the Chemical Symbols. Plot of year and accumulative number of elements discovered

Oxygen and Sendivogius

How can we have Scheele first observing O in 1771 and Sendivogius isolating it in 1604. How did Sendivogius manage to isolate it without observing it? The column heading says "widely known". Neither Scheele nor Priestley seem to have been aware of Sendivogius' work (or any other important scientists) so I don't see how that can be claimed to be widely known. This book backs up that idea (of not being widely known). Inserted in this edit by user:Double sharp. SpinningSpark 16:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I somehow managed to edit this article for many years without noticing the phrase "widely known"! (Probably because I concentrated more on the lower entries.) Yeah, I guess Sendivogius does not qualify under that qualifier. :) I think I added him because of that misunderstanding, which was hopefully understandable as the Paracelsus entry for hydrogen was already there.

The weird dates do tie in to a problem with these early discoveries: at that point the nature of an element was still being sorted out. Scheele and Priestley both had oxygen but only Lavoisier a few years later had the correct idea about what it was. I think this is what I was thinking the Paracelsus date meant and influenced me to put in Sendivogius for oxygen. Double sharp (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you intend to amend that edit? SpinningSpark 16:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Paracelsus has the same problem. He was not originally listed as the first isolator but was in the notes as "had been isolated originally by Paracelsus around 1500 by reacting strong acids with metals, but did not recognise it as a new element." SpinningSpark 17:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to Cavendish and Scheele to match the discoverers, since they definitely did isolate these elemental gases too. Double sharp (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Double births"

Five trace radioactives actually have two significant discovery years: the year they were first made in a lab, and the year they were first found to be natural after all. (A sixth and seventh might be possible if live ²⁴⁷Cm is ever found.) These are already in the article, but maybe they could be clarified a bit more.

Element	Synthesis	Discovery in nature
Technetium (43)	1937, Perrier and Segrè	1962, Kenna and Kuroda
Promethium (61)	1945, Coryell, Marinsky, and Glendenin	1965, Erämetsä
Astatine (85)	1940, Corson, MacKenzie, and Segrè	1943, Karlik and Bernert
Neptunium (93)	1940, McMillan and Abelson	1952, Peppard, Mason, Gray, and Mech
Plutonium (94)	1940-1, Seaborg, Wahl, Kennedy, and McMillan	1941-2, Seaborg and Perlman

Double sharp (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Short description

@Plantsurfer: The SD you have added is pointless. The page title is already sufficiently explanatory so WP:SDNONE applies. The only additional information is that there are 118 elements which, beside being superfluous and open to change, causes the SD to exceed the recommended 40 characters. SpinningSpark 22:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should we change some discovery dates?

Who was the first person to recognize that yttria is a metal oxide, and when? Should that person be given credit for the discovery of Y?

Does it make sense for Be, Al, Si, and Zr to be listed as discovered by Davy in 1808? I know that he failed to isolate them, but this work certainly proved that glucine, alumine, silex, and zircone are metal oxides. The thing is, I've already been told elsewhere that this is incorrect, but it doesn't seem to be...

The reason I'm asking is because, to me at least, it would make the most sense to regard the discovery of an element as when the literature began to treat it as known. Squee3 (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being known is not equivalent to known to be an element. Neither is known to be a metallic compound equivalent to known to be a compound of a metallic element. I have no view on whether your specific examples should be changed, but your premise is incorrect. SpinningSpark 16:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no criteria that will work consistently over all 118 elements, because people's understanding of what an element is changed. So we go mostly by consensus of reliable sources. If we accepted the logic the OP gives, then I suppose the discoverer of Na and K would have to be Marggraf, because he was the first who distinguished soda and potash. I don't think anyone says this. Double sharp (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holden (writing for IUPAC in 2019) considered Scheele to have discovered Ba, and Vauquelin to have discovered Be. But he also says that Al was "known in prehistoric times", which can only refer to alum rather than the metal (obviously), and I doubt that this idea is standard. (BTW, Holden also gives 1952 for Fm rather than 1953, but the latter seems to be correct based on my limited research: the experimental work spanned over the New Year, and while 99 was secure in 1952, 100 only was in 1953. Similarly, Gd was discovered in 1880, not 1886 as Holden has it; the latter date represents the naming.)

Though I have to agree that if Scheele is listed as the discoverer of Cl, then it makes sense to follow Holden's line and give him credit for Ba (and Vauquelin for Be). After all, Scheele did not even have a correct idea of what chlorine was. But then maybe Scheele should get credit for fluorine as Holden gives him? Holden also wrongly thinks that Janssen discovered helium (and has the wrong history for holmium; Holmberg did not name it after himself, he merely isolated it in pure form, and it was Cleve who actually named it), so I'll have to think about this. For lawrencium it is very difficult, because even the TWG could only say that confidence was built up over a decade; maybe the best approach is to say that the 1961 experiment was the first important step rather than the full discovery.

I think I'm willing to push Ba, Be, Cl, F, Mg earlier. Probably even Nd. And giving joint credit for Ir. This is about as far as I got (need to go somewhere IRL); I'll look at the rest later. Double sharp (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sr also makes sense, as do Y and Zr. Well, time to make some edits. Double sharp (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I even pushed Na, K, and Ca earlier, since it is in RS that the earths were distinguished earlier, and otherwise we are treating Mg and Ca inconsistently. Double sharp (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, per reviews like this (noting the untangling of earths from metals), Lavoisier (or maybe Louis-Bernard Guyton de Morveau? basically in the 1787 textbook Méthode de nomenclature chimique) should be credited for B and Si. Similar problem occurs for Al. Double sharp (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, based on the above 2022 review of the elements discovered up to the XVIII century. (Other parts for more recent discoveries should be forthcoming.) Double sharp (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Timeline of chemical element discoveries

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Timeline of chemical element discoveries's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "CRC":

From Bismuth: Hammond, C. R. (2004). The Elements, in Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (81st ed.). Boca Raton (FL, US): CRC press. pp. 4–1. ISBN 978-0-8493-0485-9.
From Didymium: Haynes, William M., ed. (2016). "Elements: Neodymium". CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (97th ed.). CRC Press. p. 4.23. ISBN 9781498754293.
From Lithium: Hammond, C. R. (2000). The Elements, in Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (81st ed.). CRC press. ISBN 978-0-8493-0481-1.^{[page needed]}
From Platinum: CRC contributors (2007–2008). "Platinum". In Lide, David R. (ed.). CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. Vol. 4. New York: CRC Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-8493-0488-0.
From Synthetic element: Hammond, C. R. (2004). "The Elements". Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (81st ed.). CRC press. ISBN 978-0-8493-0485-9.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-1669 discoveries

@Apaugasma: I agree that my wording wasn't ideal, but I am uncertain about calling c.1500 (bismuth) "medieval". Do you have another suggestion? Double sharp (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Double sharp! If we follow the roughest common division of ages as ancient (pre-500), medieval (500-1500) and modern (1500-now), c. 1500 will be a difficult edge case. We could just as well move that entry to the 'Modern discoveries' section (by most standards 1500 actually falls within the bounds of 'early modern', even though it also counts as 'late medieval').

Another, perhaps more pertinent solution is to create three sections, 'Ancient and medieval discoveries' (covering everything up till c. 1400), 'Renaissance and early modern discoveries' (covering c. 1400 to 1789, up until the discoveries of Lavoisier and Klaproth), and 'Modern discoveries' (the rest). This would be a common division of ages in the history of science, effectively reflecting three different paradigms and three different rates of discovery. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Apaugasma: I like this division, but got stymied by Bi presenting a problem to move to the modern discoveries: it doesn't really have a known discoverer and was getting recognised by European and Inca civilisation at about the same time – per 10.1126/science.223.4636.585 the Inca bismuth bronze is from 1476–1534. However, I thought of and implemented another solution: moving phosphorus to the earlier table and making the distinction alchemy vs modern chemistry, matching Miskowiec's 2022 review. Then c.1700 isn't really a bad date for this transition especially since we have so much leeway between 1669 (phosphorus) and 1735 (cobalt).

As for 1789, I get the reasoning behind it, but I don't like it since titanium follows on from that so quickly (1791). Miskowiec just goes for the calendar mark of 1800, but this is also not that great because vanadium (1801) follows immediately afterwards. My general opinion (informed by this popularised Russian treatment) is that the important breaks once you get to the modern age are c.1700 (alchemy gets supplanted by modern chemistry), c.1850 (when all the common elements had been found, and further progress was impossible without the spectroscope) and c.1900 (when almost all the stable elements had been found – only Lu, Hf, Re were missing – and to go further, it was necessary to delve into radioactivity and learn how to transmute elements ourselves). Unfortunately the last requires absurd precision because of how late the noble gases were discovered: in order to cut according to this line, one needs to cut the timeline between Xe (12 July 1898) and Po (13 July 1898), and when the difference is literally one day, perhaps periodisation has become silly. :) Double sharp (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Circa 1700 is certainly the most relevant paradigm break in the history of chemistry specifically, due to the rise of the royal academies. But we should be wary about the alchemy vs chemistry distinction, which increasingly gets rejected by the leading specialists in early modern chemistry (see Newman & Principe 1998; Newman 2011; Principe 2011). Let's just use standard period names instead: 'Pre-modern and early modern discoveries' vs 'Modern discoveries'. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Newman, William R.; Principe, Lawrence M. (1998). "Alchemy vs. Chemistry: The Etymological Origins of a Historiographic Mistake". Early Science and Medicine. 3 (1): 32–65. doi:10.1163/157338298X00022. ISSN 1383-7427. JSTOR 4130048. PMID 11620328.

Newman, William R. (2011). "What Have We Learned from the Recent Historiography of Alchemy?". Isis. 102 (2): 313–321. doi:10.1086/660140.

Principe, Lawrence M. (2011). "Alchemy Restored". Isis. 102 (2): 305–312. doi:10.1086/660139. PMID 21874690. S2CID 23581980.

@Apaugasma: That seems even better to me. So I guess we've worked out a good division! Double sharp (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split list of modern discoveries?

Should we split the list of modern discoveries? I feel it's a bit unwieldy, since it has roughly 100 rows.

We could simply split it by century: 1700s (ca. 25 entries), 1800s (ca. 40 entries), 1900 until present (ca. 35 entries).

(A less arbitrary / more scientific criterion would be nice, but the only one I can think of is the switch from discovery to synthesis, around 1940. Were there simliar fundamental changes in earlier times?)

The downside of separate lists would be that one cannot sort the whole table (e.g. by atomic number), but since we've already split the pre-modern elements from the rest, I guess that's OK.

— Chrisahn (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a fairly natural gap between Ru (1844) and Cs (1860) when all the common elements were found and it was impossible to go further without spectroscopy. Unfortunately, the noble gases were discovered extremely late, so what would've been another natural gap is only one day between Xe (12 July 1898) and Po (13 July 1898). Double sharp (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Antimony

From the Wikipedia article Antimony:

An artifact, said to be part of a vase, made of antimony dating to about 3000 BC was found at Telloh, Chaldea (part of present-day Iraq), and a copper object plated with antimony dating between 2500 BC and 2200 BC has been found in Egypt. Austen, at a lecture by Herbert Gladstone in 1892, commented that "we only know of antimony at the present day as a highly brittle and crystalline metal, which could hardly be fashioned into a useful vase, and therefore this remarkable 'find' (artifact mentioned above) must represent the lost art of rendering antimony malleable."

The British archaeologist Roger Moorey was unconvinced the artifact was indeed a vase, mentioning that Selimkhanov, after his analysis of the Tello object (published in 1975), "attempted to relate the metal to Transcaucasian natural antimony" (i.e. native metal) and that "the antimony objects from Transcaucasia are all small personal ornaments." This weakens the evidence for a lost art "of rendering antimony malleable."

The Roman scholar Pliny the Elder described several ways of preparing antimony sulfide for medical purposes in his treatise Natural History, around 77 AD. Pliny the Elder also made a distinction between "male" and "female" forms of antimony; the male form is probably the sulfide, while the female form, which is superior, heavier, and less friable, has been suspected to be native metallic antimony.

The Greek naturalist Pedanius Dioscorides mentioned that antimony sulfide could be roasted by heating by a current of air. It is thought that this produced metallic antimony. Burzuchius (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't Zosimos then have to be credited for As? Double sharp (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, made the changes. As well as putting carbon as first, from ancient charcoal paintings. Yes, I was inspired by the Sodium Lamp blog, but Miśkowiec essentially also makes this point, and somehow it feels right for the king of organic chemistry to be the first discovered by life. :D There's also a difficulty with noble Cu, Ag, and Au (and arguably Fe from meteorites) whose discovery really belongs to prehistory. Double sharp (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. That blog also makes me realise that our claim for Hg is not very well backed up by sources. Burzuchius? Double sharp (talk) 08:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I've addressed the Hg entry. Double sharp (talk) 09:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sodium and potassium

From the Wikipedia article Potassium:

It was first suggested in 1702 that they were distinct elements that combine with the same anions to make similar salts...

Georg Ernst Stahl obtained experimental evidence that led him to suggest the fundamental difference of sodium and potassium salts in 1702...

The Russian book Популярная библиотека химических элементов presented the following sequence of discoveries:

... 15. Phosphorus (H. Brand, 1669) 16. Hydrogen (R. Boyle, 1670) 17 & 18. Potassium & sodium (it is not said who, but probably G. E. Stahl, 1702 is meant?) 19. Calcium 20. Silicon 21. Cobalt (G. Brandt, 1735) ...

Burzuchius (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The full sequence given by that book is: C, S, Au, Ag, Cu, Fe, Pb, Sn, Hg, Zn, As, Sb, Bi, Pt, P, H, K, Na, Ca, Si, Co, Ni, Al, Mg, N, O, Mn, Cl, Mo, Ba, W, F, Sr, Te, B, U, Ti, Zr, Y, Cr, Be, V, Nb, Ta, Ce, Pd, Rh, Os, Ir, I, Li, Cd, Se, Br, La, Th, Er, Tb, Ru, Cs, Rb, Tl, In, He, Ga, Yb, Sc, Ho, Tm, Sm, Gd, Pr, Nd, Dy, Ge, Ar, Kr, Ne, Xe, Po, Ra, Ac, Rn, Eu, Lu, Pa, Hf, Re, Tc, Fr, At, Np, Pu, Cm, Am, Pm, Bk, Cf, Es, Fm, Md, No, Rf, Lr, Db, Sg, Bh.

I moved Na and K to 1702. Double sharp (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. personally I think that if we're going to credit anybody before Davy for Cl, then Paracelsus or at least Boyle deserve recognition for H, and Sendivogius for O. Of course, consistency is difficult to achieve in a time when the idea of what an element is was still being worked out. Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion to Discovery of chemical elements

Per this AfD discussion—looking at this article, I don't necessarily see why it needs to be a "timeline" article. There's certainly enough connective tissue to write a full prose article, and many of the entries are prose anyway. A question is whether this article should be kept and trimmed, or whether it should just be moved and reworked into a proper prose article. Thoughts? Remsense留 09:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A sizeable amount of prose is definitely necessary to make the entries clear. For example, what is meant by the discovery of Na and K? Finding compounds of them? In that case soda and potash were known since ancient times. Or is it necessary to distinguish them first? In that case Georg Ernst Stahl probably deserves credit for realising that there are two different kinds of alkali, but even decades later Lavoisier was still not sure enough to include Na and K as elements. Or is it necessary to actually isolate the metals? Then we have to wait for Humphry Davy to use electrolysis. So I think reworking into a prose article is the best possible solution. Double sharp (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of chemical element discoveries → Discovery of chemical elements – This is almost a prose article already, and I think there's enough connective material historically to simply make it one. See above. Remsense留 21:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject History of Science has been notified of this discussion. Remsense留 21:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Chemistry has been notified of this discussion. Remsense留 21:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1] Elementymology & Elements Multidict

[2] LANL

[3] Chemistry explained

[4] The Antimony Archive

[5] All manner of antimony, Nature

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]