Talk:Carbon

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2023

change element 6 to Element Six Shinnigami0123 (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The only place Element 6 is mentioned is in the hat note. please clarify your edit request. RudolfRed (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

IS it possible to change Element 6 in the hat note to Element Six? Shinnigami0123 (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Shinnigami0123 The problem is that we have another article titled Element Six, for a company, while the hatnote is pointing out that Element 6 is a redirect to carbon. In fact, if you look at any article about elements, we tend to use the atomic number as digit(s) in the first sentence of the article. This is an exception to the common style of expressing numbers from 1 to 10 as words but is done for consistency. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2024

Half-life mentioned in the "Isotopes" section should be changed from 5730 years to 5700 years.

Reasoning: 5730 years is a historical value, with new sources indicating 5700 years, instead. The value of 5700 years can also be found in the list of isotopes in the InfoBox on the top of this page. Valentyn235 (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done: by using NUBASE 2020 as the source. –MadeOfAtoms (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Plural

H, C and O, if referring to hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen; should be pluralized as H's, C's, and O's (with apostrophes); as opposed to Hs, Cs, and Os (no apostrophes); to avoid confusion with Hs = hassium, Cs = cesium, and Os = osmium. The fact that hassium is an unstable, artificial element which has never been procured in macroscopic amounts, doesn't mean that clarity isn't compromised by the absence of said apostrophe. I remember, a chemistry book which was available online for free as a PDF, did said plurals without an apostrophe; which annoyed me. Solomonfromfinland (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria due to uncited statements throughout the article, including entire paragraphs. Is anyone interested in addressing this concern, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks like FA Oxygen has the same problem. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Carbon

The following discussion 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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Keep, all concerns has been addressed. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 13:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Wow the previous GAN had some serious issues. For example, the section about '... Although thermodynamically prone to oxidation, carbon resists oxidation more effectively than elements such as iron and copper, which are weaker reducing agents at room temperature.' got put in the review as uncited, but it never got resolved and passed anyways. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 01:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

It looks like the most egregious examples of missing references are in the Compounds and Applications sections. The "Precautions" section also seriously needs a hazard infobox and should be renamed to something else to reduce "how-to guide" implications. One more thing: there's no good reason for the levels of WP:SANDWICH going on under Applications. Though I can't dedicate much time to this until I finish other tasks (as Keresluna is probably well aware; sorry!!) -- Reconrabbit 18:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Still work being done, please hold. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 22:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Z1720: All statements are referenced and all the concerns above are addressed. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 02:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Keresluna: I added some citation needed tags in places where I think citaions are also required. Z1720 (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

One addressed. One removed as WP:CALC. Not sure how to reference the claim In German, Dutch and Danish, the names for carbon are Kohlenstoff, koolstof, and kulstof respectively, all literally meaning coal-substance. as Kohlen-stoff literally means Coal-substance in german and others similarly. Would this qualify has WP:OBV? Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 15:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Keresluna: WP:OBV is an essay, just like WP:NOTBLUE is an essay: neither is Wikipedia policy and guidelines (they might "represent widespread norms" while "others only represent minority viewpoints") so instead WP:V needs to be used to decide if it needs to be verified. I do not speak German, Dutch, or Danish, so I would not be able to verify that the information in this sentence is correct: since this statement can be challenged, it should be cited in my opinion. Z1720 (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Statement removed. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 21:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Z1720: Added statement back with references. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 21:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

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.