Talk:Carbon

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)

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)

{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Carbon/1}}

Now this is interesting. https://www.ukri.org/news/uk-laser-creates-conditions-to-form-liquid-carbon-for-first-time/

I wonder if an editor may wish to incorporate this into the physical properties section the article. Triple-point reached.

Careful With That Axe, Eugene ^Hello... 13:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)