This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lists List‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList List This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Chemistry Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Elements Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. History of Science Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I added some elements/compunds from Image:Alchemy-Digby-RareSecrets.png, though I'm not sure if I put them in the right lists, any alchemy experts care to look over these? Thanks — Boffy b 10:27, 30 November 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add the symbols for the planets here? They're clearly related. — Ashley Y 02:56, 28 March 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added these for the "7 Planetary Metals." — Fourthgeek 05:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

all of the symbols are consistent with the symbols i've found in the tree of life. include some sort of connection somewhere with the ten sphered map of the tree of life, it would be helpful in any future research they have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.4.92.243 (talk) 08:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a page on astronomical symbols, a link to that page would be preferable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.55.81 (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've pretty much changed everything about this article from when I started. I'm still working to add more symbols. Comments welcome. — Fourthgeek 04:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great job! It was very helpful for my research. I couldn't see the Magnesium symbol very well. There is a big list of alchemical symbols at the following GIF: www.tekedo.com/Company/scheele2d.gif — Roie (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what sources were used to categorize the symbols for the Alechmical processes/ Zodiac section, and if there were any alternate symbols for the processes out there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.17.115.226 (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I may be only 13 but I love alcheny. It is so cool and intertaining. Some people think it is either satanic or retarted. But it isn't. I love the element of it, and it just bets my adrenilin pumpin. It is a great science to study and get excited about! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.139.215.199 (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The only thing that I see to be wrong in your paragraph is the simple fact that this isn't cool. Alchemy was meant to be serious because of the fact that it could become extremely harmful if the process wasn't in the correct order. This isn't FMA where you can come back with metal limbs and have special powers of some sort. So, please, don't attempt to do any experiments without someone who is licensed in this kind of area.

Well, it's actually a pseudo-science, or proto-science if you prefer. Not Satanic (whatever that means) of course. Most alchemists where Christians, Jews and Muslims in Europe and the Middle East and Buddhists, Taoists etc. in Asia. It was pretty stupid though--based upon a false understanding of the nature of matter. All that messing about with chemicals did lead to the eventual creation of the science known as chemistry (and black powder and Greek fire centuries before that), so alchemy wasn't a total waste of time. --McFarty 04:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)McFarty[reply]

I'm curious was the use of symbols during their studies (such as in their notes on how to perform experiments) so that no one else could understand them outside of those who already would have understand them and they could claim credit for whatever it was they were attempting to do, or was it due to persecution, or something entirely different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.158.143 (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um ... Actually, Alchemy wasn't really all that "stupid". The term "proto-science" is a good description (first time I've seen the term used; I like it). We all know you can't turn Lead into Gold without a nuclear reaction, but only because we've been told. Both are very similar: soft, metallic, exists in an unoxidized form. Even the other proto-science of Astrology (from wich came Astronomy) started with basic observations, such as the seasons getting colder when the big glowing thing in the sky didn't move as far across the sky (or various stars were in certain positions at certain times of day meant the monsoon season was coming). Those two proto-sciences only became psuedo-sciences when people continued at them despite the science being shown as flawed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.155.39 (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a symbol for carbon (or charcoal, etc)

Interesting there is one for Bismuth, which was not actually discovered until alchemy was mostly dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.238.59 (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: "Some modern alchemists consider the symbols for these planets to represent the radioactive metals Uranium, Neptunium and Plutonium, respectively"

This (to me) raises the question: There are modern alchemists? like me Communisthamster (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I mean, yes, but not in the same sense as there used to be back then. Since chemistry is so succesful there is no need for Alchemists. There is a market for the philosophy of Alchemists, though every single alchemical text is pretty unreliable. They all contradict each other, which makes (again) chemistry more apealing. The only "Alchemists" that exist today are the ones triying to sell their knoledge in 3 easy payments of 99.99, or the ones writting pretty inacurate esoterical texts.--142.68.53.38 (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many alchemical substances are missing that were represented by symbols, and nearly all variations of alchemic "products" represented by symbols are missing as well. Not to mention types of processes that are modified zodiac symbols, not the simple zodiac glyphs themselves. here are some process symbols. here too, more process symbols basic metals, some alternate metals, substances, (e.g. glass, substrate of copper), bismuth, magnesium, antimony, even platinum and here.. basic symbols. and those continued. also see here, some random more complex ones, even more. list of highly specific aspect symbology to more general alchemical concepts, and similar, small, difficult to make out, small example of symbols for processes, symbols meaning "at that time" or process resulting in 'red fire' etc, thumbnail of such, microcosm / macrocosm alchemic symbol. set of symbols, another set

Certainly, a work producing an exhaustive list exists on this subject that is likely better than what I have above from an internet search can be sourced. A book on the topic. This article has so much potential because so much more history is actually there than here currently displayed.

What we need are individuals to redraw and upload said images free of copyright violation from a comprehensive work on the subject. Nagelfar (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Character Map on Ubuntu says Unicode U+26A8 is ferrous iron sulfate (⚨), and unicode U+26A9 is Magnesium (⚩). This seems to differ slightly from what we've got up. 72.207.248.117 (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode changed those identities after people objected that they were wrong, and they found they didn't have any RS's for them. — kwami (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Unicode characters appear as rectangular boxes containing hexadecimal codes on my Firefox version 31 in Windows 8. On Opera they appear as blank boxes. The article page links to Help:Special characters but that does not help fix the problem, see Help talk:Special characters#Confusing and unhelpful. What is needed are clear working instructions that allow readers to display Unicode fonts on these pages. -84user (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What purpose does the table of miscellaneous symbols (underneath the table of Unicode alchemical symbols) serve? A few of them may be related to alchemy, but the majority of them aren't, so I don't understand why it's there. I just want to confirm if there's a reason before removing it. -- Joyful spherical creature (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's OK to remove them. They aren't sourced anywhere, and I'm pretty certain the protoscientific alchemists knew didn't know of lithium or magnesium. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading that the symbols for the seven planetary metals also had number and color meanings:

Saturn; Lead; Black; 1

Jupiter; Tin; Blue; Moon; Silver; White; 3

Mercury; Mercury; Violet; 4

Mars; Iron; Red; 5

Venus; Copper; Green; 6

Sun; Gold; Golden; 7

Is there any reliable source backing these connections up? I remember a connection to John Dee's The Hieroglyphic Monad (1564)--2606:A000:7D44:100:4577:8946:6B83:6C28 (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there have been several color associations, which don't all agree, but don't know the details. The ones you listed make sense, though: iron rusts to red, copper to green, and black fits with ponderousness. I don't know about Jupiter or Mercury, though. — kwami (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dee's The Hieroglyphic Monad is available at Archive.org here. Nothing leaps off the page in a quick scan. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed ⚩ as a supposed symbol for magnesium because it was unsourced. The identity appeared in Unicode 5 but was retracted by Unicode 6. I contacted Unicode to ask why, and they said that they didn't have a good source, as in the proposal to add the symbol to Unicode it was only sourced to a popular general account of symbols, and they now believe that author got it wrong. They removed the claim, along with several others, after they received objections by experts in the field, likely from the Newton Chymistry Project. — kwami (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retelling your personal off-WP conversation(s) is not WP:RS, it's WP:OR. One of the cites you removed, giving that very symbol, was in fact from "The Chymistry of Isaac Newton" Project's webpages at Indiana University ( http://chymistry.org resolves to https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton ): https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton/fonts/Alchemy%20Unicode%20Proposal---March%2031%202009.pdf

I had over four days earlier (05:03 15 April) asked you, at User talk:.Raven#Magnesium, "are you able to cite and link an RS of that retraction?" You never answered there. The above I take as your "No." – .Raven  ^.talk 02:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look up the current Unicode chart. No "magnesium". Look up that Newton Chymistry link. No "magnesium". If you don't like my personal anecdotes, then you can ask Unicode yourself, but meanwhile you don't have a single RS that this symbol means magnesium. And, given the hundreds of alchemical symbols out there, no reason to think this one would be notable even if it did.

And I still wonder about your second, apparently fake reference. Where in all that verbiage does it say that this symbol means 'magnesium'? — kwami (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: "Proposal for Alchemical Symbols in Unicode" by William R. Newman, John A. Walsh, Stacy Kowalczyk, Wallace E. Hooper, Tamara Lopez. Indiana University, March 6, 2009: https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton/fonts/Alchemy%20Unicode%20Proposal---March%2031%202009.pdf – page 11, character 26A9 (2nd from the bottom of the page): ⚩ — "= magnesium (alchemy and older chemistry)" — I had copied-and-pasted it from that PDF, and cited that PDF. You deleted it for "spurious sources". – .Raven  ^.talk 02:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I've pointed out to you multiple times, that's a reference to Unicode 5: it's an item in Table 1, "Existing Coverage of Alchemical Symbols in Unicode." Well, it's not existing coverage any more. — kwami (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

⚩ still produces ⚩. That's what I just typed now to get it. – .Raven  ^.talk 04:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are two references. The first one is a reference to Unicode 5; by Unicode 6, the identity of ⚩ as 'magnesium' had been retracted. (I contacted Unicode about this: see previous thread.) And, of course, Unicode definitions are not a RS for alchemy, only for Unicode. The second ref appears to be a smoke-screen, with no mention of the symbol. At best, it appears to be a tenuous OR chain trying to equate magnesium with magnesia. — kwami (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, kwami had also deleted another ref:

Cf. item 8, "Magnesia" in this chart from Reutter de Rosemont, Louis (1931). Histoire de la pharmacie a travers les ages [History of pharmacy through the ages] (in French). Paris: J. Peyronnet.

The "this chart" was, as it happens, the same chart kwami had added to the article. See that eighth item down. If it's not an RS, why did kwami add it?

Where, oh where, is kwami's RS for that claimed "retraction"? – .Raven  ^{.tal :k} 02:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That symbol might be a variant of <⚩>, I can't tell. But even if so, it's for "magnesia", not "magnesium". Those are two different things, as you know full well. As for the retraction, try here. (I expected you to be able to look up a Unicode character by yourself.) Come on, cut the BS. Where is there a single RS that <⚩> is the alchemical symbol for "magnesium"? — kwami (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you know full well, the pure metal magnesium was not isolated until 1808.

What alchemists had available to them was the salt, called "magnesia alba" – and you also removed those refs:

• Multhauf, Robert P. (1975-12-09). "A history of magnesia alba". Annals of Science. 33 (1976). Milton Park: Taylor & Francis: 197–200. doi:10.1080/00033797600200231. Retrieved 2023-04-14. By the time of Pliny (first century A.D.) 'magnesian earth' came in several varieties. He mentions five, one of them, called 'magnet', clearly being the celebrated lodestone; the others varied in color from black to white.... As for the material to which the name 'magnesia alba' ultimately became attached, it was a neglected residue of the process conventional in Europe from the 14th century for the production of saltpetre.

[RS; Leonardo da Vinci medal-winner, previously cited multiple times on en-WP.]

• Helmenstine, Anne Marie (2022-03-01). "Saltpeter or Potassium Nitrate Facts". ThoughtCo. Retrieved 2023-04-14. In 1270, Syrian chemist Hasan al-Rammah described a purification process for obtaining purified potassium nitrate from saltpeter. First, the saltpeter is boiled in a small amount of water and then reacted with potassium carbonate from wood ashes. This removes calcium and magnesium salts as precipitates, leaving a potassium nitrate solution. Evaporating the liquid yielded the chemical, which was used to make gunpowder.

[RS; this author has previously been cited over 60 times on en-WP.]

But these and Reutter de Rosemont (whose chart you posted ) are what you deleted as "spurious sources". – .Raven  ^.talk 03:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But you're not claiming that ⚩ is magnesia alba, you're claiming it's magnesium. And even if you were to change that to magnesia alba, you haven't provided a source for that either that I can see, just that a symbol which looks rather similar is reported to be "magnesia", which might be any of the five substances mentioned by Pliny for all we know. — kwami (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't follow the magnesia alba link, did you? First sentence: "Magnesium oxide (MgO), or magnesia, is a white hygroscopic solid mineral that occurs naturally as periclase and is a source of magnesium (see also oxide)."

Cf. Magnesia#Chemistry: • Magnesium oxide / [indented] • Periclase or magnesia, a natural mineral of magnesium oxide

If you had tried what Pliny would have called magnesia nigra, you'd have read: "In the 16th century, manganese dioxide was called manganesum (note the two Ns instead of one) by glassmakers, possibly as a corruption and concatenation of two words, since alchemists and glassmakers eventually had to differentiate a magnesia nigra (the black ore) from magnesia alba (a white ore, also from Magnesia, also useful in glassmaking). Michele Mercati called magnesia nigra manganesa, and finally the metal isolated from it became known as manganese (German: Mangan). The name magnesia eventually was then used to refer only to the white magnesia alba (magnesium oxide), which provided the name magnesium for the free element when it was isolated much later."

... Oh, but Wikipedia itself is not RS, so see the sources, like the one footnoted at the end of that last paragraph: Calvert, J. B. (24 January 2003). "Chromium and Manganese". Archived from the original on 31 December 2016. Retrieved 10 December 2022. — the relevant paragraph being the third one under the heading "The Metals and Their Properties".

More?

• Magnesia n. "(alchem.) ingredient of the philosophers' stone," s.v. Magnesia OED.

— Glossary at Harvard's Geoffrey Chaucer Website, Last modified: Nov 20, 2008 Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College

• mag·ne·sia / noun ᴄʜᴇᴍɪsᴛʀʏ / noun: magnesia / magnesium oxide. / • hydrated magnesium carbonate used as an antacid and laxative. / late Middle English (referring to a mineral said to be an ingredient of the philosopher's stone): via medieval Latin from Greek Magnēsia, denoting a mineral from Magnesia in Asia Minor.

— Oxford Dictionaries [provided by Google; try googling define magnesia]

• magnesia in American English / (mægˈniʒə ; mægniʃə ) / noun / 1. magnesium oxide, MgO, a white, tasteless powder, used as a mild laxative and antacid, and as an insulating substance, in firebrick, etc. / 2. hydrated magnesium carbonate, also used as a laxative / ModL magnesia (alba), lit., (white) magnesia....

— Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved.

• Magnesium, mag-nē′shi-um, or -si-um, n. a metal of a bright, silver-white colour, which while burning gives a dazzling white light, and forms magnesia.—n. Magnē′sia, a light white powder, got by burning magnesium, used as a medicine.

— Chambers's Twentieth-Century Dictionary (1908), Part 2 of 4, E–M

At a certain point, it becomes disingenuous to deny the term's referent. – .Raven  ^.talk 04:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity, changing the entry to:
"Magnesia (alba), source of later magnesium" – .Raven  ^.talk 05:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You still have no source for your claim. — kwami (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't read the Magnesium article, either: "The metal itself was first isolated by Sir Humphry Davy in England in 1808. He used electrolysis on a mixture of magnesia and mercuric oxide." *

 * Davy, H. (1808). "Electro-chemical researches on the decomposition of the earths; with observations on the metals obtained from the alkaline earths, and on the amalgam procured from ammonia". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. 98: 333–370. Bibcode:1808RSPT...98..333D. doi:10.1098/rstl.1808.0023. JSTOR 107302.

(Specifically, pp. 109-116, in the Collected Works version linked above, cover the extraction of the metal he calls "magnium" from – and its subsequent oxidation into – the white powdery material he calls "magnesia": [p. 115] "It sank rapidly in water, though surrounded by globules of gas, producing magnesia, and quickly changed in air, becoming covered with a white crust, and falling into a fine powder, which proved to be magnesia.")

Oxidized "magnium" (now "magnesium") is what material? (Bonus question: what gas were those "globules"?)

For modern industrial processes to extract magnesium from magnesium oxide (MgO), see Magnesium#Pidgeon process and Magnesium#YSZ process. – .Raven  ^.talk 08:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are all sources inline? Why not use footnoting ref? DePiep (talk) 09:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]