→Question re Afbau: new section |
→Question re Aufbau: apologies to YBG |
||
(46 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 130: | Line 130: | ||
|- |
|- |
||
| 49|| style="text-align:left" | 44 [[Barack Obama]] || style="text-align:left" | 47 [[Joe Biden]]|| style="text-align:center" | VEEP ||{{ayd|1942|11|20|1961|08|04}} ||-{{DATEDIFF|1942|11|20|1961|08|04}} || {{ayd|2009-01-20|2017-01-20}} || {{DATEDIFF|2009-01-20|2017-01-20}} || 2009-01-20 – 2017-01-20 || style="text-align:left" | inauguration – inauguration ||-{{#expr: {{DATEDIFF|1942|11|20|1961|08|04}} * {{DATEDIFF|2009|01|20|2017|01|20}} }} |
| 49|| style="text-align:left" | 44 [[Barack Obama]] || style="text-align:left" | 47 [[Joe Biden]]|| style="text-align:center" | VEEP ||{{ayd|1942|11|20|1961|08|04}} ||-{{DATEDIFF|1942|11|20|1961|08|04}} || {{ayd|2009-01-20|2017-01-20}} || {{DATEDIFF|2009-01-20|2017-01-20}} || 2009-01-20 – 2017-01-20 || style="text-align:left" | inauguration – inauguration ||-{{#expr: {{DATEDIFF|1942|11|20|1961|08|04}} * {{DATEDIFF|2009|01|20|2017|01|20}} }} |
||
|- |
|||
| colspan=11 | |
|||
|- |
|- |
||
| 50|| style="text-align:left" | 45 [[Donald Trump]] || style="text-align:left" | 48 [[Mike Pence]]|| style="text-align:center" | POTUS ||{{ayd|1946|06|14|1959|06|07}} ||{{DATEDIFF|1946|06|14|1959|06|07}} || {{red|{{ayd|2017-01-20|}}}} || {{red|{{DATEDIFF|2017-01-20|}}}} || style="text-align:left" | 2017-01-20 – {{nbsp}}''(present)'' || style="text-align:left" | inauguration – {{sort|f|''(present)'' }} || {{red|{{#expr: {{DATEDIFF|1946|06|14|1959|06|07}} * {{DATEDIFF|2017|01|20|}}}} }} |
| 50|| style="text-align:left" | 45 [[Donald Trump]] || style="text-align:left" | 48 [[Mike Pence]]|| style="text-align:center" | POTUS ||{{ayd|1946|06|14|1959|06|07}} ||{{DATEDIFF|1946|06|14|1959|06|07}} || {{red|{{ayd|2017-01-20|}}}} || {{red|{{DATEDIFF|2017-01-20|}}}} || style="text-align:left" | 2017-01-20 – {{nbsp}}''(present)'' || style="text-align:left" | inauguration – {{sort|f|''(present)'' }} || {{red|{{#expr: {{DATEDIFF|1946|06|14|1959|06|07}} * {{DATEDIFF|2017|01|20|}}}} }} |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| colspan=11 | |
|||
⚫ | | || colspan=2 style="text-align:center" | 26 older presidents || style="text-align:center" | POTUS || Total age difference || 97461 || Total time span ||{{red|{{#expr:36858+{{DATEDIFF|2017|01|20|}} }} }} || || || {{red|{{#expr: 141579103 + {{DATEDIFF|1946|06|14|1959|06|07}} * {{DATEDIFF|2017|01|20|}} }} }} |
||
|- |
|||
| || colspan=2 style="text-align:center" | 25 older presidents (thru Obama) || style="text-align:center" | POTUS || Total age difference || 97461 || Total time span || 36858 || || || 141579103 |
|||
|- |
|- |
||
| || colspan=2 style="text-align:center" | 24 older vice presidents || style="text-align:center" | VEEP || Total age difference || -65770 || Total time span ||32707 || || || -91120253 |
| || colspan=2 style="text-align:center" | 24 older vice presidents || style="text-align:center" | VEEP || Total age difference || -65770 || Total time span ||32707 || || || -91120253 |
||
|- |
|||
| || colspan=2 style="text-align:center" | 49 total partnerships (thru Obama) || style="text-align:center" | ALL || Total age difference || 31691 || Total time span ||{{#expr:32707+36858}} || || || {{#expr: -91120253 + 141579103 }} |
|||
|- |
|||
| colspan=11 | |
|||
|- |
|||
⚫ | | || colspan=2 style="text-align:center" | 26 older presidents || style="text-align:center" | POTUS || Total age difference || 97461 || Total time span ||{{red|{{#expr:36858+{{DATEDIFF|2017|01|20|}} }} }} || || || {{red|{{#expr: 141579103 + {{DATEDIFF|1946|06|14|1959|06|07}} * {{DATEDIFF|2017|01|20|}} }} }} |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| || colspan=2 style="text-align:center" | 50 total partnerships || style="text-align:center" | ALL || Total age difference || 31691 || Total time span ||{{red|{{#expr:32707+36858+{{DATEDIFF|2017|01|20|}} }} }} || || || {{red|{{#expr: -91120253 + 141579103 + {{DATEDIFF|1946|06|14|1959|06|07}} * {{DATEDIFF|2017|01|20|}} }} }} |
| || colspan=2 style="text-align:center" | 50 total partnerships || style="text-align:center" | ALL || Total age difference || 31691 || Total time span ||{{red|{{#expr:32707+36858+{{DATEDIFF|2017|01|20|}} }} }} || || || {{red|{{#expr: -91120253 + 141579103 + {{DATEDIFF|1946|06|14|1959|06|07}} * {{DATEDIFF|2017|01|20|}} }} }} |
||
|- |
|||
| colspan=11 | |
|||
|} |
|} |
||
Line 501: | Line 513: | ||
[[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG#top|talk]]) 04:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC) |
[[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG#top|talk]]) 04:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
== Question re |
== Question re Aufbau == |
||
{{yo|Sandbh}} I am discussing this in user space so that you can correct what is apparently a misunderstanding on my part without bothering the rest of the world. |
{{yo|Sandbh}} I am discussing this in user space so that you can correct what is apparently a misunderstanding on my part without bothering the rest of the world. |
||
My understanding of the [[ |
My understanding of the [[Aufbau principle]] or [[Madelung rule]] is that it predicts that the shells will be filled in this order: |
||
: 1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 4s, 3d, 4p, 5s, 4d, 5p, 6s, 4f, 5d, 6p, 7s, 5f, 6d, 7p, ... |
: 1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 4s, 3d, 4p, 5s, 4d, 5p, 6s, 4f, 5d, 6p, 7s, 5f, 6d, 7p, ... |
||
and that each subshell is filled completely before the next one is started. |
and that each subshell is filled completely before the next one is started. |
||
Line 530: | Line 542: | ||
<tt>ffffffffffffffddddddddddppppppss</tt> |
<tt>ffffffffffffffddddddddddppppppss</tt> |
||
<tt>ffffffffffffffddddddddddppppppss</tt> |
<tt>ffffffffffffffddddddddddppppppss</tt> |
||
This is what I meant by being more consistent with |
This is what I meant by being more consistent with Aufbau. |
||
Have I missed something? I know that Aufbau does not represent what is observed expirementally. But what I said was that Sc/Y/Lu is more consistent with Aufbau, not that it is more consistent with expiremental results. [[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG#top|talk]]) 09:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:Well, the aufbau rule has a regular pattern. It hasn’t been derived from first principles. Claims for such a derivation are made from time to time; none have been accepted. Scerri would otherwise be shouting such a derivation to the rooftops. So the fact that the Lu form corresponds to it whereas the La form requires a split d-block doesn’t mean anything fundamental. |
|||
:The aufbau rule does work well in the sense that every time it fails to predict the right configuration/s it always, inevitability, resumes making the right prediction at least until it fails the next time. |
|||
:That said, when used this way, the La version complies more closely to the aufbau rule than the Lu form. |
|||
:How do you see this? [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 12:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::{{yo|Sandbh}} I'm trying to understand your point of view here. Can you please explain to me what you mean by "this way"? Thank you. [[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG#top|talk]]) 06:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::I'll take it one step at a time. The aufbau rule is used to predict the electron configurations of the gas phase atoms. For example, Aufbau predicts La should have one f electron in its electron configuration. Thus it should be [Xe] 5f1 6s2. Whereas, in real life it is [Xe] 5d1 6s2. |
|||
::There are a couple of wrinkles to bear in mind. (1) Gas phase configurations aren't necessarily the same as the configurations of the atoms in their condensed or bonded states. (2) That said, gas phase configurations are relatively easy to measure. |
|||
::Are you with me so far? [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 08:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{yo|Sandbh}} OK, Aufbau predicts gas phase electron configuration, and (a) prediction is not always accurate, and (b) Gas-phase config not always the same as condensed config. [[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG#top|talk]]) 08:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::Mostly. Electron configurations were largely worked out first via spectroscopy. Aufbau was then “invented” or retrofitted onto the observations, and subsequently used to attempt to predict the configurations of then unknown atoms. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 10:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
I am not YBG, but I watch this talk page, and would be interested in getting a few things clarified from [[User:Sandbh]] about this latest reply of his. So I would like to ask him first if he is agreeable to that, and also to ask YBG if he is agreeable to me doing so here. [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 18:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:{{yo|Double sharp}} It am glad to have for you to have a discussion here, provided it is not a discussion that should a wider audience. But I would prefer for the present that this conversation be confined to what is helpful for me to understand Sandbh's point of view, which I do not yet comprehend. Thank you. [[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG#top|talk]]) 06:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{cot|premature off-topic discussion, contrary to my request [[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG#top|talk]]) 05:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)}} |
|||
::{{ping|YBG}} Ah, thank you. Since [[User:Sandbh]] has not yet agreed to it, I will not ask my question yet, but it would be simply about clarifying something he said in this thread. ^_^ [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 09:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{yo|Double sharp}} On my part, feel free to ask your question. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 21:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{ping|Sandbh}} Thank you. My question is: in your 12:13 post yesterday you say in the first paragraph "the Lu form corresponds to it whereas the La form requires a split d-block", although you then say it doesn't mean anything fundamental. But in the third paragraph you write "when used this way, the La version complies more closely to the aufbau rule than the Lu form." Is either one a mistake, or is it that you see the Aufbau as being used differently between the two cases? If it is the latter, what's the difference? [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 22:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{u|Double sharp}}, I will not attempt to answer for Sandbh, but if you have not read his published article (freely-available and linked from my talk page) then you perhaps should as it certainly explores some of what you are asking. For myself, I would note that I think there is a larger epistemological question (or maybe several) lurking under the surface of your question and other parts of the current discussions – one that I think is interesting but which I doubt is ready for WP (on DUE and OR grounds). Sandbh's article is delving into areas that are very much worth being explored in the literature to see if they influence scientific consensus... but unless there is a lot more out there than I am aware of (which is possible), I think there will need to be more work in the primary literature before we can make much use of (parts of) what Sandbh has written. [[User:EdChem|EdChem]] ([[User talk:EdChem|talk]]) 22:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{ping|EdChem}} Thank you. I've read through his article, but I confess I don't remember something addressing this question very clearly there, so I'm asking. Maybe it is there and I did not get it. |
|||
::::::Regarding epistemological questions, I do think there is something of that kind going on here and throughout the whole La vs Lu dispute, but that is from my personal experience arguing it out and so we definitely can't use it. I'm not aware of any RS saying it unfortunately, but it would definitely make an interesting topic to explore in the primary literature. But I'd rather not impose too much on YBG's talkpage given his comment earlier today, so if you want to talk a bit more about that, I'd rather do it on my or your talk page. [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 23:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{yo|Double sharp|EdChem}} Wow, it's been a busy morning between WP:ANI (Softlavdner reverted my revert, so now I have that to deal with as well); R8R's talk page; and now here. BTW it is good to see you here, EdChem. And it is nice to be able to talk about hard-core content. ^_^ |
|||
So, addressing Double sharp's interesting question first. |
|||
1. Here is an idealised Lu table: |
|||
ss |
|||
ss pppppp |
|||
ss pppppp |
|||
ss ddddddddddpppppp |
|||
ss ddddddddddpppppp |
|||
ssffffffffffffffddddddddddpppppp |
|||
ssffffffffffffffddddddddddpppppp |
|||
The Lu form corresponds to the aufbau rule. |
|||
2. Here is an idealised La table: |
|||
ss |
|||
ss pppppp |
|||
ss pppppp |
|||
ssd dddddddddpppppp |
|||
ssd dddddddddpppppp |
|||
ssdffffffffffffffdddddddddpppppp |
|||
ssdffffffffffffffdddddddddpppppp |
|||
The La form does not correspond to the aufbau rule, since it features a split d-block. |
|||
That said, the correspondence of the Lu form to aufbau does not meaning anything, since aufbau is simply a pattern, lacking any accepted ab initio derivation. Several authors claim to have achieved such a derivation; none of these claims have been accepted. |
|||
Now, let us set aside concerns about the basis of aufabu, and look at how it used in the literature, which is to predict the gas phase configurations of atoms. |
|||
The first thing about aufbau is that whenever it fails, it always resumes course sooner or later. So it is a curious kind of approximation. |
|||
The second thing about aufbau is that it's not a very good approximation since it yields about 20 errors up to the first 100 or so elements. |
|||
The third thing about aufbau is that if you look at its predictions for differnentiaing electrons (de), it is more accurate at predicting these for the La form than the Lu form. How bizarre is that?! But there you go. |
|||
A caveat with regard to de is that DS has raised an objection as to how these are worked out, in a few cases. I addressed this in my article, at note 1: |
|||
:"Sometimes the differentiating electron (d/e) is not immediately apparent. For example Z = 40 Zr is 4d<sup>2</sup>s<sup>2</sup> and Z = 41 Nb is 4d<sup>4</s<sup>1</sup>. Here the d/e seems to be d<sup>2</sup>s<sup>−1</sup>. In such cases the d/e is taken to be the newly added d-electron, rather than the s-electron that was already there (so to speak). |
|||
So, yes, as per my first paragraph, aufbau does not mean anything. That has not stopped some [[muggle]]s (by which I mean non WP-editors) saying Lu must be "it" since it corresponds with aufabu. And if we counter-factually assume it does mean something, it works better (as per my third paragraph) for the La form in any event! Muggles respond to the latter via [[Selective perception|perceptual filtering]]. Since it does not correspond to their world-view, they adopt the see no-evil, speak no-evil, hear no-evil approach. Very, very few muggles understand or aware of their subconscious perceptual filters nor that these are on auto-pilot. |
|||
DS, I hope this clarifies the sitation. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 01:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
'''Placeholder re EdChem's thoughts.''' [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 01:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{cob}} |
|||
{{yo|Double sharp|Sandbh}} Please take this conversation elsewhere. Apparently I was not clear enough. I wanted this thread to be reserved, only about my trying to understand Sandbh, and was hoping that until that was accomplished, it would not be cluttered with other things that distracted from that purpose. Apparently I was not clear enough for either of you to understand that. [[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG#top|talk]]) 04:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{yo|Double sharp|Sandbh}} ... Unless you are willing to wait until I have reached an understanding of Sandbh's point of view. [[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG#top|talk]]) 05:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm more than happy to wait. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 06:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::No problem with me either, and my apologies for misunderstanding you. [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 08:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::My apologies as well, YBG... I did not understand what you wanted. As this is your user talk page, you are free to direct the discussion. [[User:EdChem|EdChem]] ([[User talk:EdChem|talk]]) 10:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:37, 27 October 2020
You may {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 5
as User talk:YBG/Archive 4 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
Age difference between U.S. presidents and their vice presidents
Table
Partnership, president, and vice president | Older | Age difference | Time span years, days days starting – ending |
Starting & ending events | days2 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P/V | years, days | ±d | ||||||||
1 | George Washington | 1John Adams | 1POTUS | 3 years, 250 days | 1346 | 7 years, 317 days | 2,874 | 1789-04-21 – 1797-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | 3868404 |
2 | John Adams | 2Thomas Jefferson | 2POTUS | 7 years, 165 days | 2722 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,460 | 1797-03-04 – 1801-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | 3974120 |
3 | Thomas Jefferson | 3Aaron Burr | 3POTUS | 12 years, 299 days | 4682 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1801-03-04 – 1805-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | 6840402 |
4 | George Clinton | 4VEEP | 3 years, 261 days | -1357 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1805-03-04 – 1809-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | -1982577 | |
5 | James Madison | 4VEEP | 11 years, 233 days | -4251 | 3 years, 47 days | 1,143 | 1809-03-04 – 1812-04-20 | inauguration – death of VP | -4858893 | |
6 | Elbridge Gerry | 5VEEP | 6 years, 242 days | -2433 | 1 year, 264 days | 629 | 1813-03-04 – 1814-11-23 | inauguration – death of VP | -1530357 | |
7 | James Monroe | 5Daniel D. Tompkins | 6POTUS | 16 years, 54 days | 5898 | 8 years, 0 days | 2,922 | 1817-03-04 – 1825-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | 17233956 |
8 | John Quincy Adams | 6John C. Calhoun | 7POTUS | 14 years, 250 days | 5364 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1825-03-04 – 1829-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | 7836804 |
9 | Andrew Jackson | 7POTUS | 15 years, 3 days | 5482 | 3 years, 299 days | 1,395 | 1829-03-04 – 1832-12-28 | inauguration – resignation of VP | 7647390 | |
10 | Martin Van Buren | 8POTUS | 15 years, 265 days | 5744 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1833-03-04 – 1837-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | 8391984 | |
11 | Martin Van Buren | 8Richard M. Johnson | 9VEEP | 2 years, 49 days | -779 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1837-03-04 – 1841-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | -1138119 |
12 | William Henry Harrison | 910 John Tyler | POTUS | 17 years, 48 days | 6257 | 31 days | 31 | 1841-03-04 – 1841-04-04 | inauguration – death of POTUS | 193967 |
13 | 11 James K. Polk | 11 George M. Dallas | VEEP | 3 years, 115 days | -1210 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1845-03-04 – 1849-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | -1767810 |
14 | 12 Zachary Taylor | 12 Millard Fillmore | POTUS | 15 years, 44 days | 5522 | 1 year, 127 days | 492 | 1849-03-04 – 1850-07-09 | inauguration – death of POTUS | 2716824 |
15 | 14 Franklin Pierce | 13 William R. King | VEEP | 18 years, 230 days | -6804 | 45 days | 45 | 1853-03-04 – 1853-04-18 | inauguration – death of VP | -306180 |
16 | 15 James Buchanan | 14 John C. Breckinridge | POTUS | 29 years, 268 days | 10860 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1857-03-04 – 1861-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | 15866460 |
17 | 16 Abraham Lincoln | 15 Hannibal Hamlin | POTUS | 196 days | 196 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1861-03-04 – 1865-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | 286356 |
18 | 16 Andrew Johnson | VEEP | 45 days | -45 | 42 days | 42 | 1865-03-04 – 1865-04-15 | inauguration – assassination | -1890 | |
19 | 18 Ulysses S. Grant | 17 Schuyler Colfax | POTUS | 330 days | 330 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1869-03-04 – 1873-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | 482130 |
20 | 18 Henry Wilson | VEEP | 10 years, 70 days | -3723 | 2 years, 263 days | 993 | 1873-03-04 – 1875-11-22 | inauguration – death of VP | -3696939 | |
21 | 19 Rutherford B. Hayes | 19 William A. Wheeler | VEEP | 3 years, 96 days | -1192 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1877-03-04 – 1881-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | -1741512 |
22 | 20 James A. Garfield | 20 Chester A. Arthur | VEEP | 2 years, 45 days | -775 | 199 days | 199 | 1881-03-04 – 1881-09-19 | inauguration – assassination | -154225 |
23 | 22 Grover Cleveland | 21 Thomas A. Hendricks | VEEP | 17 years, 192 days | -6402 | 266 days | 266 | 1885-03-04 – 1885-11-25 | inauguration – death of VP | -1702932 |
24 | 23 Benjamin Harrison | 22 Levi P. Morton | VEEP | 9 years, 96 days | -3383 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1889-03-04 – 1893-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | -4942563 |
25 | 24 Grover Cleveland | 23 Adlai Stevenson I | VEEP | 1 year, 146 days | -512 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1893-03-04 – 1897-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | -748032 |
26 | 25 William McKinley | 24 Garret Hobart | POTUS | 1 year, 126 days | 491 | 2 years, 262 days | 992 | 1897-03-04 – 1899-11-21 | inauguration – death of VP | 487072 |
27 | 25 Theodore Roosevelt | POTUS | 15 years, 271 days | 5750 | 194 days | 194 | 1901-03-04 – 1901-09-14 | inauguration – assassination | 1115500 | |
28 | 26 Theodore Roosevelt | 26 Charles W. Fairbanks | VEEP | 6 years, 169 days | -2360 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1905-03-04 – 1909-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | -3447960 |
29 | 27 William Howard Taft | 27 James S. Sherman | VEEP | 1 year, 326 days | -692 | 3 years, 240 days | 1,336 | 1909-03-04 – 1912-10-30 | inauguration – death of VP | -924512 |
30 | 28 Woodrow Wilson | 28 Thomas R. Marshall | VEEP | 2 years, 289 days | -1020 | 8 years, 0 days | 2,922 | 1913-03-04 – 1921-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | -2980440 |
31 | 29 Warren G. Harding | 29 Calvin Coolidge | POTUS | 6 years, 245 days | 2436 | 2 years, 151 days | 881 | 1921-03-04 – 1923-08-02 | inauguration – death of POTUS | 2146116 |
32 | 30 Calvin Coolidge | 30 Charles G. Dawes | VEEP | 6 years, 312 days | -2503 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1925-03-04 – 1929-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | -3656883 |
33 | 31 Herbert Hoover | 31 Charles Curtis | VEEP | 14 years, 197 days | -5311 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1929-03-04 – 1933-03-04 | inauguration – inauguration | -7759371 |
34 | 32 Franklin D. Roosevelt | 32 John N. Garner | VEEP | 13 years, 69 days | -4817 | 7 years, 322 days | 2,879 | 1933-03-04 – 1941-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | -13868143 |
35 | 33 Henry A. Wallace | POTUS | 6 years, 251 days | 2442 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1941-01-20 – 1945-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | 3567762 | |
36 | 34 Harry S. Truman | POTUS | 2 years, 99 days | 829 | 82 days | 82 | 1945-01-20 – 1945-04-12 | inauguration – death of POTUS | 67978 | |
37 | 33 Harry S. Truman | 35 Alben W. Barkley | VEEP | 6 years, 166 days | -2357 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1949-01-20 – 1953-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | -3443577 |
38 | 34 Dwight D. Eisenhower | 36 Richard Nixon | POTUS | 22 years, 87 days | 8122 | 8 years, 0 days | 2,922 | 1953-01-20 – 1961-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | 23732484 |
39 | 35 John F. Kennedy | 37 Lyndon B. Johnson | VEEP | 8 years, 275 days | -3197 | 2 years, 306 days | 1,036 | 1961-01-20 – 1963-11-22 | inauguration – assassination | -3312092 |
40 | 36 Lyndon B. Johnson | 38 Hubert Humphrey | POTUS | 2 years, 273 days | 1003 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1965-01-20 – 1969-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | 1465383 |
41 | 37 Richard Nixon | 39 Spiro Agnew | POTUS | 5 years, 304 days | 2130 | 4 years, 320 days | 1,781 | 1969-01-20 – 1973-12-06 | inauguration – resignation of VP | 3793530 |
42 | 40 Gerald Ford | POTUS | 186 days | 186 | 1 year, 13 days | 378 | 1973-12-06 – 1974-12-19 | confirmation of VP – resignation of POTUS | 70308 | |
43 | 38 Gerald Ford | 41 Nelson Rockefeller | VEEP | 5 years, 6 days | -1832 | 2 years, 32 days | 763 | 1974-12-19 – 1977-01-20 | confirmation of VP – inauguration | -1397816 |
44 | 39 Jimmy Carter | 42 Walter Mondale | POTUS | 3 years, 96 days | 1191 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1977-01-20 – 1981-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | 1740051 |
45 | 40 Ronald Reagan | 43 George H. W. Bush | POTUS | 13 years, 127 days | 4875 | 8 years, 0 days | 2,922 | 1981-01-20 – 1989-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | 14244750 |
46 | 41 George H. W. Bush | 44 Dan Quayle | POTUS | 22 years, 237 days | 8272 | 4 years, 0 days | 1,461 | 1989-01-20 – 1993-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | 12085392 |
47 | 42 Bill Clinton | 45 Al Gore | POTUS | 1 year, 225 days | 590 | 8 years, 0 days | 2,922 | 1993-01-20 – 2001-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | 1723980 |
48 | 43 George W. Bush | 46 Dick Cheney | VEEP | 5 years, 157 days | -1983 | 8 years, 0 days | 2,922 | 2001-01-20 – 2009-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | -5794326 |
49 | 44 Barack Obama | 47 Joe Biden | VEEP | 18 years, 257 days | -6832 | 8 years, 0 days | 2,922 | 2009-01-20 – 2017-01-20 | inauguration – inauguration | -19963104 |
50 | 45 Donald Trump | 48 Mike Pence | POTUS | 12 years, 358 days | 4741 | 7 years, 124 days | 2,680 | 2017-01-20 – (present) | inauguration – (present) | 12705880 |
25 older presidents (thru Obama) | POTUS | Total age difference | 97461 | Total time span | 36858 | 141579103 | ||||
24 older vice presidents | VEEP | Total age difference | -65770 | Total time span | 32707 | -91120253 | ||||
49 total partnerships (thru Obama) | ALL | Total age difference | 31691 | Total time span | 69565 | 50458850 | ||||
26 older presidents | POTUS | Total age difference | 97461 | Total time span | 39538 | 154284983 | ||||
50 total partnerships | ALL | Total age difference | 31691 | Total time span | 72245 | 63164730 | ||||
Comments
I made this primarily for my own benefit, to validate my gut reaction that the President is usually older than the VP - Obama/Biden notwithstanding. But the data actually shows the 50 "partnerships" are split almost exactly evenly: 26 presidents are older than their VP and 24 are younger. Omitted from the above chart are instances when the vice-presidency was vacant. YBG (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- On average, the president is slightly older than the VP, and the difference is decreasing slightly over time. Haven't checked the weighted average yet. YBG (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- The 26 older presidents are older by an average of 3,748.5 days (97461/26); the 24 younger are younger by average of 2740.4 days (65770/24); in the average partnership, the president is older by 633.8 days (31691/50). The weighted averages are 3854.4 days (144177171 days2/37406 days), 2786.0 days (91120253 days2/32707 days), and 756.7 days (53056918 days2/70113 days) respectively. YBG (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Here's the data presented tabularly:
Average number of days the U.S. president is older than his vice-president
As of May 23, 2024, 2680 days into the Trump/Pence partnership.
(red values update automatically every day)Count Average difference Weighted average difference n ∑ [POTUS BD]–[VP BD]
n∑ ([POTUS BD]–[VP BD]) × ([End Day]–[Start Day])
∑ [End Day]–[Start Day]Presidents older than VP 26 3748.5 97461
263902.19 154284983
39538141579103 + 2680×4741
36858 + 2680VPs older than president 24 -2740.42 -65770
24-2785.96 -91120253
32707 -91120253 + 0×4741
32707 + 0All partnerships 50 633.82 31691
50874.31 63164730
722452680×4741 50458850 +
69565 + 2680
YBG (talk) 06:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Ex officio
- The following is in response to the comment that I made on JTRH's talkpage. YBG (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
The Vice President is not "ex officio" the President of the Senate. The Vice President is the President of the Senate. No modifier is necessary. Best, JTRH (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- @JTRH: It sounds like you are using "ex officio" as though if someone holds a position "ex officio" it somehow means they are occupying the position unofficially or temporarily. The President of France is one of the two co-princes of Andorra. To say that he is a prince "ex officio" does not take away from him being a prince, it merely makes a statement about why he is prince. In the same way, the VP is President of the Senate ex officio because he holds that presidency for no other reason than that he is the He is the VP. That is what the wiktionary article means. YBG (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Ex officio means you do Y as a function of doing X. It's not a necessary modifier or qualification for the Vice President. "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate" is not "ex officio," that's his primary Constitutional responsibility. The term is unnecessary in this case. It's no more necessary than saying the President is "ex officio" Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. JTRH (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- @JTRH: It sounds like you are using "ex officio" as though if someone holds a position "ex officio" it somehow means they are occupying the position unofficially or temporarily. The President of France is one of the two co-princes of Andorra. To say that he is a prince "ex officio" does not take away from him being a prince, it merely makes a statement about why he is prince. In the same way, the VP is President of the Senate ex officio because he holds that presidency for no other reason than that he is the He is the VP. That is what the wiktionary article means. YBG (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Living Prime Ministers of Australia
Why did my account get randomly blocked with no warning? I had to make this account to see what happened. I have no affiliation with that sock puppet account. All of my work has been deleted. I spent hours on that. :( LR.2004 (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- 1st of all, take a deep breath. All is not lost, your work can be resurrected. In a few days or weeks, when I have more time, I will make the appropriate requests to get your work on this template restored.
- 2nd, this might be a good time to take a wikibreak and concentrate on your off-wiki life. I have begun a habit of doing this once a year for a month or so, and it has helped significantly in improving my life, both on-wiki and off-wiki.
- 3rd, please assume good faith on the part of the person who blocked you and deleted your work. Fighting against unconstructive editing on WP is a tireless and often thankless job. We should be grateful for those who do this work, even with the occasional overzealous actions.
- Since I do not have access to any special administrative or investigative powers, I can only guess why your account was blocked and your work deleted. But I can assure you that it was not random and not capricious.
- I suspect that you are editing from a shared IP address which has been used for unconstructive editing. Sometimes under these circumstances, not only do specific registered users get blocked, but also an IP address or address range can be blocked. It appears that multiple accounts have been used to make similar edits from the same IP address or address range, and a sock puppet investigator concluded that these multiple accounts are being used by the same individual in violation of wikipedia policies, which are quite strict about about enforcing the very limited circumstances under which it is permissible for a user to use multiple accounts.
- It looks like previously blocked accounts have been used to edit articles about Australian politicians and railroads. Some of your edits seem to match this profile. This could be for a number of reasons - maybe you are the same individual, maybe you belong to a school or club where lots of people have similar interests, maybe you left your account logged in on a public computer. It may even be that you have made unconstructive edits in the past, but have now decided that you prefer making constructive edits.
- Whatever the case may be, I really appreciated your effort to create a living Aussie PM template, and enjoyed collaborating with you.
- I hope this setback does not discourage you. I encourage you to continue gathering the information needed for this template. When it is complete, you could send it to me using the "Email this user" feature, described at Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Collaborating with other editors/Communicating with your fellow editors § Email. Then when I get around to restoring the work you have already done, I can complete your work if you are not able to.
- I welcome further interaction, either on-wiki or off-wiki. Thank you again for all your hard work. YBG (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah. I don't Wiki that much, but when I saw your awesome template I really wanted to make my own version for Australia. I haven't vandalised anything and I was just really bummed that all my hard work has been lost. I make constructive edits as evidenced by everything I have done, and I really hope there is a way to recover that page, so I can finish the job off! Thanks for your kindness, not many people on Wiki seem to have any social skills, other than banning it seems. Hahaha. LR.2004 (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Living Vice Presidents
Your use of negative indices for the deaths on {{Living vice presidents of the United States}} causes an error; when the parameter is "4", the box links to George Clinton (vice president), but when it is "-4" it incorrectly links to George Clinton. By the way, kudos on your mention of "ease of editing" in the template documentation; it shows you have a great sense of humor! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- @R'n'B: Thanks! I will fix it immediately. I'm in the process of revamping the templates, but it does take a bit of time. YBG (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- Oops, I see you already made the necessary change! Thanks. By the way, I was actually serious in my comment about ease in editing. I do recognize that it a bit opaque, but I think when I get finished with my next batch of changes I hope you'll agree it is less so. YBG (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Periodic table
Please do not undo again; links are never put in bold on Wikipedia. IWI (chat) 20:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- @ImprovedWikiImprovment: Thank you for reaching out to me here. Your 2nd edit summary (
MOS:BOLDAVOID links never put in bold. No discussion required)
) made much more sense than your 1st one (MOS:LEADSENTENCE
), which didn't seem to apply. Much as I am a big fan the WP:BRD and generally dislike discussion via edit summaries, your explanation was succinct and to the point, and the linked policy clearly explained the situation. Many thanks and happy editing. YBG (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Living presidents of the United States
Template:Living presidents of the United States has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Living vice presidents of the United States
Template:Living vice presidents of the United States has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
presidents by age
your last edit doesn't seem to have changed anything עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- @AmYisroelChai: Try it now. YBG (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- still don't see a difference what color are you trying to put in עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- @AmYisroelChai: I'm using
|style="background:#eeeeff;"
, which is a light purplish color. If the color isn't working, feel free to try a bolder color. Alternately, the problem could be that there is also a row style and it might be that on your browser the row style overrules the cell style. Do you see a color in the legend at the bottom of the table? YBG (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)- i see you're right my computer doesn't show a difference but i see it on my phone עם ישראל חי (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- @AmYisroelChai: Try removing the row style on the |- line and see if that makes a difference on your computer. I'm still wondering if it is the color or the interaction between the row-style and the cell-style. YBG (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- didn't do anything not sure why that line was there עם ישראל חי (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- @AmYisroelChai: That being the case, it probably is just the color. Anyway, its a moot point now that Drdpw has reverted it all. YBG (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- @AmYisroelChai: P.S., happy 2nd "C" anniversary, whatever that is. YBG (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- didn't do anything not sure why that line was there עם ישראל חי (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- @AmYisroelChai: Try removing the row style on the |- line and see if that makes a difference on your computer. I'm still wondering if it is the color or the interaction between the row-style and the cell-style. YBG (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- i see you're right my computer doesn't show a difference but i see it on my phone עם ישראל חי (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- @AmYisroelChai: I'm using
- still don't see a difference what color are you trying to put in עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Periodic table categories in plural
Could you take a good look are the proposal text in User:DePiep/sandbox2? Should be convincingly strong, but it's long too. Edit if you want to.-DePiep (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with all of your proposed change-to-plural articles. I would be inclined to change more things, however, including "nonmetals" and "metalloids" because these words are in fact used predominately as classes. The metal article stays put because that article is not about the class of but only because that article is used more frequently in common English as a mass noun (a bridge made of metal, a metal cabinet) and not referring to the specific class of ~90 elements. Metalloid and nonmetal, however, are used predominately as class names, although there are exceptions, e.g., see User talk:YBG/Archive 4 § Re nonmetals.
- I would also be inclined to change the name of the other named groups, e.g., halogens, pnictogens, calcogens, noble gases, etc. But I'd be fine with changing the most uncontroversial ones now and leave those that need more thought for a later time. So I suppose this is a plea to write the proposal in such a way that it does not categorically state that other things should not be changed.
- By the way, regarding the previous suggestion to change group/period article titles (Talk:Group 3 element § Requested move), I think I now agree 100% with the proposal that I rejected then.
- YBG (talk) 06:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- I wrote "Should be convincingly strong" for two reasons. First is that the concept of class (class (disambiguation), most of these concepts, but I'd pick class (set theory) first). What went wrong in Talk:Group 3 element#Requested move (2013) is that such a discussion cannot enforce !voters to understand and then apply the concept. Then, the closing admin turns to some ""vote counting" when enough people wrote "but I've seen it used in singular once".
- Background: Asking the test question "Is instance of [class]?" (popularly: "Is a ... ?") is called "orthography (of Wikidata)". It is applied thoroughly in Wikidata to determine whether a Wikidata-item (QID) is member of a certain class. The property appears as "Instance of [class]" (instance of (P31)). For example chemical element (Q11344) had :d:this discussion. At the moment, all elements are "Instance of chemical element", not
part of (P361)(e.g., carbon (Q623)). - So I want the discussion to only be about this is-instance-of-class, not "
is part of item". - Second, keep this focussed on not being a list but classes. Not introducing distractions. I stroke all dual use titles (metal/s, pnictogen/s, period 1 element/s). Groups and periods are class: may follow later. Enwiki categories first.
- How to proceed?
- About "metalloids, nonmetals": sure these are border cases, I left them out because of distraction (next to "metal"). We could put them in, if strong enough (I don't want the proposal to fail because of such detail discusissions, but maybe these are not details just main causes too).
- The proposed text may be too long. What can we cut? Add Red Book as an argument not nom text?
- Introduce groups like pnictogens (already in the Red Book): same question, can we keep this to class plurals? Would shift away from "categories".
- Major issue: shouldn't we make this a WP:ELEMENTS guideline first to discuss: "Predominantly class = plural (in titles and in body texts)"? -DePiep (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- See, this is what we are up against. People who do not know or explore the concept of "class", and still do !vote. Same as in 2013. -DePiep (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- What would be the chances when we throw both steps in one formal proposal (as a WP:ELEM GUIDELINE): "article names & legend texts are plural, with exceptions: metal, sentencing 'sodium is an alkali metal'"? Too complicated? -DePiep (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- @DePiep: A few random comments - probably not exhausting what you've written.
- Where you say
Asking the test question ...
left me wondering what is the "test question" that one would ask? It sounds like you're talking about something like "Does ____ have hair?" as a test question to determine whether something is a mammal, or "Does it make sense to say 'Here are 33 _____s" to determine whether a thing is a count noun or a mass noun - I looked at a couple of the WikiData discussions you posted and read a screenful or so and gave up.
- I've completely missed the point where you talk about orthography. I've always thought of that term as having to do with writing systems, not with classification systems.
- A minor nit:
- You write: So I want the discussion to only be about this is-instance-of-class, not "
is part of item". - IMO better: So I want the discussion to only be about this is-instance-of-class, not "
is-part-of-collection".
- You write: So I want the discussion to only be about this is-instance-of-class, not "
- You write
The proposed text may be too long
, but I'm not sure what all is included in "the proposed text". - I'm not sure what the difference is between "class" and "category".
- I like the idea of WP:ELEM/Guidelines. But it might not be the best thing to have as a first guideline.
- Over the course of years of discussion, there are in all likelihood a number of guidelines that we've informally established, but never recorded. It would be good to document such already-informally-established guidelines on a single page.
- The proposed guideline should read "Classes of elements should should be rendered in the plural in legend text and article titles."
- I'm not sure whether it would be better to go for the big-bang approach of putting both steps into a single proposal or to go the more incremental fashion.
- Where you say
- YBG (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- @DePiep: A few random comments - probably not exhausting what you've written.
- What would be the chances when we throw both steps in one formal proposal (as a WP:ELEM GUIDELINE): "article names & legend texts are plural, with exceptions: metal, sentencing 'sodium is an alkali metal'"? Too complicated? -DePiep (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- How to proceed?
- replies:
- re "Orthography": yes, is used to describe a language. The "mass noun check" you mention is part of orthograpy too indeed.
And is also used in Wikidata to describe a data structure (for example: a "chemical element" is a class of isotopes or a "material appearance"? -- gold book says both BTW). That is what these difficult discussions are about. (I left them too, as you did). I mention this, because it is the Wikidata-philosophers way to check "is it a class or an object?". And: "Sodium is an instance of [class] alkali metal(s)"? (or: "Sodium is an alkali metal?")
- I think our categories, when approached like this (asking the right questions), are a class definitely. Therefor plural at enwiki (not in Wikidata!).
- Yes should be about [not]
is part of collectionOK. - "Proposed text too long": may be disracting. For the formal proposal, I will reduce the list-clarification (why are some in/out).
- 'difference between "class" and "category"'?: category=what enwiki uses for our nine metallishness sets, "class"=the generic word.
- WP:ELEM/Guidelines: as you say. Later.
- OK I will include metalloid/s and nonmetal/s, but not metal/s.
- Will ask Sandbh to reconsider, and refine the proposal. You can edit my sandbox2 if you want to. -DePiep (talk) 10:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- All sounds good except I'm still puzzled by the use of the word "orthography". The lede in Orthography says (with emphasis added)
An orthography is a set of conventions for writing a language. It includes norms of spelling, hyphenation, capitalization, word breaks, emphasis, and punctuation.
- wikt:orthography gives four definitions:
The study of correct spelling according to established usage.
The aspect of language study concerned with letters and their sequences in words.
Spelling; the method of representing a language or the sounds of language by written symbols.
(architecture) Orthographic projection; especially its use to draw an elevation, vertical projection etc. of a building.
- As none of these seem to be aligned with what you are talking about, perhaps WikiData uses the term in other less-standard manner that hasn't been added to wiktionary. YBG (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- @DePiep: PS, I really love the phrase
our nine metallishness sets
YBG (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC) - Yet another point. If we are using the red book as an authority, we should probably move rare-earth element to rare earth metals. This, however, should probably be treated as a completely separate issue. It does, however, make the citation of the red book seem a bit less authoritative. YBG (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- All sounds good except I'm still puzzled by the use of the word "orthography". The lede in Orthography says (with emphasis added)
A pause
I hope you are OK. Would like to see you back here. Do spend all time well, especially with people nearby. -DePiep (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
xref to
Hard to select namespaces suggestion at MediaWiki. YBG (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
ox state checks
I hope current Template:List of oxidation states of the elements/datacheck( talk links history) is useful & OK. Happy to get your ideas. -DePiep (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- Wow!! You did way more than I was thinking about. Great work! YBG (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
- Hi YBG! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 21:13, Tuesday, October 22, 2019 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Book:Living officeholders
Book:Living officeholders, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:Living officeholders and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Book:Living officeholders during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Deleted upon my request, see my comments. YBG (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Indigenous peoples of the North American Southwest
Your edit on Indigenous peoples of the North American Southwest should be undone. It is factually inaccurate to have modern-day borders on a map of what things looked like in 1350 CE because those borders and places did not exist back then. They are completely separate. There is nothing helpful about including the lines people draw on maps today just because some people don't like when they're not there. Myrhonon (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- You are correct that it would be factually inaccurate to claim that modern borders existed centuries ago. But they provide context to the reader who might wonder, "Hey, I live in northwest New Mexico. Which peoples lived here long ago?". I believe it is contextually obvious that the map does not claim that those borders existed back then, but nevertheless, I have added a clarifying comment to the caption: "with modern borders to provide geographical context".
- I also edited the lede sentence for clarity, but before and after my edit it refers to "the current states of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Nevada in the western United States, and the states of Sonora and Chihuahua in northern Mexico." YBG (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello! If you recall that, a few months ago, I promised to write you a big letter of my impressions. I'll send it to you now; I'll greatly appreciate it if you briefly let me know you have received and/or read it, even if you won't be able to write a reply right away or will not choose to do it at all. If you haven't received it, please write to me so I can send you wherever you tell me to. Thanks--R8R (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi! A while ago, yourself, ComplexRational, and I agreed we would work on History of the periodic table to bring it to the FA status. I'm trying to write my ideas on that article's talk page from time to time to make sure ComplexRational understands what I'm doing, and I generally have similar expectations from him. You also wanted to take it on, so you could voice your comments on our little topics of discussion, read some interesting literature on the topic (I could give you a few pointers if you're interested), or write with us. ComplexRational wrote a good basis article; I'm now trying to fill it with details on some aspects, and ComplexRational will probably join me in filling in those details soon. So if you want to join, now's a great time!--R8R (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Periodic table".The discussion is about the topic Periodic table.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
--Double sharp (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Note to self
- This might qualify as being a "non groupic" PT, but certainly that cannot be said of "our" OT. (See special:diff/973773980) YBG (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Since you liked DA's PT...
...you may like User:Double sharp/Teaching periodicity. It also has a periodic table colouring electronegativity as a gradient from red to violet (hopefully pretty) as well as one dividing only by blocks and metallicity (with an explanation as to why I prefer that). Not proposing it for WP, just thought you might be interested. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
And just a little thought
Supposing we:
- Unified AM and AEM;
- Unified Ln and An;
- Reunited group 12 with the rest of the d block as TM (because they use their d orbitals for chemistry);
- Renamed AM+AEM to "s-block metals", Ln+An = ITM to "f-block metals", TM to "d-block metals", and PTM to "p-block metals" (because that's what they would be and it'd be a consistent name set);
- Annexed metalloids to nonmetals, because anything that isn't a metal must be a nonmetal (except Sb which conducts electricity like a metal in its only stable form);
- Unified all nonmetals, because the "17" and "18" atop the F and Ne groups already tell us what "halogen" and "noble gas" do;
- Distinguished H and He as the only nonmetals in the s rather than the p block (which makes a difference because they're the only ones with so few outer electrons);
we'd have exactly my favourite User:Double sharp/Periodic Table, with the exception of helium still over neon. Only seven categories! XD Double sharp (talk) 11:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Double sharp: That leads me in this direction (obviously, we'd need to add some more colors):
Legend option 1 Legend option 2 12 2 metals & nonmetals in the s-block 12 2 s-block metals & nonmetals 15 6 15 metals, metalloids & nonmetals in the p-block 15 6 15 p-block metals, metalloids & nonmetals 40 28 metals in the d- and f- blocks 40 28 d-block & f-block (all metals)
- The biggest disadvantage to this of this scheme that a number of terms that are generally used in the literature are missing. However,
- Many of these terms are included in group names and can continue to exist quite well without the status symbol of being artificially promoted by enwiki into categories
- No matter what category scheme we select, we will leave out many perfectly-good frequently-used collective names. Who are we to decide which ones to elevate to prominence?
- We need some other better scheme to take note of the many names for sets of chemical elements rather than arbitrarily picking winners and losers. Such a scheme should not break down when collections overlap. Resolving the issue of fuzzy borders would be a great plus. But all of this is another issue for another day.
- Some of the advantages that I see in this scheme
- By only classifying by block and broad metallicity categories, we automatically get a mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive system with no fuzzy borders (save only Og)
- It retains the term metalloid, which has the best-researched attestation in enwiki. I believe the lists of metalloids is the gold standard as far as documenting use of element set names. We would be well-served if someone would create such articles for all of the named sets.
- It introduces no new vocabulary. Legend option 1 even avoids descriptive phrases that could be construed as 2-word terms
- Thoughts? YBG (talk) 07:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- PS, while I don't believe the law of excluded middle applies here, I would not be heartbroken if metalloids were counted as nonmetals. It would improve the esthetics of the legend (a very very minor point). YBG (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, I forgot about having said this here as a first thought! Well, if you look at current WT:ELEM you can see I've since proposed going even more radical and going blocks-only. I just want to keep things in one place, so in a couple of days if everyone is agreeable (since the ANI thread seems to be winding down) I should post something articulating my case for this and the group 3 thing clearly from explicitly stated sources. I just need a bit of time to do it. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Quick comments, which can be elaborated at WP:ELEM.
- That the categories have not been been constructed with the goal of mutual exclusivity and joint exhaustivity is characteristic of the literature. As with categorisation schemes generally, there is some variation and overlapping of properties within and across each category.
- There is no actual universal agreement on which elements belong in blocks other than in a theoretical sense, which does not translate well on the ground. Scerri has acknowledged this, re the notion of a 15-element wide f-block.
- Further, in a review of Rayner-Canham's 2020 book, "The periodic table: past present, and future", Scerri concludes:
- "All in all, the book is highly recommended to philosophers of chemistry. As philosophers we have a natural tendency to concentrate on generalities and not to get too involved in the specifics and the details. Above all else, this new book reminds us that such an approach needs to be tempered by a detailed knowledge of the exceptions and features that go against the simplified generalities which we so cherish." doi:10.1007/s10698-020-09389-x
A little bit more, later. Sandbh (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: Short response.
- The fact that the categories have not been constructed with the goal of mutual exclusivity and joint exhaustivity is characteristic of the literature is, to my mind, the best possible argument for Wikipedia not to try to make them so. The literature doesn't use them that way; therefore we should not try to make them that way. In my view, creating a bunch of categories, clearly colouring each element as belonging to one and one alone, putting these categories in an exalted position in the infoboxes, and not giving a clear clarification that none of this is actually agreed in the literature is just not good. Now, that accords with my understanding of WP:NOR: however, I have invited User:EdChem to participate as he seems more in touch with the correct understanding of what WP policies really mean. I will have more to say about this at WT:ELEM from the literature.
- In fact, apart from the problematic elements La-Ac and Lu-Lr, there is zero disagreement on which elements belong in which blocks. This can easily be detailed in a single footnote about group 3 and the concomitant issues, and with that single footnote we would accurately reflect the situation in the literature. If one were to try to do it for the category-based scheme, it would instead lead to a mess where a large number of p block elements are called out as being uncertain as metals, metalloids, or nonmetals; and indeed where even category names in themselves are called out as differing between sources (post-transition metals? poor metals? p-block metals? B subgroup metals? etc.). It seems to me that any category-scheme translates far worse on the ground that a block-scheme by these standards.
- The notion of blocks is at least more or less standard in the literature. Even though blocks are often not defined properly, all four are acknowledged by IUPAC, and there is no doubt as to which elements belong to which blocks today, with the exceptions of La-Ac and Lu-Lr that come from the group 3 dispute (which is also acknowledged by IUPAC). They are a standard thing in the periodic table. Categories as a way to split up the elements with mutual exclusivity and joint exhaustivity are not standard across sources. Different sources use different categories (are there metalloids, or just metals and nonmetals?), disagree on boundaries of the same categories (are group 12 elements transition metals?), sometimes put the same element in multiple categories (are the heavier members of group 3 also transition elements), and sometimes don't even emphasise categories to the extent of colouring a periodic table (Greenwood and Earnshaw certainly don't); and not all the categories we use have an acknowledgement from IUPAC. That is pretty much my case.
- This is just a short response. A detailed proposal with sources is planned to follow at WT:ELEM hopefully sometime this week. Double sharp (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- As I have been pinged, I'll offer a few general thoughts:
- As an FYI: This discussion belongs on an article talk page or at a WikiProject, rather than at a user talk page, for the sake of involving all interested editors and avoiding the potential problems associated with WP:CONLOCAL. Sounding out ideas here is fine, but any consensus decision to be implemented in article space needs to be achieved somewhere that anyone interested is likely to have seen it and had the chance to participate.
- This discussion reminds me strongly that we all wear at least two hats in these discussions – chemist and Wikipedian – and it is helpful to remember which we are wearing at any given time. I say at least two hats as may of us are educators and thus wear a third hat. As a chemist, there are many approaches that can be taken and that is reflected in the literature. As an educator, I may choose an approach that is most illustrative and thus best suits my purpose in teaching, and that approach may be different for different students (depending on prior knowledge, for example), and may differ again when dealing with colleagues well-versed in the nuances in this topic. As a Wikipedian, however, I do not have the freedom to make personal choices that reflect my opinions / beliefs if those are not grounded in RS given DUE weight, etc. I also do not have the ability to craft text to suit an individual reader. Thus, I note the importance of Double sharp's point about OR:
The fact that the categories have not been constructed with the goal of mutual exclusivity and joint exhaustivity is characteristic of the literature is, to my mind, the best possible argument for Wikipedia not to try to make them so. The literature doesn't use them that way; therefore we should not try to make them that way.
Wearing my educator hat, I see how mutual exclusivity and joint exhaustivity are worthy goals, especially for novice and relatively inexperienced students. Wearing my chemist hat, I can see how these goals can be unnecessarily reductionist and can try to force a straight-forward answer onto a complicated situation – in effect, obscuring useful nuance. Wearing my Wikipedian hat, however, the prime responsibility imposed by policy is to reflect the sources and avoid personal preferences, etc. - I wonder if the question being discussed is the right one. It sounds like the debate has started from the position of needing a consensus position on what to include in the PT article – which makes sense – but would it be better to ask what do the sources say and only then turn to the question of how to reflect them in article space? If we can't agree on what the sources say (including whether that be one position or several), that is a good basis to consider whether the situation is that we need to cover the variety of positions and not try to adopt a single one in WP's voice. Does this make sense?
- EdChem (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- @EdChem: Yes, I started this conversation more or less as some idle chit-chat bouncing an idea to YBG; the OP's idea is not in fact what I currently want to propose (it's a few days old). But I decided to make a short response so that YBG knows I'm aware of Sandbh's comments. ^_^ I want to take this to WT:ELEM, as stated above, but I need some time to write it properly and collect the citations and quotes needed. I'm a bit busier this week than I was last week. ^_^ So this is just a preview without the explicit cites so far. When I finish writing the thing, it will start from the position of asking what the sources say about the two issues, don't worry. That is, what does the literature tend to say about categorisation, and what it tends to say about group 3. So I'll refer to some reliable sources and quote them to do that. ^_^
- I really like, BTW, what you say about chemistry vs pedagogy vs WP, and the different hats involved in each of them. You phrased it really well. ^_^ But I agree that we shouldn't be doing this on YBG's talk page, so I will leave it here for now. Double sharp (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- As I have been pinged, I'll offer a few general thoughts:
@EdChem: Thank you for pointing out that user space discussions like this are ok for initially sounding out ideas, but never should be viewed as a consensus. I'm fairly certain this has been our practice at WP: ELEM, though I cannot say so definitively. YBG (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- +1 Sandbh (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- That is a sensible process. I believe that the rules for user v. article talk should be viewed flexibly except in certain cases:
- If it is time to bring up an editor conduct / behaviour topic, it is time to go to user talk. This both separates the discussion and is more direct and private. The more contentious the debate, the more desirable to make any comment at user talk rather than publicly in the middle of an article talk discussion, especially if it can be seen (or spun) as trying to "win" an article issue by using conduct rather than the relevant policies like RS, V, DUE, etc.
- If a user talk discussion is evolving into an article topic where consensus might be needed, it needs to be open to all at the article talk page. Sometimes a WikiProject talk page is suitable (especially for multiple articles) but not without a cross-post to article talk so that any article watchers are aware and have the opportunity to participate.
- If a user talk discussion is spreading out to a discussion involving several editors, consideration to moving it should be considered. In a case where the group of likely interested parties is smallish, and there is goodwill and collegiality, the need to relocate is reduced... but ultimately an article space decision should never be taken in user talk – if for no other reason that it will be difficult for an editor in the future trying to understand or considering a modification to find and take into account.
- With regard to drafting an RfC, trying to do so on article talk to find a consensus wording can be wise; but it can also be nearly impossible if it will mean thoughts from a cast of thousands. There are times when drafting an RfC in user space can be more efficient. You can establish a page like user:WHOEVER/Draft_RfC_on_XXX. Being in user space, you can ask that only certain users contribute to the actual draft but open the user_talk:WHOEVER/Draft_RfC_on_XXX page for comments. You can start with a couple of people who are able to be balanced in the presentation, and when something concrete is available, invite comment from editors on both sides. Alternatively, you can propose that the discussion start with representatives of each perspective and ask that others stay out or stay on the user talk page. Once a draft seems stable, comment could be invited from the editors at the relevant article / WikiProject talk page for a day or several before the RfC goes live. There are no hard-and-fast rules on how to produce an effective RfC and there are some editors who are good at writing one from scratch, but a badly written / ill-considered / problematic RfC going live is an ineffective timesink waiting to happen. Remember also that an effective RfC can find consensus through the input of outsiders who are less invested in the article topic and more able to see what is most in line with encyclopaedic content. As such, the less an RfC depends on specialist knowledge, the better. I know that much of the Lu v La debate hinges on chemical properties and sitting with PT trends, etc, but outsiders will not be aware of these and likely will not comment if the issues are placed to the forefront of an RfC.
- The rules of user space are deliberately flexible, but also biased to empower the host editor. So long as the participants in a discussion are content and anyone unaware or excluded is unlikely to be objecting, then the discussion is probably fine. The more things move to dispute that is ceasing to be robust collegial debate and becoming conflict (and especially personalised conflict) the more taking the rules literally and applying them consistently becomes wise. And, when they come to article space conclusions, move the discussion or at least link to it from article talk.
- Flexibility / rigidity of rules is part of the reason that the ANI thread sprawled out of control. ANI is meant to look at behaviour and for admins to take actions to resolve problems where that is appropriate and has rules (both formal and informal). Not following them can result in sanction, or just in the thread being derailed and ineffective. It can't resolve content issues so they should be minimised as much as possible. Threads that devolve into back-and-forth between complainants typically result in no action as they take a lot of wading through to sort out, and neither party is behaving like a complainant coming to admins with clean hands looking for help – it looks like both / all parties behaving badly and promotes thoughts amounting to "let them fight and sort it out until they are willing to provide a strong and concise case to address" or "there are editors trying to work on the articles being drowned by the combat, let's remove the combatants and see if sanity is restored." There are other possibilities, of course, but these ones certainly happen. Also, if there is only one party flouting the rules of ANI, it is much more obvious (and actionable). If you have to go to ANI, a concise case, followed by a response, should be left for outsiders to comment unless the response raising things that NEED to be addressed. If the case says X happened, and Y gives a bunch of excuses, a reply that the diffs confirm X happened is sufficient. If Y makes accusations that show poor judgement / behaviours which did happen, a brief admission / apology etc is better... and if they didn't, just use diffs to refute briefly. Know what you are asking for, present the strongest, organised evidence for it, and then let those you are asking consider / respond / take action. If you are taken to ANI, rebut any accusations with diffs of strong evidence, make any counter-claim succinctly and with strong diff-supported evidence. Respond to questions from outsiders but don't engage in debate and certainly not with the OP.
- Ok, enough thoughts on this – a stream of comments rather than a planned reply, so sorry that it rambles. Were this ANI, the above should be edited to be short, sharp, diff-supported, and easy for an outsider to comprehend. EdChem (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- That is a sensible process. I believe that the rules for user v. article talk should be viewed flexibly except in certain cases:
The nature of WP. As I understand it, WP seeks to reflect, as best we can, what is in the literature, including the boundary overlaps that are characteristic of classification science, in general. Thus, the fuzziness and overlap phenomena are clearly noted in the periodic table article; the metalloid article; and the nonmetal article. That’s all that’s needed.
Clarifying the situation. As you suggested, we can clarify the group 3 and group 12 situation with a note in the graphic. All other categories, AE; AEM (separate or merged); Ln, An (separate or merged) PTM; metalloids per YBG’s gold standard (thank you YBG ^_^); halogen nonmetals; noble gases; and the moderately active, pre-halogen, or other nonmetals, fall naturally into place. Literature support is available for all of them.
Historical effort. As you noted, it isn’t particularly surprising there was no historical effort to try and make the categories mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive. Subsequently, as you wrote, the result tends to either lead to "other" categories or categories without the same level of name recognition as the others.
That speaks to the iterative relationship between classifications, and science:
- The importance of classification
- Minelli, A.: The nature of classification: Relationships and kinds in the natural sciences—:By John S. Wilkins and Malte C. Ebach. Systematic Biology. 63 (5), pp. 844–846.
- ”At any given time, during the historical development of a scientific discipline, classification of available evidence offers itself as the explanandum that asks for a theory (or alternative theories) able to explain it. But this is just one segment in a potentially unending chain of recursive relationships between classification and theory. Theory and classification indeed change over time. As a consequence, the theory that provides explanation for the data organized in a classification at a given time can influence subsequent classificatory effort, and so on. “By means of this a discipline advances: each new pattern raises questions that call for explanations, and each verified phenomenon or fact gives a new pattern” (p. 163). What counts as a fact or a theory is a matter of temporal relativity. The authors’ “concern is that we do not replace observation with theory and think that we have made some progress. Science is founded upon empirical observations, no matter how these are tied up with local and cross-disciplinary theoretical commitments or stances. Once we abandon this aspect of science…science becomes little more than a matter of worldviews and epistemic statements of faith” (p. 163).”
Blocks. There is no precise, universally accepted definition of what a block is, that I can recall reading. Even thorium is problematic. The IUPAC Red Book does not define what a block is. A block-based period table does not solve anything. It hides information, rather summarising it via categories. As Christie and Christie (2000, p. 42) argued, “chemistry rests much more strongly on its…foundations of the 19th century and earlier, and much less on the insights of modern quantum physics.”
As I see it, per the basic value template, this is a standoff, lopsided, or top-heavy situation rather than an example of synergy. With a few lines, the blocks can be shown on the PT graphic in addition to the categories. Sandbh (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Changing the subject from content to process
@EdChem: I would appreciate your thoughts on a couple of process issues that this discussion brings up.
- Sometimes at ELEM, we find it difficult to explain our thoughts about a proposal we wish to bring forward without displaying it in context. Similarly, we sometimes find it difficult to understand another editor's ideas without seeing them fleshed out in context. This leads us to draw a whole periodic table to illustrate a new color scheme, or even to prepare a draft of an entire article before a consensus has been reached about the general direction we wish to go. How should one decide when such a draft is helpful in providing a general understanding before trying to reach a consensus?
- I am ruminating on a few RfC that I think would be helpful for our project. What is the best way to do this? I'm inclined to try my best to get the wording the best before opening up the RfC, as I am afraid that a poorly worded 1st draft of the question could so muddy the waters that it makes it harder to reach a consensus. Any suggestions about thus? For example, would user space chats be wise to determine which subjects are most important and to determine the best wording?
I started this subsection asking for personal advice about how I should view project processes. But should I move this to WT:ELEM before you answer? Just say the word and I will copy this sub-section over there. And if one point belongs here and the other there, that's ok too. Just let me know.
Thanks. I appreciate your input. YBG (talk) 00:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi YBG, Double sharp, Sandbh, and anyone watching / interested who I have missed.
- FYI, I have seen the questions and posts at ELEM but have yet to have time to respond. It will happen, I'm just swamped with RL issues that are important and urgent. My apologies.
- A quick reply on the RFC question: a contentious or unclear question is the best start if a long, heated, and ultimately useless discussion is sought. Thus, I concur that discussion to agree on an acceptable / fair / simple / etc question is very wise (as Floqueanbeam also suggested at the recent mega-ANI thread). If there are only two editors in disagreement then on user talk can be ok to avoid cluttering a WT or article talk page. If more, perhaps starting a non-user talk thread saying "I think XXX is suited to being resolved in an RfC, let's try to come to a consensus on what to ask rather than one of us launching it unilaterally." This does not work in cases where the issues are ideological and the parties will not agree on what is neutral nor compromise (think a devoted advocate for Trump and a passionate anti-Trump advocate – leaving aside that WP is not for advocacy, the chances that they can agree on a neutral and fair question to let those who choose to participate decide is far-fetched), but it should work fine for issues where each side can see the desirability of a consensus and has RS-based reasons for their views and are open to compromise / persuasion – that is, I anticipate that it would be fine for ELEM. Note also that input on the set up of an RfC can increase the chances of avoiding a structure that seems fine to one editor but which is actually over-simplified (say) and risks sprawling out into multiple options. Many an RfC has been set up in good faith and evolved into something unhelpful because factors went unconsidered (or under-considered) in its formation. One way is to ask a question that is not for WP to address. For example, does "Lu belong in the d- or f-blocks?" is a question about scientific consensus, and if there isn't one or there is controversy, a huge amount of time can be spent arguing the issue, expressing opinions, engaging in OR, etc. A better question might be "should WP deal with the question of whether Lu belongs in the d- or f- blocks by (A) ... or (B) ... or (C) ...?" and then offer the options that emerged from a prior discussion.
- Ok, enough from me for now... EdChem (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- PS: Apologies to Floquenbeam for the mis-spelling... adding this to trigger the intended ping so you are aware that you were mentioned, and in case you want to comment. EdChem (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Second apology to Floquenbeam for mis-attributing the comments that I meant to her, when they were actually made by Softlavender. Courtesy ping to Softlavender as having made the comments that I thought were valuable on RfCs, and in case she wishes to make a comment. EdChem (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- @EdChem: It's OK, I'm also swamped. ^_^ I still plan an actual posting summarising what I feel the sources are saying on this and the categorisation issues. The latter may be getting closer to a consensus since User:Sandbh has recently posted a blocks-up-front suggestion, but we'll see. The problem is that (1) I have little time right now and (2) one of the sources I need for the Lu thing is in Russian and I don't have an electronic copy, so it takes some time to actually find out what it's saying. Sorry. Double sharp (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Another small question
@Double sharp and Sandbh: I have a few suggested refactoring of your exchange in WT:ELEM § Opinions
1. I think Double sharp's narrative would be better presented by changing his {{cquote}} to include |width=80%
. It would make the flow between point 5 and point 5 (cont.) clearer.
- If I have DS's permission on this, I will make the change.
2. I think it would be better if the bulk of the discussion between you two were moved to WT:ELEM § Moved from Opinions to Supplements. I think the best way would be to retain Sandbh's initial points 1-4, and follow them by
- Details moved below by YBG <date> (with a wikilink directly to the exact location of the details in Supplements)
- Response by Double sharp moved below by YBG <date> (with a wikilink directly to the exact location of the response in Supplements)
- If I have DS's and S&bh's permission, I will make this change. Perhaps there is a better place to break; I am open to suggestions ... but IMO this leaves gives the opinion the forcefulness of brevity with the advantage of hyperlinked details. If you will look at what I have already done for EdChem and Double sharp in WT:ELEM § Moved from Opinions to Supplements, you will see the sort of thing I have in mind.
Cheers! YBG (talk) 07:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- Fine with me! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
OK, here is what I've done
rev numbers & diff | time stamps | Changes made |
---|---|---|
special:diff/984808102 /984941123 | [a] 2020-10-22 06:43:04 to [b] 2020-10-23 00:44:19 | Changes made by Sandbh & Double sharp, including eliminating the # numbering |
special:diff/984941123 /984946494 | [b] 2020-10-23 00:44:19 to [c] 2020-10-23 01:30:57 | Changes I made to restore the original # numbering |
special:diff/984808102 /984946494 | [a] 2020-10-22 06:43:04 to [c] 2020-10-23 01:30:57 | Comparison to before numbering was changed |
special:diff/984946494 /984947422 | [c] 2020-10-23 01:30:57 to [d] 2020-10-23 01:39:59 | The actual move |
special:diff/984947422 /984964950 | [d] 2020-10-23 01:39:59 to [e] 2020-10-23 04:20:53 | Changes I made after the move |
YBG (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Question re Aufbau
@Sandbh: I am discussing this in user space so that you can correct what is apparently a misunderstanding on my part without bothering the rest of the world.
My understanding of the Aufbau principle or Madelung rule is that it predicts that the shells will be filled in this order:
- 1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 4s, 3d, 4p, 5s, 4d, 5p, 6s, 4f, 5d, 6p, 7s, 5f, 6d, 7p, ...
and that each subshell is filled completely before the next one is started.
Given that s, p, d, and f subshells hold 2, 6, 10, and 14 electrons respectively, this means that the subshells are filled in this way:
1122222222333333334433333333334444445544444444445555556644444444444444555555555566666677555555555555556666666666777777 ssssppppppssppppppssddddddddddppppppssddddddddddppppppssffffffffffffffddddddddddppppppssffffffffffffffddddddddddpppppp
Or when laid out in two dimensions, we get:
ss ss pppppp ss pppppp ss ddddddddddpppppp ss ddddddddddpppppp ssffffffffffffffddddddddddpppppp ssffffffffffffffddddddddddpppppp
Or this:
ss ss ppppppss ppppppss ddddddddddppppppss ddddddddddppppppss ffffffffffffffddddddddddppppppss ffffffffffffffddddddddddppppppss
This is what I meant by being more consistent with Aufbau.
Have I missed something? I know that Aufbau does not represent what is observed expirementally. But what I said was that Sc/Y/Lu is more consistent with Aufbau, not that it is more consistent with expiremental results. YBG (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, the aufbau rule has a regular pattern. It hasn’t been derived from first principles. Claims for such a derivation are made from time to time; none have been accepted. Scerri would otherwise be shouting such a derivation to the rooftops. So the fact that the Lu form corresponds to it whereas the La form requires a split d-block doesn’t mean anything fundamental.
- The aufbau rule does work well in the sense that every time it fails to predict the right configuration/s it always, inevitability, resumes making the right prediction at least until it fails the next time.
- That said, when used this way, the La version complies more closely to the aufbau rule than the Lu form.
- I'll take it one step at a time. The aufbau rule is used to predict the electron configurations of the gas phase atoms. For example, Aufbau predicts La should have one f electron in its electron configuration. Thus it should be [Xe] 5f1 6s2. Whereas, in real life it is [Xe] 5d1 6s2.
- There are a couple of wrinkles to bear in mind. (1) Gas phase configurations aren't necessarily the same as the configurations of the atoms in their condensed or bonded states. (2) That said, gas phase configurations are relatively easy to measure.
I am not YBG, but I watch this talk page, and would be interested in getting a few things clarified from User:Sandbh about this latest reply of his. So I would like to ask him first if he is agreeable to that, and also to ask YBG if he is agreeable to me doing so here. Double sharp (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Double sharp: It am glad to have for you to have a discussion here, provided it is not a discussion that should a wider audience. But I would prefer for the present that this conversation be confined to what is helpful for me to understand Sandbh's point of view, which I do not yet comprehend. Thank you. YBG (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@Double sharp and EdChem: Wow, it's been a busy morning between WP:ANI (Softlavdner reverted my revert, so now I have that to deal with as well); R8R's talk page; and now here. BTW it is good to see you here, EdChem. And it is nice to be able to talk about hard-core content. ^_^ So, addressing Double sharp's interesting question first. 1. Here is an idealised Lu table: ss ss pppppp ss pppppp ss ddddddddddpppppp ss ddddddddddpppppp ssffffffffffffffddddddddddpppppp ssffffffffffffffddddddddddpppppp The Lu form corresponds to the aufbau rule. 2. Here is an idealised La table: ss ss pppppp ss pppppp ssd dddddddddpppppp ssd dddddddddpppppp ssdffffffffffffffdddddddddpppppp ssdffffffffffffffdddddddddpppppp The La form does not correspond to the aufbau rule, since it features a split d-block. That said, the correspondence of the Lu form to aufbau does not meaning anything, since aufbau is simply a pattern, lacking any accepted ab initio derivation. Several authors claim to have achieved such a derivation; none of these claims have been accepted. Now, let us set aside concerns about the basis of aufabu, and look at how it used in the literature, which is to predict the gas phase configurations of atoms. The first thing about aufbau is that whenever it fails, it always resumes course sooner or later. So it is a curious kind of approximation. The second thing about aufbau is that it's not a very good approximation since it yields about 20 errors up to the first 100 or so elements. The third thing about aufbau is that if you look at its predictions for differnentiaing electrons (de), it is more accurate at predicting these for the La form than the Lu form. How bizarre is that?! But there you go. A caveat with regard to de is that DS has raised an objection as to how these are worked out, in a few cases. I addressed this in my article, at note 1:
So, yes, as per my first paragraph, aufbau does not mean anything. That has not stopped some muggles (by which I mean non WP-editors) saying Lu must be "it" since it corresponds with aufabu. And if we counter-factually assume it does mean something, it works better (as per my third paragraph) for the La form in any event! Muggles respond to the latter via perceptual filtering. Since it does not correspond to their world-view, they adopt the see no-evil, speak no-evil, hear no-evil approach. Very, very few muggles understand or aware of their subconscious perceptual filters nor that these are on auto-pilot. DS, I hope this clarifies the sitation. Sandbh (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC) Placeholder re EdChem's thoughts. Sandbh (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
@Double sharp and Sandbh: Please take this conversation elsewhere. Apparently I was not clear enough. I wanted this thread to be reserved, only about my trying to understand Sandbh, and was hoping that until that was accomplished, it would not be cluttered with other things that distracted from that purpose. Apparently I was not clear enough for either of you to understand that. YBG (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC) @Double sharp and Sandbh: ... Unless you are willing to wait until I have reached an understanding of Sandbh's point of view. YBG (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm more than happy to wait. Sandbh (talk) 06:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- No problem with me either, and my apologies for misunderstanding you. Double sharp (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)