→The 2010 option: new section |
Double sharp (talk | contribs) |
||
(47 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 193: | Line 193: | ||
Oh, and will we still have an article on ''other metals,'' and will we presumably have one on ''other nonmetals?'' [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 09:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC) |
Oh, and will we still have an article on ''other metals,'' and will we presumably have one on ''other nonmetals?'' [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 09:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC) |
||
:Well that's a pleasant surprise, {{u|Sandbh}}! |
|||
:I'm actually willing to compromise on Po. I could, after all, see an argument that indeed Po is not as often included as the other six, and refer to the [[lists of metalloids]] for justification. And we did have it as a metal since 2012. My worry, however, is that since some part of the argument for the rest of the scheme is "well, ACS and LANL do something almost like this", it may dilute the support for it because it may look to others that I'm not consistently following my own arguments and that they're fighting against each other. If I presented the RFC option with Po as a metalloid, would you be OK with supporting with the caveat that you prefer Po to be a metal? |
|||
:I don't think [[other metal]] works as an article title. It works in the legend because we have the other categories there, so you know what the other types of metal are, but it doesn't really work standalone. I think this is the situation alluded to in [[WP:NOTNEO]]: {{tq|In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.}} That is, we don't have a really standard title for this (post-transition metals comes closest but some people in the literature squabble about Al). So we should probably use a descriptive phrase like [[metals other than the alkali, alkaline earth, lanthanide, actinide, and transition metals]]. As for "other nonmetals", since there are that much fewer of them anyway, I think that is OK redirected to [[nonmetal]] since that article is organised by group anyway (so the halogens and noble gases got their own brief sections). What say you? [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp#top|talk]]) 09:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
===Polonium=== |
|||
I wouldn't support an RFC with Po as a metalloid. Enough is known about Po such that calling it a metalloid is a needless textbook error, of which there are already too many in chemistry texts. The RFC seems moot. Who would care if we rolled back to the 2010 version, as long as we explained our rationale? |
|||
I may email LANL about their multiple errors, including Po. |
|||
I'd be OK with linking ''other metals'' to our PTM article, and renaming it ''[[p-block metals]].'' And we have redirects for the other alternatives. |
|||
The ''other nonmetals'' merit a link to an article, e.g. ''[[Hydrogen and the group 14–16 nonmetals]].'' There certainly has been enough written about e.g. the biogeochemical aspects of these nonmetals, including Se. Ditto a redirect for e.g. other nonmetals. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 11:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Do we have a way ahead? Going to sleep on it now. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 11:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Sandbh}} Then I guess we're back where we started. I don't agree that calling Po a metalloid is a textbook error is appropriate for WP, because there's not really a generally accepted definition of what a "metalloid" is, per your [[Metalloid#Definitions]]. If there was such an accepted one, that Po failed to fulfil, then yes, I would agree. But there isn't, so there we are. So I don't think it's our place to say that calling Po a metalloid, or indeed calling Sb a metalloid, is a "textbook error" even though we both agree about it for Po and you know that I think so for Sb – on the grounds of our ''own'' definitions of what a metal should be, which as we know are not the same. (And even speaking with the educator's hat on, I have a hard time believing in Po and At as metals if Sb is not also one. See YBG's talk page for why.) |
|||
:I'm not really in favour of a separate article precisely because there are so few of those nonmetals and multiple ways to split them in the literature. We are already splitting the [[nonmetal]] article by group, and if we speak about biology, the halogens (or at least Cl and I, maybe Br) have significant biological roles too. But it is something that can be discussed if the proposal passes. |
|||
:The reason I want an RFC is to have a clear idea of a consensus beyond the project. (Weren't you concerned about our project alone deciding on things before, IIRC? Or have I misunderstood?) That way, once we have a scheme, we have some discussion to point to for why we have chosen it as a "house style". Again, that's based on comments by Jehochman and others on the ArbCom case page. Moreover, this will guarantee something stable that we will not have to discuss again and again unless the literature changes are really obvious. [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp#top|talk]]) 11:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::While I like the term [[p-block metal]], I can see the risk that it appears to be a neologism. So I would suggest "[[metals in the p-block]]" or "[[metals in the p-block of the periodic table]]" or "[[metals in the periodic table p-block]]" or something similar that clearly appears to be a descriptive phrase rather than a neologism. As for the nonmetals, what about "[[nonmetals other than noble gasses and halogens]]" or "[[Non-noble, non-halogen nonmetals]]" (NNNHNM for short)? This recalls the comment by {{u|Double sharp}} back in [[special:diff/511872444|2012]], preserved at {{slink|User talk:YBG/Archive 2|"Ignoble non-metals of the world, unite"}}, which was in response to [[special:diff/511810369|this comment of mine]]. [[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG|talk]]) 20:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{u|YBG}}, my main issue with that is that while we would in the 2010 scheme be using something consistent with that, in the main article we would have to consider all significant views and some of them include group 11 and 12 as well, which are in the d block. As for myself, I have said enough about the insidious tendency of any short phrase in English to start sounding like a term if it is repeated often enough, even if it is purely descriptive (try it for example with "chemically weak metals" or something like that, and you'll probably start hearing it that way too). Which is why I've been supporting such long titles to make it clear to everyone that they are not terms and avoid any hint of neologising. That said, I am not even sure those leftover nonmetals (and that's a descriptive phrase, not yet another term) really need their own article separate from [[nonmetal]] when there are not that many nonmetals on the PT in the first place and most of the trends and properties continue down into the halogens and noble gases too. [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp#top|talk]]) 20:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::Well said. Re metals, I hadn't considered the d-block aspects. Re nonmetals, I was not focusing on the appropriateness of having an article, but rather on the selection of a title for such an article - or, truth be told, on the trip down memory lane linked in my final sentence. Despite my [[User:YBG#Criteria for categorization (the so-called "YBG rules")|epynomous rules]], I am beginning to see the wisdom of having leftover categories. The question becomes, what section in [[nonmetal]] should be the target of the "other nonmetals" legend key? Is there enough information from secondary or tertiary sources describing the train wreck that is nonmetal classification? If so, a short section about that could well be the appropriate link target. [[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG|talk]]) 20:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::To be honest, {{u|YBG}}, my first idea was just to link "other [[nonmetal]]" that way. [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp#top|talk]]) 21:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Of course! Much simpler than my complicated ideas. And it has the added advantages of making it obvious that the category is a leftover one and the label is description not a term. Brilliant!! [[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG|talk]]) 21:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
===The main issue=== |
|||
I can comment briefly for now. |
|||
Seemingly, the main issue is the merit of restoring the halogens (F to Ts), and the other nonmetals. |
|||
This could be relatively easily done. There’s no need for an RFC for the reasons following. |
|||
1. There is no need for concern about defining what a metalloid is. The literature tells us the elements commonly recognised as metalloids are B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te. Separately, the lists of metalloids article confirms this. |
|||
2. All other issues about Po, Sb, and At, and names of articles are distractions. |
|||
More later. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 12:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
===2010 revisited=== |
|||
:{{ping|Sandbh}} Let me just clarify if you don't mind. ^_^ In the OP you mentioned that you could support 2010 provided Po was a metal, right? So would this be OK with you? |
|||
:{| class="navbox collapsible" |
|||
|- |
|||
! colspan="32" | {{tnavbar-collapsible|{{pad}}[[Periodic table]]|Compact periodic table}} |
|||
|- |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#a0ffa0"|[[Hydrogen|H]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" colspan="30" | |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#c0ffff"|[[Helium|He]] |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="background-color:#ff9d9d"|[[Lithium|Li]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffdead"|[[Beryllium|Be]] |
|||
| colspan="24" | |
|||
|style="background-color:#cccc99"|[[Boron|B]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#a0ffa0"|[[Carbon|C]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#a0ffa0"|[[Nitrogen|N]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#a0ffa0"|[[Oxygen|O]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffff99"|[[Fluorine|F]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#c0ffff"|[[Neon|Ne]] |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="background-color:#ff9d9d"|[[Sodium|Na]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffdead"|[[Magnesium|Mg]] |
|||
| colspan="24" | |
|||
|style="background-color:#cccccc"|[[Aluminium|Al]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#cccc99"|[[Silicon|Si]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#a0ffa0"|[[Phosphorus|P]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#a0ffa0"|[[Sulfur|S]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffff99"|[[Chlorine|Cl]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#c0ffff"|[[Argon|Ar]] |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="background-color:#ff9d9d"|[[Potassium|K]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffdead"|[[Calcium|Ca]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Scandium|Sc]] |
|||
| colspan="14" | |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Titanium|Ti]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Vanadium|V]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Chromium|Cr]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Manganese|Mn]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Iron|Fe]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Cobalt|Co]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Nickel|Ni]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Copper|Cu]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Zinc|Zn]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#cccccc"|[[Gallium|Ga]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#cccc99"|[[Germanium|Ge]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#cccc99"|[[Arsenic|As]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#a0ffa0"|[[Selenium|Se]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffff99"|[[Bromine|Br]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#c0ffff"|[[Krypton|Kr]] |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="background-color:#ff9d9d"|[[Rubidium|Rb]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffdead"|[[Strontium|Sr]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Yttrium|Y]] |
|||
| colspan="14" | |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Zirconium|Zr]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Niobium|Nb]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Molybdenum|Mo]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Technetium|Tc]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Ruthenium|Ru]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Rhodium|Rh]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Palladium|Pd]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Silver|Ag]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Cadmium|Cd]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#cccccc"|[[Indium|In]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#cccccc"|[[Tin|Sn]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#cccc99"|[[Antimony|Sb]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#cccc99"|[[Tellurium|Te]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffff99"|[[Iodine|I]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#c0ffff"|[[Xenon|Xe]] |
|||
|- |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ff9d9d"|[[Caesium|Cs]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffdead"|[[Barium|Ba]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Lanthanum |La]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Cerium|Ce]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Praseodymium|Pr]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Neodymium|Nd]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Promethium|Pm]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Samarium|Sm]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Europium|Eu]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Gadolinium|Gd]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Terbium|Tb]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Dysprosium|Dy]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Holmium|Ho]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Erbium|Er]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Thulium|Tm]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Ytterbium|Yb]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffbfff"|[[Lutetium|Lu]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Hafnium|Hf]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Tantalum|Ta]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Tungsten|W]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Rhenium|Re]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Osmium|Os]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Iridium|Ir]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Platinum|Pt]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Gold|Au]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Mercury (element)|Hg]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#cccccc"|[[Thallium|Tl]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#cccccc"|[[Lead|Pb]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#cccccc"|[[Bismuth |Bi]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#cccccc"|[[Polonium|Po]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#ffff99"|[[Astatine|At]] |
|||
| width="3.125%" style="background-color:#c0ffff"|[[Radon|Rn]] |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="background-color:#ff9d9d"|[[Francium|Fr]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffdead"|[[Radium|Ra]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Actinium|Ac]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Thorium|Th]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Protactinium|Pa]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Uranium|U]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Neptunium|Np]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Plutonium|Pu]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Americium|Am]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Curium|Cm]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Berkelium|Bk]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Californium|Cf]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Einsteinium|Es]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Fermium|Fm]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Mendelevium|Md]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Nobelium|No]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ff99cc"|[[Lawrencium|Lr]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Rutherfordium|Rf]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Dubnium|Db]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Seaborgium|Sg]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Bohrium|Bh]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Hassium|Hs]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Meitnerium|Mt]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Darmstadtium|Ds]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Roentgenium|Rg]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffc0c0"|[[Copernicium|Cn]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#cccccc"|[[Nihonium|Nh]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#cccccc"|[[Flerovium|Fl]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#cccccc"|[[Moscovium|Mc]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#cccccc"|[[Livermorium|Lv]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#ffff99"|[[Tennessine|Ts]] |
|||
|style="background-color:#c0ffff"|[[Oganesson|Og]] |
|||
|- |
|||
| colspan="32" | |
|||
{| border="1" align="center" style="border:1px solid #ffffff; border-collapse:collapse; font-size: smaller; width:100%" rules="all" cellpadding="1" |
|||
| style="background-color:#ff9d9d" width="10%"|[[Alkali metal]] |
|||
| style="background-color:#ffdead" width="10%"|[[Alkaline earth metal]] |
|||
| style="background-color:#ffbfff" width="10%"|[[Lanthanide]] |
|||
| style="background-color:#ff99cc" width="10%"|[[Actinide]] |
|||
| style="background-color:#ffc0c0" width="10%"|[[Transition metal]] |
|||
| style="background-color:#cccccc" width="10%"|[[Post-transition metal|Other metal]] |
|||
| style="background-color:#cccc99" width="10%"|[[Metalloid]] |
|||
| style="background-color:#a0ffa0" width="10%"|Other [[nonmetal]] |
|||
| style="background-color:#ffff99" width="10%"|[[Halogen]] |
|||
| style="background-color:#c0ffff" width="10%"|[[Noble gas]] |
|||
|} |
|||
|- |
|||
! colspan="32" | |
|||
{| border="0" align="center" style="width:100%; height:50%;" cellpadding="0" |
|||
| style="background-color:#c9c9ff" |<small>'''[[Periodic table (large version)|Large version]]'''</small>{{pad|4em}} |
|||
|} |
|||
|} |
|||
:(I took the one at [[User:Double sharp/RFC]] and just recoloured Po to what you wanted.) |
|||
:Yeah, I would personally be OK with this one, since there is a reasonable source-based argument for it (i.e. metalloids are shown as the usual six; other categories mostly follow IUPAC + what's common; Po is normally excluded from metalloids by higher-level texts, and for an element that is hard to study those will be more reliable; At is agnostically displayed since its status as metalloid/metal is not clear and it is usually discussed with the halogens). My worry was just with drumming up support for it RFC-wise. But if you don't think an RFC is needed, and we can agree on this scheme, then I don't think there's actually any problem and we can probably launch it. As you said, thinking about the article titles and other things now is perhaps a distraction. If it is really needed, we can think about it later. |
|||
The PT looks good. I recall a past reference to our colour scheme as a hybrid, which I took to mean it was a combination of metallicity- and group-based. Thus: “[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Names_for_sets_of_chemical_elements&oldid=756362697 …Wikipedia uses the below hybrid system in its periodic table subgroupings.]” Does the halogen category then become an old style hybrid category, given the certainty of the nonmetal status of F–I, the ambiguity of the status of At, and marginal uncertainty re Ts? For groups 13–16 I guess this is not so much of a deal given the metal status of Tl, Pb, Bi, and Po. |
|||
As far as implementation goes I expect there’d be a need for some substantial editing of our articles on (1) the PT; (2) [[nonmetal]]; and (3) [[names for sets of chemical elements]]. Just as our PT map increases its coverage, I feel the accompanying text needs to be more explanatory and nuanced. (4) A rationale for our changes also needs to be written. |
|||
For the PTM I suggest [[Metals close to the border between metals and nonmetals]]. For the other nonmetals, [[Nonmetals other than halogens and noble gases.]] |
|||
I’d like our PT to flag the more notional nature of the colour categories for At, Cn, Ts, and Og, and that predictions of their metallic (At, Ts, Cn) or non-metallic status (Cn, Og) have not been experimentally confirmed. |
|||
I’d like for these accompanying changes to articles to be ready to go at the same time as we launch the comprehensive PT. |
|||
I’m not sure what to do with the current RFC, I’ll think about that some more. Courtesy ping {{yo|YBG}} [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 02:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Sandbh}} Brief answers: |
|||
:#If you mean "is halogens not a metallicity category", then that's correct. Same with "noble gas". They then become simply group names that take in anything in group 17 resp. 18 without regard to metallicity. That's how people in the English-language literature seem to be using them for the most part (it is something I wish they would stop doing, but there it is). |
|||
:#I think that for these rare elements, flagging out the category issue in the main PT template is perhaps too much. It is after all simply a navigational aid. Currently, we do not flag out the group 3 issue, after all. And I think that's correct for much the same reason: unless you are reading about an element that is directly affected, the general answer is "who cares"? Not that I like it mind you, but it is how it is. This being said, I am ready to be convinced otherwise. |
|||
:#I do not think we actually need to write a rationale for our change. For one thing, we don't usually list what we used to have. (Is there anywhere on WP where we actually explain why we stopped using polyatomic vs. diatomic nonmetals?) |
|||
:#I agree that the [[periodic table]] article will need to mention this issue, but probably it will be put under the section on categorisation. |
|||
:#*Firstly, we could say that while the trend towards metallicity is known to exist in groups 17 and 18 just as it does for the previous groups, due to the intense radioactivity of the elements concerned it is not known for sure exactly where this creates elements that conduct electricity like metals. |
|||
:#*Then mention that the short half-life problem makes it quite difficult to study astatine and the elements beyond 108. (Astatine because you cannot get enough ''and'', unlike francium, there is no 100% effective congener to carry it with.) Just mention that the experimental results are inconclusive and that the category scheme shown is based on what is usually done by sources showing such schemes, which is to simply extend the categories by groups. Say that there are some theoretical indications that things may behave differently down there due to relativistic effects: At and Ts are likely metallic, Cn may be an insulator, Og may be a semiconductor. I don't know if we should mention the predictions too much beyond a single sentence. There have been multiple predictions in the past and each one got better than the previous one. It may be better to adopt a "wait and see" approach for these issues. (Something it would be interesting to know: if the properties of Sn were calculated the way those of Og were, would one expect a structure more like grey or white tin?) |
|||
:#Personally I think what we have currently, while not ''ideal'' for this new scheme, is at least serviceable as a stop-gap. Therefore I don't see a problem with launching it early and then fixing the problems later. After all: when element 119 gets discovered, we're not going to have a preparation phase to update everything, it will just have to happen as it happens. |
|||
:[[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp#top|talk]]) 11:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::I could live with [[Metals close to the border between metals and nonmetals]] and [[Nonmetals other than halogens and noble gases]], though for the former I'd suggest also considering [[Metals close to the nonmetal border]]. |
|||
::Another thing to consider: if we gain WP:ELEM consensus on the 2010 option, I think we'd like it to stick around for a while. One of the arguments in the past for an RFC has been that it would encourage stability for a while. That should be considered in deciding whether this should be implemented via RFP or via ELEM-BOLD. [[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG|talk]]) 17:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::I share your thoughts, {{u|YBG}}. I am OK with any title that is obviously descriptive and is long enough not to be taken as a new term, anyway, and {{u|Sandbh}}'s fit the bill well enough to my liking. |
|||
:::I also agree that if the 2010 option is considered acceptable, it should stay for a while. It's nice to have stability. Obviously, if the sources change ''en masse'' to the extent that it doesn't reflect them well anymore, we should do something, but if that happens at all I doubt it'd be quick. I also think that eventually, we should think about putting it into the [[MOS:]] as a stable thing to refer to like [[WP:ALUM]], to tell us how by default we should draw our periodic tables on Wikipedia. However, I think there are several issues waiting before we should do that. First of all there is the colouring issue; we still do want to update those 2002 colours, don't we? Frankly I have no strong opinions and think that what {{u|R8R}} has is already going to be a good start, but we need to decide on one in order to say "on WP, as a default, use this". And secondly there may be a group 3 (layout issue) rerun sometime in the near future as the results of the IUPAC process are released to the public, and I would not like anything about that to be set in stone as an official WP convention until the process finishes somehow and the results are publicly released. True, just IUPAC saying something does not mean we ''have'' to decide to follow them, but whatever they say must be taken into account. Therefore I feel we should wait till the process really finishes. Till then we are working with incomplete information when we will have complete information if we just wait a bit longer. So, it is an eventual goal, but for now I would argue to wait and leave it as an ELEM thing only both because of internal (recolouring once categories are settled) and external (IUPAC) matters: I don't think it will do any harm if the colour scheme becomes somehow officially stabilised as WP convention later rather than sooner. In the meantime, we can perhaps update [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Guidelines]] to have the colour-scheme information. [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp#top|talk]]) 18:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
P.S. Since element 119 [http://www.jinr.ru/posts/yu-oganessian-commented-on-synthesis-of-new-elements/ may well come next year]: just to cover those edge cases, I will say that under this scheme, whenever discovered, element 119 will get coloured in as an alkali metal and element 120 as an alkaline earth metal (so just like for Og, we will not be waiting for chemical investigation). They will appear in row 8 where you'd expect them as eka-Fr and eka-Ra. So now I've said it and we will be ready. What happens after that can be left for the future. [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp#top|talk]]) 19:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
<hr> |
|||
Alright. There is much goodness here. {{u|YBG}} |
|||
Thanks for clarifying the nature of the halogen category. |
|||
I’ll post some more about flagging out e.g. At, Ts, Og. |
|||
The proposed rationale for change, in summary form, is for convenience. There is one explaining [[Talk:Nonmetal/Archive_1#Categorisation_scheme_update|why we ditched polyatomic and diatomic.]] |
|||
I’m not fussed about the actual colours. I thought R8R’s was quite good. |
|||
Stability is antithetical to the nature of WP as an encyclopaedia based on continuous improvement, so I don’t see a valid reason to embed this, but YMMV. |
|||
I’ve w/drawn the RFC. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 02:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
====Sideshow: The buzzy fly that is astatine==== |
|||
This continues my comment re flagging At, Ts, etc. Courtesy ping {{u|YBG}}. |
|||
The context for my post is that Po is normally excluded from metalloids by higher-level texts, and for an element that is hard to study those will be more reliable. |
|||
OTOH, colour coding Cn, At, Ts, and Og as a PTM, halogens, and a noble gas, without any flags, ignores what higher level sources say. |
|||
Higher level sources point to At as a metal. For Ts, the case for metal status is stronger, as noted in its article. For what it is worth, the RSC refers to Ts as a metal. |
|||
So, if we acknowledge higher level sources are more reliable for hard-to-study elements, I’d like to flag Cn, At, Ts, and Og, whilst retaining their colour categories as PTM, halogens, and a noble gas, per introductory sources. |
|||
Certainly our PT is a navigational aid. Along with our colour categories, a few flags would enhance an appreciation of the metal-metalloid-nonmetal landscape. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 05:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:What do you mean by "higher-level texts/sources"? [[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG|talk]]) 05:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{u|YBG}}, I take it to mean advanced level sources, that are not normally taken account of by introductory level general chemistry text books. For example, the 1940 announcement of the synthesis of At which referred to it as a metal; Batsanov’s 1971 article predicting a band gap of 0.7 for At; and the 2013 relativistic modelling study that predicted a band gap for At of 0.68 eV, but a fully metallic fcc structure once all relativistic effects were taken into account. A similar thing happened when the Curies wrote, in 1898, that Po was a metal. AFAIK introductory level general chemistry textbooks do not mention such things. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 07:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:{{u|Sandbh}}, it does not necessarily rule against what higher-level sources say. Greenwood & Earnshaw calls At a halogen, and so does Holleman & Wiberg. Here's a source focusing on superheavy elements and their properties that does call Ts a halogen: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009261416309058]. I think it comes down to just that there are two ideas of what "halogen" means: one demands being a nonmetal, the other does not and simply asks that you be in group 17. And in fact, by calling "halogen" a group name in [[periodic table]], we're implicitly using the second definition. So even if reliable sources do expect At, Ts, and Og to be more metallic, that will not necessarily mean they have to stop being halogens and a noble gas. |
|||
:The situation with Ts and Og is only predicted. The predictions have changed in the past for Og, and I think that predictions should not be given the same weight as experimental knowledge. Indeed we already don't give them that in the current scheme: we just tell them "unknown chemical properties". As for At and Cn, there are relatively clear predictions too, and there are experimental results, but the experimental results are not so clear yet. I think that means we should wait. There is also the question on whether English-language sources will actually care even if Og is conclusively shown to be a semiconductor; will they keep calling it a noble gas anyway for simplicity, accepting that it becomes just a name, just like how "alkaline earth metal" includes Be and Mg which don't fit the name? And will primary and secondary sources do different things here? I think flagging this out will be too complicated for a navigation box since the higher-level sources are not agreed for these four elements: remember that the Cn experimental results were interpreted by the experimenters as signalling that Cn was a metal, and it's only the recent theoretical reappraisal that pointed out that it was also consistent with Cn as an insulator. And I think that simply explaining it in article text is probably for the best, to say that the trend towards metallicity also exists in groups 17 and 18, but it is not experimentally sure yet how it goes exactly. [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp#top|talk]]) 11:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
===RFC status=== |
|||
:One question. You still have an RFC ongoing at [[Talk:Periodic table]] about splitting the nonmetals. Do you think it needs to be resolved before we do this? [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp#top|talk]]) 13:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::{{yo|Sandbh|Double sharp}} The RFC says it will run until closed by an admin after (a) 30 days or (b) [[WP:SNOW]]. IMO there are '''9''' logical possibilities: |
|||
::{| class=wikitable style="text-align:center;" |
|||
! rowspan=2 | Result of current RFC !! colspan=3 | Action after current RFC |
|||
|- |
|||
! Make no changes !! Propose change via RFC !! Change via ELEM consensus |
|||
|- |
|||
! Consensus on 3 (ie, a change) |
|||
| 1. (3→NC) || 2. (3→RFC) || 3. (3→ELEM) |
|||
|- |
|||
! Consensus on 2 (ie, no change) |
|||
| 4. (2→NC) || 5. (2→RFC) || 6. (2→ELEM) |
|||
|- |
|||
! Closed without any consensus |
|||
| 7. (0→NC) || 8. (0→RFC) || 9. (0→ELEM) |
|||
|} |
|||
::This gives us a number of options to think about. If we at ELEM decide on a change other than the ones under consideration in the current RFC, it would probably be best if that RFC ended with no consensus. Toward that end, I think it would be best if there were a '''Neither of the above''' option in the current RFC. Would anyone object if I added such a section? [[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG|talk]]) 18:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ping|YBG}} I would not object, but I think it would rather be up to {{u|Sandbh}} to decide. [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp#top|talk]]) 19:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{ping|Sandbh}} I can see two alternatives, both of which I believe require your action, as RFP originator. (1) You withdraw the RFP (not sure if that is allowed). (2) You add a "neither of the above" alternative and see if it garners adequate support for a consensus on "non-consensus". [[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG|talk]]) 03:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{ping|YBG}} Withdrawing an RFC is definitely allowed: I did that for my group 3 one this year. Whether or not {{u|Sandbh}} wishes to do that is naturally his prerogative. [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp#top|talk]]) 19:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
=== Launch === |
|||
Seeing that {{u|Sandbh}} and {{u|YBG}} seem to be OK with the 2010 scheme now that it has been amended to show Po as a metal, and that Sandbh seems to be OK with an ELEM consensus rather than putting it up to an RFC: as expressed at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#Launch_of_revamped_2010_category_scheme]], I have decided to [[WP:BOLD]]ly start the launch of this new scheme. |
|||
Naturally, there are several pending issues that need to be discussed. However, since none of these impact whether or not the scheme is supported, my personal call is that it is better not to wait in order not to jeopardise things from getting done when there is some reasonable agreement on them. |
|||
Also naturally, as a BOLD action, all of this may be reverted and discussed. [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp#top|talk]]) 16:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:As a temporary stopgap, the lede of [[post-transition metal]] has been rewritten slightly, and the article moved to {{u|Sandbh}}'s preference [[metals close to the border between metals and nonmetals]]. More work can be done later, I expect. [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp#top|talk]]) 17:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Arbitration case request declined == |
|||
The [[Special:Permalink/990863692#Elements|''Elements'']] case request, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 00:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:34, 30 November 2020
Lurking a bit. Mostly inactive though.
TFA
Thank you today for Hassium, saying "We return once again to bring you another superheavy element, after dubnium and nihonium back in 2018, and tennessine (then ununseptium) back in 2015. After the first FAC, we did some more work on the article (chronicled on the talk page), and I think we're ready to try again now. Hopefully this is a pleasant enough read for the subject matter while we sit back and wait for element 119 to reveal itself!"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 08:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Some apples left for you, with thanks for all the double sharp music. See my talk today for an expressive image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Oh! Thank you so much for this! Now I feel bad that I haven't done anywhere near as much for music as I have for chemistry on WP...but I still love seeing your DYKs on the main page anyway! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please don't feel bad ;) - this round of apples went to people recognizing the merits of Jerome Kohl, DYK? So music felt closer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: And now I feel bad for not thinking of that immediately. ^_^ Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Please don't feel bad ;) - this round of apples went to people recognizing the merits of Jerome Kohl, DYK? So music felt closer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Seven years! |
---|
- now feel good --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Thanks! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- welcome ;) - birthday of two friends who play string instruments (bass and cello), pictured on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Thanks! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- now feel good --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
DA’s article on Lu etc
Where was this article published? Sandbh (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: In the Belarusian journal Хiмiя: праблемы выкладання 1999, 5, pp. 102–109. Double sharp (talk) 09:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- P.S. It's also on his website: spreads one, two, three, four. (But only as pictures and in Russian. So I haven't read it properly yet as using Google Translate to read it is a bit difficult, but do intend to try doing it soon.) Double sharp (talk) 09:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Oops
Hey, I inadvertently messed up some of your edits and have now tried to repair things. But please double check as I may not have done it correctly. Might have even made it worse. Sigh. YBG (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think I've finally fixed it. This diff shows the changes between your last edit and my final fix, which include five changes by me and three by DePiep. This diff shows the changes between your edit just before my screw-up and the current revision. Thank you for your understanding. YBG (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Turns out my initial efforts at a fix were totally misguided. My edit, through the magic of WP had already included your latest changes, I was only making things worse. But now all is copacetic. Hopefully. YBG (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- @YBG: All good, no problem! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup 2020 November newsletter
The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is Lee Vilenski (submissions), the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by Gog the Mild (submissions). In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points. The Rambling Man (submissions) was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with Epicgenius (submissions) close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.
The other finalists were Hog Farm (submissions), HaEr48 (submissions), Harrias (submissions) and Bloom6132 (submissions). The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!
All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.
- Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 14 FAs during the course of the competition.
- Bloom6132 (submissions) win the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in round 4.
- Rhododendrites (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 3 FPs in round 3 and 5 overall.
- Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 23 FAC reviews in round 5.
- Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 45 GAs in round 2 and 113 overall.
- MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 33 articles in good topics in round 2.
- The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, for 100 good article reviews in round 2.
- Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 22 Did you know articles in round 4 and 94 overall.
- Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 63 In the news articles in round 4 and 136 overall.
Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Coloring our primary PT
Hi. Since I can not locate the single location at WT:ELEM for this topic, I write here (as if on WT:ELEM) ;-) :-)
I learned that you advocate to make our primary PT (we know) to have the blocks colored. Now I can understand your argumentation for this, and maybe somewhere else I might join this discussion blocks-over-categories.
- My point for now is: coloring the block has problems too. In short:
- 1. Like columns and rows, blocks are already present and visible in a PT, in its table structure. (Even in a b-and-w one)
- 2. Coloring blocks (or any set) distracks attention away from the main periodic features: groups/columns, periods/rows, and blocks ;-)
So I say: why cannot our primary PT be in b/w? And thereby explain everything the article wants to describe, primarily, just as well? All themes (blocks, cat's, m.p.'s, whatever) can have their dedicated place. Must say: for blocks in b/w, I'd want to make their borders thicker. So, more px for the borders between p-d elemnts etc.
Worth digesting? -DePiep (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: Busy today, but indeed worth digesting. I agree that blocks are already present and visible as you say in #1 – but only to some extent. Helium being in the s block means it's not quite obvious, and there doesn't seem a quite obvious way to present the block names. (And if Sc-Y-La persists on WP, then the split d block will not be quite totally obvious either.) So, while I agree with your #2 that those three are the only main periodic features, I sort of feel that blocks being one of them implies they should be called out. They are a main PT feature that everyone agrees on (that's something categories cannot claim at all) and there is some case for giving them attention and labelling them explicitly. Colouring is just a natural way to do it that many sources use when describing blocks, that's why I suggest it (and for Russian tables it is often the default categorisation.) But you have a point there and my preferences are indeed blocks-only > black-and-white >> any other colour scheme. Thank you for mentioning this as an option. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- We have time. I was just planting a thought suggestion. -DePiep (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: And you did, and it was an interesting one to boot. Thank you! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- We have time. I was just planting a thought suggestion. -DePiep (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
How to file a noticeboard complaint
The 3-tier diff and link series |
---|
Here are some templates you may find useful:
- Jehochman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Gamma ray burst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am complaining because @Jehochman: has been causing trouble at Gamma ray burst in violation of WP:V, WP:VANDAL and WP:FRINGE. [1][2][3]
See how I can cover a lot of ground in a very small space? Before you even talk about your complaint, list the involved editors with all their links and also the involved articles. Then make a list of asertions with a few of the best diffs for each. That's the best way to get help. Make it easy so the reader can just click on the evidence and see exactly what you are talking about. Jehochman Talk 20:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Jehochman: I see, thank you for the explanation. So I should not explain how I feel the policies are violated, but leave it for the reader to deduce from the diffs? Double sharp (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- If you diff includes a lot of content and you want to point to a specific, you can use
{{tquote}}
like thisDon't raise the stakes.
[4]. If readers don't understand, they'll ask. Try to choose examples that are self-evident. If your problem is subtle, such as somebody pushing pseudoscience and longer explanations are needed, you may have to take it to arbitration. Jehochman Talk 20:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- If you diff includes a lot of content and you want to point to a specific, you can use
- @Jehochman: I see, thank you. I am afraid that at least part of the problem may be subtle (although not in the way you gave as an example) and need longer explanations, then. Do you have some similar advice on how to write when taking something to arbitration, as in that case the problem would be more difficult to describe succintly? I do think I would want to do that in this case. Double sharp (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Just file a noticeboard thread as best you can, or drop it, as you like. If you file a noticeboard thread, somebody will get peaved and summon all of you to arbitration. Jehochman Talk 21:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Jehochman: OK, thank you for your help. I will try to read up on the expected behaviour when filing an arbitration request and discuss and decide with other involved parties whether or not to do it. Double sharp (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Just a note, Double sharp, that arbitration cases have strict word limits unless you request and are granted an extension. If you are limited to 1,000 words and you write 3,500, the arbitration clerks will just lop off the extra 2,500 words. It's better to be succinct and make use of all of the diffs you are allowed. Liz Read! Talk! 01:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Liz: Thanks for telling me this. For now I've been discussing with User:EdChem on his talk page what to do next, since he has been trying to mediate the situation, and he suggested it may be better not to take it to ArbCom at this moment and that if he has time, he may try to start a process to see if WT:ELEM (the disputing project) can move forward productively. So, there is some chance this can be resolved. I will definitely keep your advice in mind and follow it if at some point we feel it's the best option to go there. Double sharp (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Just a note, Double sharp, that arbitration cases have strict word limits unless you request and are granted an extension. If you are limited to 1,000 words and you write 3,500, the arbitration clerks will just lop off the extra 2,500 words. It's better to be succinct and make use of all of the diffs you are allowed. Liz Read! Talk! 01:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Jehochman: OK, thank you for your help. I will try to read up on the expected behaviour when filing an arbitration request and discuss and decide with other involved parties whether or not to do it. Double sharp (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Just file a noticeboard thread as best you can, or drop it, as you like. If you file a noticeboard thread, somebody will get peaved and summon all of you to arbitration. Jehochman Talk 21:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Jehochman: I see, thank you. I am afraid that at least part of the problem may be subtle (although not in the way you gave as an example) and need longer explanations, then. Do you have some similar advice on how to write when taking something to arbitration, as in that case the problem would be more difficult to describe succintly? I do think I would want to do that in this case. Double sharp (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Arbitration notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#An elementary issue and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Since it looks like this is going to be accepted, I have started drafting a statement offline. I see there's a 500 word limit and I'll make sure to stick to it. Double sharp (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Your statement can literally be a single sentence. Just say whether or not you think a case would be helpful. If you wish to add three or four more sentences you say the reasons why or why not a case would or wouldn’t be helpful. Don’t think about this too long or hard; just give the first honest answer that comes to mind. Jehochman Talk 00:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Jehochman, thank you for your advice. I notice also that one of the arbitrators (Maxim) has suggested writing a brief summary of the main points of the dispute there; I guess this might fall under the reasons you suggest if I add a couple more sentences? (I guess obviously with diffs to back up whatever I say.) I notice that Sandbh has commented on EdChem's talk page to say that he doesn't want to go to ARBCOM, but now that DePiep is also an extra party and some arbs have leant towards taking the case I am not sure what I should do next even if I originally didn't want to go here in the first place. In any case it's getting late in my time zone and maybe it will do me better to decide what I will post tomorrow morning when my head is clearer and less sleep-deprived. My apologies if this drags out the process a little bit. Double sharp (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Your statement can literally be a single sentence. Just say whether or not you think a case would be helpful. If you wish to add three or four more sentences you say the reasons why or why not a case would or wouldn’t be helpful. Don’t think about this too long or hard; just give the first honest answer that comes to mind. Jehochman Talk 00:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@R8R, DePiep, and EdChem: Well, let's see what has now happened.
- DS, me, and DePiep are now involved.
- The nuclear option of a blanket TBAN from chemistry-related topics—for all three of us—has been raised, "because this situation is not sustainable."
- CaptainEek's list of other steps in the dispute resolution process has been taken out of context. He conflates (a) concerns myself and R8R had about DePiep, with (b) concerns DS and I have had with one another. (a) is closed AFAIK; it is only (b) that remains in contention (sort of).
- CaptainEek does not know what is going on so his ARBCOM filing is flawed; OTOH I can see that given the number times we have been at WP:ANI, he has formed the view that there is an issue of some kind.
- The only people who should file a report at WP:ARBOM, should we feel there is value in so doing, are you Double sharp, or me, since both of us know the history.
- As discussed at EdChem's talk page, I don't wish to do so; I doubt you do.
- We now find the three of us as proposed fodder in the spectator arena of WP:ARBCOM.
- I was surprised to see you have a (now ancient) block record!
- Let's keep talking to one another.
- Remaining issues about the interpretation and application of WP:POLICY could be raised at the applicable policy talk pages, with scope for an RFC, if needed
- EdChem was very gracious in his comments about what I have to bring to WP. You too have too much to bring to WP. Too much to merit leaving the project etc. Even though we sometimes have differences in philosophy. That is the beautiful contest of ideas that R8R has referred to. Sandbh (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sandbh, WP does not justice or fairness. Not at ANI, definitely not at ArbCom. ArbCom is empowered to end the dispute in the best interests of Wikipedia to end the ongoing disruption to the project. No one has been charged, nothing needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, no one can go to jail. If ArbCom forms the view (collectively) that editing area A is better off without editor B, then they can issue a topic ban &nadsh; and everyone will assume that it had a valid basis / justification. This will happen no matter what you or any other participant believes. This is not a defect in the system, it is an integral and deliberate part of the system. CaptainEek's presentation may be utterly flawed, and that won't matter at all if enough Arbitrators come to the view that (a) there is a dispute / problem which they can help resolve; and, (b) the community is unable to solve it on its own. You may think / believe / want it to be otherwise, you can advocate for change, but at this moment and with a case request made, please accept that this is the way that it is. If you will allow a personal observation, it is my opinion that some of your comments here are coming from your personal beliefs and values about how things should be. Decision making should be fair to those involved, for example – that is a sub-text (IMO) to some of your ANI comments. The thing is, WP is not meant to be a social community (although it is) and editor-to-editor interactions are valued only to the extent that they promote the goal of high quality encyclopaedic content. I have strong feelings about fairness and justice and have certainly posted at times when I saw injustice, but I have learned to accept that part of being a Wikipedian is accepting the institutional view that the content is most important. If ending disruption advances content by a means that is also unfair to a particular editor, that can still be acceptable. For example, if there is warring at the Donald Trump article with three editors removing any suggestion that Biden won the 2020 election and three editors posting content about the result and one of them adding gloating content about Trump being a loser, banning the first three plus the gloater might be fair, but banning all six might be simpler and less open to criticism for bias... unfair to the extra two, but with plenty of others willing and able to add to that article, probably a good thing for WP. At ELEM, there are few editors. I don't want to see anyone removed, and I am glad to see your comments to Double sharp above. The problem is as I posted at my page, however – this case will be taken unless ArbCom is given an alternative. EdChem (talk) 05:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
About Ds initiative #Deciding_between_ourselves
- Double sharp, you have started Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements § Deciding between ourselves at WT:ELEM, as a ===-subsection of your earlier post. Could you clarify why you made this (TOC) setup? To me, it looks like the #Deciding between ourselves post already is wasted, yes, by a content thread. (That is, even if it stays about content). One visible effect is that Sandbh did not comment on the earlier post but did so in the second one. -DePiep (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Adding: And let's note that the issue Talk:Periodic_table#FA_status is ~equally important for the Project. I don't think this deserves such a subsection either (the horror). -DePiep (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: You may move it to a == == level-2 section if you think the flow makes more sense that way. I did it that way because it seemed like a plausible compromise that might get everyone to stop talking about categorisation and move on to something more productive. That's just because EdChem suggested that those other issues are far more important and I agree with him. So I suggested return to 2002 (well, with the unanimous 2017 RFC to take away group 12 from transition metals accepted), because that worked for eleven years, there wasn't any serious drama about it, and frankly if it wasn't for astatine we probably would never have changed it away from that at all. Unfortunately it seems that no one is considering it. But even that is OK: if no one wants to consider a compromise, we will just get stuck with the status quo which may work fine too.
- BTW, can I say that I think things were actually more reasonable pre-2012 when astatine wasn't an issue? Mostly because those categories worked fine. Yes, sometimes someone changed from La to Lu or maybe back again to La and with * appearing sometimes, but I don't recall very much in the way of long posts about it. Same thing with changes like "other metals" vs "post-transition metals" vs "poor metals"; yes it changed sometimes, but all in all it worked simply without long posts and just somebody or a couple of people thinking it's a good idea and just making the edits. Usually without objection. And yes, there was some inconsistency with the group 3 issue along the lines of * in 18 column and some La and some Lu tables around, but maybe that's exactly what kept the war in an equilibrium state with no one getting worked up. And in the end it seemed nicer and more informal as befitting this issue. Perhaps that was a better time and example of how to deal with categories. And maybe it is not a coincidence that the most productive years of our project were 2011 and 2012, when these issues were simply hardly discussed and the simple and only focus was content. In other words: maybe it was a mistake to ever try to improve on the 2002 thing. It worked well enough, any improvements at that stage will have problems getting a consensus, and updates could just be added case by case for superheavies. The worst case of At should maybe just have been handled with "halogen nonmetals". Ah well. Easy to say in hindsight, I guess? But maybe we can learn from it and say "what should we have done" and implement that and then keep it in mind and never speak of it again till the IUPAC project steps finish. Double sharp (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- re (ec, before the BTW-addition) I'm not here about the topic (but really, 2002? as a compromise?), unless the thread turns >>worse from current TL;DR. I was and am wondering how this subthread is related to your #Deciding post, what such a discussion could achieve for that post. And no I wont change the ='s -- in this question, it is strange that it is equal to you (IOW, discussion structure). -DePiep (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: Well, the idea I had was that the discussion was meant at stopping the fight, and so was this, which is why I put it together. But since you think it makes sense, I have made it into == ==. Double sharp (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- P.S. Regarding why 2002 as a compromise: because it was the longest-lasting of all category schemes here and never resulted from big discussions nor resulted in big discussions. Everything all worked. It is only astatine that means we cannot go back to it as one thing that worked uncontroversially. Frankly we've done nothing that big since then. Group 3 was mostly left undecided there with La, Lu, and * all popping around. Maybe we should have stayed with that rather than changing to Lu in 2014 and then to La in 2017 as "house style". From 2015 onwards we even had the excuse that IUPAC was going to say something. But, OK, it has been decided for now, it won't make any difference if we just wait. Group 12 is the only big change, that was decided in an RFC. Maybe that was a mistake, I am reminded of the old 2008 thread (first one on that page) that agreed not to change anything since IUPAC allows both definitions. After all, "transition = d-block" definition was primary in the Red Book, and the simplification is pretty common. But it's 50-50, who cares. Polonium was recoloured without drama, same with superheavies. Astatine caused all the dramas only because it failed to fit within the old categories, but with the addition of one word "halogen nonmetals" it became a perfect fit again. I am kind of kicking myself for not thinking of that and implementing it back in 2012, actually. All the categorisation threads sucked up a lot of time that was lost to articles, even if we did learn something from them.
- Ah well. Easy to be wise with eight years' hindsight, eh? But maybe you need the experience to see it. Like Physchim62 said on that 2008 thread:
Yes, my own opinion is that it's one of those debates that creates more heat than useful work!
Maybe all of the categorisation talk was that and shouldn't have been done. Double sharp (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC) - You know what, maybe this is interesting talk. Maybe I'll collapse that proposed compromise and look more at the approach "suppose we never started talking about this, we had the 2002 colouring, and we were confronted with the issue that astatine is probably not a nonmetal again. What would we do then"? And maybe let sleeping dogs lie after that. Thanks for making me think. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- (ec) Re your "BTW, can I say that ..." comment. While innocent on this page, to me it signals a big flaw: you are mixing up talkpage discipline and content talk (even without any PA-like edits). Our acute problem is the talkpage behaviour: editor interaction, discussion flow, reaching conclusions, RFC-ing every question, and TL;DR by now is WP:INCOMPETENCE full stop. (Again: this is without PA-like issues). IMO it is useless to start or develop a content discussion under today's circumstances. -DePiep (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- (minor note) I think the collapsing is a good idea, esp to focus attention elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: That's why I'm rambling on my own talk page instead of polluting ELEM. It's a step up. Sorry for exposing you to it, but since the result on ELEM is better, maybe it's a needed intermediate step. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- re (ec, before the BTW-addition) I'm not here about the topic (but really, 2002? as a compromise?), unless the thread turns >>worse from current TL;DR. I was and am wondering how this subthread is related to your #Deciding post, what such a discussion could achieve for that post. And no I wont change the ='s -- in this question, it is strange that it is equal to you (IOW, discussion structure). -DePiep (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Adding: And let's note that the issue Talk:Periodic_table#FA_status is ~equally important for the Project. I don't think this deserves such a subsection either (the horror). -DePiep (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I think you may be right about it being useless to start a content discussion now. So I guess a sensible compromise might just be to stick with what we currently have. Maybe, in a year or so, I might suggest "back to 2002" again. Or maybe only until IUPAC decides on something for group 3 which should help un-poison the atmosphere. We'll see. Definitely not now at any rate. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- "in a year" is far away, but let it be "in 2021" ;-) -DePiep (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: Maybe! Hopefully! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Seriously, were you dealing behind my back these days? Really? Circumventing your own proposal? -DePiep (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: I decided to try a calculated risk and changed my mind, based on comments by other editors (don't remember which exactly). So far I've been changing my mind on exactly what is required on just about everything in favour of whatever keeps the peace the best. Since the overall result has surprisingly enough been positive and without any serious problem it seems to me that the calculated risk paid off. But if you prefer, I can inform you exactly what I'm planning before doing anything. Double sharp (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Duplicity is the word. You could have informed us in your WT:ELEM proposal. 48 hrs. -DePiep (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: Well I'm sorry you feel that way. I agree I could have informed you a bit better and started it later, and I'm sorry for it, but I'm not sorry that stuff is getting done that is resulting in what seems to be looking to a quick end to the whole categorisation thing. Double sharp (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Duplicity is the word. You could have informed us in your WT:ELEM proposal. 48 hrs. -DePiep (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Outsider observation to all (and to no one in particular) (after (edit conflict)): May I just observe that, in a time of heightened emotions / sensitivities and as conflicts are being resolved, there is desirability in avoiding steps that may inadvertently cause angst by going for over-inclusiveness and extra politeness? It is very easy at such times to cause offense inadvertently or to give the impression of rudeness / disrespect where none was intended. When such events do occur, assertively (but not aggressively) registering that one is upset (or whatever) and hopefully receiving an explanation / apology (as appropriate) is desirable for preventing a small event growing into or reigniting a larger conflict. EdChem (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Then EdChem, what do you advise me? This is duplicit, already 48hrs, full stop. -DePiep (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- And don't forget my position is at stake, that is: directly involved, and being played with. 'excuses' while not reverting/retrackting is idle. -DePiep (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- @EdChem: That's what I've been trying to do. For the record, I am not pleased with DePiep's statements, since I pinged everybody involved at WT:ELEM including him. (And for the record, I chose to do this to end things quickly since it seemed that Sandbh still intended to continue with his recategorisation RFC, and I thought that this might be a way to avoid one following DePiep's own statement to avoid RFC-ing every question and instead resolve things nicely within a few days to a week and get everyone focused on something more productive.) However, I agree with you that the most important thing now is to resolve the dispute with extra politeness, and that is why I am not making and don't intend to make any fuss over it. Double sharp (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- It appears from DePiep's new ArbCom statement that this is not after all what he was talking about, and that it is instead about me talking to Sandbh of my own accord on his talk page rather than on the main ELEM page. Against the charges of duplicity I only wish to say that I did what I did with the aim of restoring the peace, and it seems to have succeeded with Sandbh on his talk page as well as R8R and YBG on theirs. If DePiep wishes to see it in a negative light, that is his right. Double sharp (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- (ec, re Ds) ... at the cost of other editor(s). Did you ping me from WT:ELEM about #Deciding_between_ourselves from a content thread or so, and now say "you knew"? That exactly is part of the problem, already identified as WP:CIR. You have been played. -DePiep (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- After (edit conflict): Ok, Double sharp and DePiep, first, can we please stop for a few minutes? I saw the comments here this morning and made a general comment in the hope that there was an inadvertent issue here. Evidently that was incorrect. DePiep, I see that you are aggrieved and am glad you are seeking advice... so could you please outline (succinctly) what you see as duplicit, because I am confused. Double sharp, would you please let DePiep reply and for me to understand his concern before putting in your perspective? Thank you. EdChem (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- (ec, re Ds) The "negative light" is not my observation, it is actual actions. Your actions were factually duplicit. (need diffs?). You were dealing in two separate places full stop. You "restoring the peace" (and keeping ELEM alive) was done at the cost of others. But hey, let's not get "emotional". -DePiep (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: I would like the diffs, if you don't mind. I just answer that because I understand that EdChem also wants to know what your concern is, and so do I. Double sharp (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- After (edit conflict)s: Ok, I see that the joint statement posted at A/R/C is agreed by Double sharp and Sandbh only. In my original suggestions at my talk page, my intent was that the joint statement involve all the ELEM editors if possible, or at least all those named as parties at the case. DePiep was added as a party after the case request started but should, IMO, be included in developing any joint statement for it to really cover the topic that ArbCom need to consider. By the time the thread at Sandbh's page was started, DePiep had already been added as an involved party and, inadvertent though I hope it was, it was inappropriate to develop and post a statement without him. Yes, it was headed in such a way that did not represent itself as having included DePiep, but not including him does not show to ArbCom that all of the parties are on board.
Double sharp, I suggest that you and Sandbh post to A/R/C that DePiep was not involved in developing your joint statement, that you see a statement that includes all parties from ELEM as desirable, and ask for a brief pause. Then, the two of you should approach DePiep and try to form a statement that all of you can agree to and sign.
DePiep, for myself, I apologise for not recognising that you were not invited to and participating in the discussion of a joint statement. I suggested it be done on a user talk page as a less formal venue than WT:ELEM, and one that allows the exclusion of those who are not directly involved... but I did not consider nor recognise that implicit exclusion of you as a party directly involved had occurred. I hope that you can all find a way to produce a consensus statement as I have been very encouraged by recent developments; all of you are significant contributors to ELEM and assets. I hope that what happened was mistake and lack of consideration rather than deliberate duplicity. EdChem (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- (ec, re Ds) The "negative light" is not my observation, it is actual actions. Your actions were factually duplicit. (need diffs?). You were dealing in two separate places full stop. You "restoring the peace" (and keeping ELEM alive) was done at the cost of others. But hey, let's not get "emotional". -DePiep (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- (ec) @EdChem: 00:49:
- 1. Double sharp proposed #Deciding_between_ourselves, to which I 'signed' and elaborated. 4/5 signed, just Sandbh missing so far. Here, Fri 13 Ds supported me to not respond immediately (no emotional reflexes), ok. Saturday I had more side-talks with Ds in this very thread, named #About Ds initiative #Deciding_between_ourselves. I replied ELEM today, Sun 15 16:30 UTC. I then also made my statement at arbcom/case. So far, all fine.
- 2. Later, from the 'joint statement' post by Sandbh, I learned that they had discussed this for days, deviating from Ds's #Deciding... declaration into a separate statement: User_talk:Sandbh#Regarding_solving_the_issue_between_ourselves. All this over days, not hours.
- 3. By this, Double sharp has mislead me in the ELEM#Deciding discussion, and making a deal with Sandbh is effectively throwing me under the bus (we are skipping involvement of R8R for now). Their "I have pinged you" claim does not make sense. Why did Double sharp leave their own proposal? Why was Sandbh not asked/expected to sign up? (A great disappointment, Double sharp.)
- Switching off for the night. -DePiep (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- DePiep, you can blame me for some of that, it connects with advice that I gave on my talk page. I did not, however, intend the discussion of a joint statement to exclude you, and I did not realise that that was happening. As you can see above, I have already suggested that a statement including you be developed (either to come from all ELEM editors named as parties at the case request page, or from as may ELEM editors as are willing to sign) to replace the present one. You have every reason to be aggrieved that a statement that should have included you was developed without you. I truly hope that this was not deceptive / duplicitous in intent and I hope that an inclusive statement that you support is possible. EdChem (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- I confirm there was no intent to deceive. I simply wanted a resolution with everybody, and that is why I informed Sandbh on his talk page. I continued with him there only because that is where he replied. I am sorry that you feel that me dealing with Sandbh regarding my own previous issue with him alone throws you under the bus, and like EdChem, I hope that something including you can be developed. Double sharp (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- @EdChem and Double sharp:. I'm not looking to blame, it is just a factual situation we have arrived at, and damage assessment. First a detail. I note that R8R (who somehow is still not listed as involved while, for example, being active in many of the ANI's), did actually not sign the #Deciding_between_ourselves, or did so with reservations. I might have missed posts, but I have not found any explicit self-reflection, while he is asking others for it. Next, not a detail. The battlefield reply by Sandbh to the #Deciding proposal is very clear: not agreeing with the initiative, no change of attitude as needed, and the certaintee of continued/repeated ANI-style editor judgements not content discussions. Since you, Ds, left asking Sandbh to sign it, this outcome was made possible and forseeable. Since a #Deciding_between_ourselves was rejected, I have asked to accept the case. -DePiep (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- I add that I have no doubt that both EdChem and Double sharp were working in good faith in both locations (discussions). It happened to be that the combined result did not end up well, but this outside of their commendable input. (I missed this observation initially, obviously). -DePiep (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- DePiep, thank you for your kind words. Double sharp (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- I confirm there was no intent to deceive. I simply wanted a resolution with everybody, and that is why I informed Sandbh on his talk page. I continued with him there only because that is where he replied. I am sorry that you feel that me dealing with Sandbh regarding my own previous issue with him alone throws you under the bus, and like EdChem, I hope that something including you can be developed. Double sharp (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- DePiep, you can blame me for some of that, it connects with advice that I gave on my talk page. I did not, however, intend the discussion of a joint statement to exclude you, and I did not realise that that was happening. As you can see above, I have already suggested that a statement including you be developed (either to come from all ELEM editors named as parties at the case request page, or from as may ELEM editors as are willing to sign) to replace the present one. You have every reason to be aggrieved that a statement that should have included you was developed without you. I truly hope that this was not deceptive / duplicitous in intent and I hope that an inclusive statement that you support is possible. EdChem (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Halogens v halogen non-metals
I don't have a strong opinion either way--Oldboltonian (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Oldboltonian: OK, thanks. Just wanted to clarify since I didn't understand what you meant. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
The 2010 option
I reckon I could support this one, provided Po is shown as an other metal.
What say you?
Oh, and will we still have an article on other metals, and will we presumably have one on other nonmetals? Sandbh (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well that's a pleasant surprise, Sandbh!
- I'm actually willing to compromise on Po. I could, after all, see an argument that indeed Po is not as often included as the other six, and refer to the lists of metalloids for justification. And we did have it as a metal since 2012. My worry, however, is that since some part of the argument for the rest of the scheme is "well, ACS and LANL do something almost like this", it may dilute the support for it because it may look to others that I'm not consistently following my own arguments and that they're fighting against each other. If I presented the RFC option with Po as a metalloid, would you be OK with supporting with the caveat that you prefer Po to be a metal?
- I don't think other metal works as an article title. It works in the legend because we have the other categories there, so you know what the other types of metal are, but it doesn't really work standalone. I think this is the situation alluded to in WP:NOTNEO:
In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.
That is, we don't have a really standard title for this (post-transition metals comes closest but some people in the literature squabble about Al). So we should probably use a descriptive phrase like metals other than the alkali, alkaline earth, lanthanide, actinide, and transition metals. As for "other nonmetals", since there are that much fewer of them anyway, I think that is OK redirected to nonmetal since that article is organised by group anyway (so the halogens and noble gases got their own brief sections). What say you? Double sharp (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Polonium
I wouldn't support an RFC with Po as a metalloid. Enough is known about Po such that calling it a metalloid is a needless textbook error, of which there are already too many in chemistry texts. The RFC seems moot. Who would care if we rolled back to the 2010 version, as long as we explained our rationale?
I may email LANL about their multiple errors, including Po.
I'd be OK with linking other metals to our PTM article, and renaming it p-block metals. And we have redirects for the other alternatives.
The other nonmetals merit a link to an article, e.g. Hydrogen and the group 14–16 nonmetals. There certainly has been enough written about e.g. the biogeochemical aspects of these nonmetals, including Se. Ditto a redirect for e.g. other nonmetals. Sandbh (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Do we have a way ahead? Going to sleep on it now. Sandbh (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: Then I guess we're back where we started. I don't agree that calling Po a metalloid is a textbook error is appropriate for WP, because there's not really a generally accepted definition of what a "metalloid" is, per your Metalloid#Definitions. If there was such an accepted one, that Po failed to fulfil, then yes, I would agree. But there isn't, so there we are. So I don't think it's our place to say that calling Po a metalloid, or indeed calling Sb a metalloid, is a "textbook error" even though we both agree about it for Po and you know that I think so for Sb – on the grounds of our own definitions of what a metal should be, which as we know are not the same. (And even speaking with the educator's hat on, I have a hard time believing in Po and At as metals if Sb is not also one. See YBG's talk page for why.)
- I'm not really in favour of a separate article precisely because there are so few of those nonmetals and multiple ways to split them in the literature. We are already splitting the nonmetal article by group, and if we speak about biology, the halogens (or at least Cl and I, maybe Br) have significant biological roles too. But it is something that can be discussed if the proposal passes.
- The reason I want an RFC is to have a clear idea of a consensus beyond the project. (Weren't you concerned about our project alone deciding on things before, IIRC? Or have I misunderstood?) That way, once we have a scheme, we have some discussion to point to for why we have chosen it as a "house style". Again, that's based on comments by Jehochman and others on the ArbCom case page. Moreover, this will guarantee something stable that we will not have to discuss again and again unless the literature changes are really obvious. Double sharp (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- While I like the term p-block metal, I can see the risk that it appears to be a neologism. So I would suggest "metals in the p-block" or "metals in the p-block of the periodic table" or "metals in the periodic table p-block" or something similar that clearly appears to be a descriptive phrase rather than a neologism. As for the nonmetals, what about "nonmetals other than noble gasses and halogens" or "Non-noble, non-halogen nonmetals" (NNNHNM for short)? This recalls the comment by Double sharp back in 2012, preserved at User talk:YBG/Archive 2 § "Ignoble non-metals of the world, unite", which was in response to this comment of mine. YBG (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- YBG, my main issue with that is that while we would in the 2010 scheme be using something consistent with that, in the main article we would have to consider all significant views and some of them include group 11 and 12 as well, which are in the d block. As for myself, I have said enough about the insidious tendency of any short phrase in English to start sounding like a term if it is repeated often enough, even if it is purely descriptive (try it for example with "chemically weak metals" or something like that, and you'll probably start hearing it that way too). Which is why I've been supporting such long titles to make it clear to everyone that they are not terms and avoid any hint of neologising. That said, I am not even sure those leftover nonmetals (and that's a descriptive phrase, not yet another term) really need their own article separate from nonmetal when there are not that many nonmetals on the PT in the first place and most of the trends and properties continue down into the halogens and noble gases too. Double sharp (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well said. Re metals, I hadn't considered the d-block aspects. Re nonmetals, I was not focusing on the appropriateness of having an article, but rather on the selection of a title for such an article - or, truth be told, on the trip down memory lane linked in my final sentence. Despite my epynomous rules, I am beginning to see the wisdom of having leftover categories. The question becomes, what section in nonmetal should be the target of the "other nonmetals" legend key? Is there enough information from secondary or tertiary sources describing the train wreck that is nonmetal classification? If so, a short section about that could well be the appropriate link target. YBG (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- To be honest, YBG, my first idea was just to link "other nonmetal" that way. Double sharp (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well said. Re metals, I hadn't considered the d-block aspects. Re nonmetals, I was not focusing on the appropriateness of having an article, but rather on the selection of a title for such an article - or, truth be told, on the trip down memory lane linked in my final sentence. Despite my epynomous rules, I am beginning to see the wisdom of having leftover categories. The question becomes, what section in nonmetal should be the target of the "other nonmetals" legend key? Is there enough information from secondary or tertiary sources describing the train wreck that is nonmetal classification? If so, a short section about that could well be the appropriate link target. YBG (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- YBG, my main issue with that is that while we would in the 2010 scheme be using something consistent with that, in the main article we would have to consider all significant views and some of them include group 11 and 12 as well, which are in the d block. As for myself, I have said enough about the insidious tendency of any short phrase in English to start sounding like a term if it is repeated often enough, even if it is purely descriptive (try it for example with "chemically weak metals" or something like that, and you'll probably start hearing it that way too). Which is why I've been supporting such long titles to make it clear to everyone that they are not terms and avoid any hint of neologising. That said, I am not even sure those leftover nonmetals (and that's a descriptive phrase, not yet another term) really need their own article separate from nonmetal when there are not that many nonmetals on the PT in the first place and most of the trends and properties continue down into the halogens and noble gases too. Double sharp (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- While I like the term p-block metal, I can see the risk that it appears to be a neologism. So I would suggest "metals in the p-block" or "metals in the p-block of the periodic table" or "metals in the periodic table p-block" or something similar that clearly appears to be a descriptive phrase rather than a neologism. As for the nonmetals, what about "nonmetals other than noble gasses and halogens" or "Non-noble, non-halogen nonmetals" (NNNHNM for short)? This recalls the comment by Double sharp back in 2012, preserved at User talk:YBG/Archive 2 § "Ignoble non-metals of the world, unite", which was in response to this comment of mine. YBG (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The main issue
I can comment briefly for now.
Seemingly, the main issue is the merit of restoring the halogens (F to Ts), and the other nonmetals.
This could be relatively easily done. There’s no need for an RFC for the reasons following.
1. There is no need for concern about defining what a metalloid is. The literature tells us the elements commonly recognised as metalloids are B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te. Separately, the lists of metalloids article confirms this.
2. All other issues about Po, Sb, and At, and names of articles are distractions.
More later. Sandbh (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
2010 revisited
- @Sandbh: Let me just clarify if you don't mind. ^_^ In the OP you mentioned that you could support 2010 provided Po was a metal, right? So would this be OK with you?
H He Li Be B C N O F Ne Na Mg Al Si P S Cl Ar K Ca Sc Ti V Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Ga Ge As Se Br Kr Rb Sr Y Zr Nb Mo Tc Ru Rh Pd Ag Cd In Sn Sb Te I Xe Cs Ba La Ce Pr Nd Pm Sm Eu Gd Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Lu Hf Ta W Re Os Ir Pt Au Hg Tl Pb Bi Po At Rn Fr Ra Ac Th Pa U Np Pu Am Cm Bk Cf Es Fm Md No Lr Rf Db Sg Bh Hs Mt Ds Rg Cn Nh Fl Mc Lv Ts Og Alkali metal Alkaline earth metal Lanthanide Actinide Transition metal Other metal Metalloid Other nonmetal Halogen Noble gas Large version - (I took the one at User:Double sharp/RFC and just recoloured Po to what you wanted.)
- Yeah, I would personally be OK with this one, since there is a reasonable source-based argument for it (i.e. metalloids are shown as the usual six; other categories mostly follow IUPAC + what's common; Po is normally excluded from metalloids by higher-level texts, and for an element that is hard to study those will be more reliable; At is agnostically displayed since its status as metalloid/metal is not clear and it is usually discussed with the halogens). My worry was just with drumming up support for it RFC-wise. But if you don't think an RFC is needed, and we can agree on this scheme, then I don't think there's actually any problem and we can probably launch it. As you said, thinking about the article titles and other things now is perhaps a distraction. If it is really needed, we can think about it later.
The PT looks good. I recall a past reference to our colour scheme as a hybrid, which I took to mean it was a combination of metallicity- and group-based. Thus: “…Wikipedia uses the below hybrid system in its periodic table subgroupings.” Does the halogen category then become an old style hybrid category, given the certainty of the nonmetal status of F–I, the ambiguity of the status of At, and marginal uncertainty re Ts? For groups 13–16 I guess this is not so much of a deal given the metal status of Tl, Pb, Bi, and Po.
As far as implementation goes I expect there’d be a need for some substantial editing of our articles on (1) the PT; (2) nonmetal; and (3) names for sets of chemical elements. Just as our PT map increases its coverage, I feel the accompanying text needs to be more explanatory and nuanced. (4) A rationale for our changes also needs to be written.
For the PTM I suggest Metals close to the border between metals and nonmetals. For the other nonmetals, Nonmetals other than halogens and noble gases.
I’d like our PT to flag the more notional nature of the colour categories for At, Cn, Ts, and Og, and that predictions of their metallic (At, Ts, Cn) or non-metallic status (Cn, Og) have not been experimentally confirmed.
I’d like for these accompanying changes to articles to be ready to go at the same time as we launch the comprehensive PT.
I’m not sure what to do with the current RFC, I’ll think about that some more. Courtesy ping @YBG: Sandbh (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: Brief answers:
- If you mean "is halogens not a metallicity category", then that's correct. Same with "noble gas". They then become simply group names that take in anything in group 17 resp. 18 without regard to metallicity. That's how people in the English-language literature seem to be using them for the most part (it is something I wish they would stop doing, but there it is).
- I think that for these rare elements, flagging out the category issue in the main PT template is perhaps too much. It is after all simply a navigational aid. Currently, we do not flag out the group 3 issue, after all. And I think that's correct for much the same reason: unless you are reading about an element that is directly affected, the general answer is "who cares"? Not that I like it mind you, but it is how it is. This being said, I am ready to be convinced otherwise.
- I do not think we actually need to write a rationale for our change. For one thing, we don't usually list what we used to have. (Is there anywhere on WP where we actually explain why we stopped using polyatomic vs. diatomic nonmetals?)
- I agree that the periodic table article will need to mention this issue, but probably it will be put under the section on categorisation.
- Firstly, we could say that while the trend towards metallicity is known to exist in groups 17 and 18 just as it does for the previous groups, due to the intense radioactivity of the elements concerned it is not known for sure exactly where this creates elements that conduct electricity like metals.
- Then mention that the short half-life problem makes it quite difficult to study astatine and the elements beyond 108. (Astatine because you cannot get enough and, unlike francium, there is no 100% effective congener to carry it with.) Just mention that the experimental results are inconclusive and that the category scheme shown is based on what is usually done by sources showing such schemes, which is to simply extend the categories by groups. Say that there are some theoretical indications that things may behave differently down there due to relativistic effects: At and Ts are likely metallic, Cn may be an insulator, Og may be a semiconductor. I don't know if we should mention the predictions too much beyond a single sentence. There have been multiple predictions in the past and each one got better than the previous one. It may be better to adopt a "wait and see" approach for these issues. (Something it would be interesting to know: if the properties of Sn were calculated the way those of Og were, would one expect a structure more like grey or white tin?)
- Personally I think what we have currently, while not ideal for this new scheme, is at least serviceable as a stop-gap. Therefore I don't see a problem with launching it early and then fixing the problems later. After all: when element 119 gets discovered, we're not going to have a preparation phase to update everything, it will just have to happen as it happens.
- Double sharp (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- I could live with Metals close to the border between metals and nonmetals and Nonmetals other than halogens and noble gases, though for the former I'd suggest also considering Metals close to the nonmetal border.
- Another thing to consider: if we gain WP:ELEM consensus on the 2010 option, I think we'd like it to stick around for a while. One of the arguments in the past for an RFC has been that it would encourage stability for a while. That should be considered in deciding whether this should be implemented via RFP or via ELEM-BOLD. YBG (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- I share your thoughts, YBG. I am OK with any title that is obviously descriptive and is long enough not to be taken as a new term, anyway, and Sandbh's fit the bill well enough to my liking.
- I also agree that if the 2010 option is considered acceptable, it should stay for a while. It's nice to have stability. Obviously, if the sources change en masse to the extent that it doesn't reflect them well anymore, we should do something, but if that happens at all I doubt it'd be quick. I also think that eventually, we should think about putting it into the MOS: as a stable thing to refer to like WP:ALUM, to tell us how by default we should draw our periodic tables on Wikipedia. However, I think there are several issues waiting before we should do that. First of all there is the colouring issue; we still do want to update those 2002 colours, don't we? Frankly I have no strong opinions and think that what R8R has is already going to be a good start, but we need to decide on one in order to say "on WP, as a default, use this". And secondly there may be a group 3 (layout issue) rerun sometime in the near future as the results of the IUPAC process are released to the public, and I would not like anything about that to be set in stone as an official WP convention until the process finishes somehow and the results are publicly released. True, just IUPAC saying something does not mean we have to decide to follow them, but whatever they say must be taken into account. Therefore I feel we should wait till the process really finishes. Till then we are working with incomplete information when we will have complete information if we just wait a bit longer. So, it is an eventual goal, but for now I would argue to wait and leave it as an ELEM thing only both because of internal (recolouring once categories are settled) and external (IUPAC) matters: I don't think it will do any harm if the colour scheme becomes somehow officially stabilised as WP convention later rather than sooner. In the meantime, we can perhaps update Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Guidelines to have the colour-scheme information. Double sharp (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
P.S. Since element 119 may well come next year: just to cover those edge cases, I will say that under this scheme, whenever discovered, element 119 will get coloured in as an alkali metal and element 120 as an alkaline earth metal (so just like for Og, we will not be waiting for chemical investigation). They will appear in row 8 where you'd expect them as eka-Fr and eka-Ra. So now I've said it and we will be ready. What happens after that can be left for the future. Double sharp (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Alright. There is much goodness here. YBG
Thanks for clarifying the nature of the halogen category.
I’ll post some more about flagging out e.g. At, Ts, Og.
The proposed rationale for change, in summary form, is for convenience. There is one explaining why we ditched polyatomic and diatomic.
I’m not fussed about the actual colours. I thought R8R’s was quite good.
Stability is antithetical to the nature of WP as an encyclopaedia based on continuous improvement, so I don’t see a valid reason to embed this, but YMMV.
I’ve w/drawn the RFC. Sandbh (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Sideshow: The buzzy fly that is astatine
This continues my comment re flagging At, Ts, etc. Courtesy ping YBG.
The context for my post is that Po is normally excluded from metalloids by higher-level texts, and for an element that is hard to study those will be more reliable.
OTOH, colour coding Cn, At, Ts, and Og as a PTM, halogens, and a noble gas, without any flags, ignores what higher level sources say.
Higher level sources point to At as a metal. For Ts, the case for metal status is stronger, as noted in its article. For what it is worth, the RSC refers to Ts as a metal.
So, if we acknowledge higher level sources are more reliable for hard-to-study elements, I’d like to flag Cn, At, Ts, and Og, whilst retaining their colour categories as PTM, halogens, and a noble gas, per introductory sources.
Certainly our PT is a navigational aid. Along with our colour categories, a few flags would enhance an appreciation of the metal-metalloid-nonmetal landscape. Sandbh (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
YBG, I take it to mean advanced level sources, that are not normally taken account of by introductory level general chemistry text books. For example, the 1940 announcement of the synthesis of At which referred to it as a metal; Batsanov’s 1971 article predicting a band gap of 0.7 for At; and the 2013 relativistic modelling study that predicted a band gap for At of 0.68 eV, but a fully metallic fcc structure once all relativistic effects were taken into account. A similar thing happened when the Curies wrote, in 1898, that Po was a metal. AFAIK introductory level general chemistry textbooks do not mention such things. Sandbh (talk) 07:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sandbh, it does not necessarily rule against what higher-level sources say. Greenwood & Earnshaw calls At a halogen, and so does Holleman & Wiberg. Here's a source focusing on superheavy elements and their properties that does call Ts a halogen: [5]. I think it comes down to just that there are two ideas of what "halogen" means: one demands being a nonmetal, the other does not and simply asks that you be in group 17. And in fact, by calling "halogen" a group name in periodic table, we're implicitly using the second definition. So even if reliable sources do expect At, Ts, and Og to be more metallic, that will not necessarily mean they have to stop being halogens and a noble gas.
- The situation with Ts and Og is only predicted. The predictions have changed in the past for Og, and I think that predictions should not be given the same weight as experimental knowledge. Indeed we already don't give them that in the current scheme: we just tell them "unknown chemical properties". As for At and Cn, there are relatively clear predictions too, and there are experimental results, but the experimental results are not so clear yet. I think that means we should wait. There is also the question on whether English-language sources will actually care even if Og is conclusively shown to be a semiconductor; will they keep calling it a noble gas anyway for simplicity, accepting that it becomes just a name, just like how "alkaline earth metal" includes Be and Mg which don't fit the name? And will primary and secondary sources do different things here? I think flagging this out will be too complicated for a navigation box since the higher-level sources are not agreed for these four elements: remember that the Cn experimental results were interpreted by the experimenters as signalling that Cn was a metal, and it's only the recent theoretical reappraisal that pointed out that it was also consistent with Cn as an insulator. And I think that simply explaining it in article text is probably for the best, to say that the trend towards metallicity also exists in groups 17 and 18, but it is not experimentally sure yet how it goes exactly. Double sharp (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
RFC status
- One question. You still have an RFC ongoing at Talk:Periodic table about splitting the nonmetals. Do you think it needs to be resolved before we do this? Double sharp (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Sandbh and Double sharp: The RFC says it will run until closed by an admin after (a) 30 days or (b) WP:SNOW. IMO there are 9 logical possibilities:
Result of current RFC Action after current RFC Make no changes Propose change via RFC Change via ELEM consensus Consensus on 3 (ie, a change) 1. (3→NC) 2. (3→RFC) 3. (3→ELEM) Consensus on 2 (ie, no change) 4. (2→NC) 5. (2→RFC) 6. (2→ELEM) Closed without any consensus 7. (0→NC) 8. (0→RFC) 9. (0→ELEM)
- This gives us a number of options to think about. If we at ELEM decide on a change other than the ones under consideration in the current RFC, it would probably be best if that RFC ended with no consensus. Toward that end, I think it would be best if there were a Neither of the above option in the current RFC. Would anyone object if I added such a section? YBG (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- @YBG: I would not object, but I think it would rather be up to Sandbh to decide. Double sharp (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: I can see two alternatives, both of which I believe require your action, as RFP originator. (1) You withdraw the RFP (not sure if that is allowed). (2) You add a "neither of the above" alternative and see if it garners adequate support for a consensus on "non-consensus". YBG (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- @YBG: Withdrawing an RFC is definitely allowed: I did that for my group 3 one this year. Whether or not Sandbh wishes to do that is naturally his prerogative. Double sharp (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: I can see two alternatives, both of which I believe require your action, as RFP originator. (1) You withdraw the RFP (not sure if that is allowed). (2) You add a "neither of the above" alternative and see if it garners adequate support for a consensus on "non-consensus". YBG (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- @YBG: I would not object, but I think it would rather be up to Sandbh to decide. Double sharp (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- This gives us a number of options to think about. If we at ELEM decide on a change other than the ones under consideration in the current RFC, it would probably be best if that RFC ended with no consensus. Toward that end, I think it would be best if there were a Neither of the above option in the current RFC. Would anyone object if I added such a section? YBG (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Launch
Seeing that Sandbh and YBG seem to be OK with the 2010 scheme now that it has been amended to show Po as a metal, and that Sandbh seems to be OK with an ELEM consensus rather than putting it up to an RFC: as expressed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#Launch_of_revamped_2010_category_scheme, I have decided to WP:BOLDly start the launch of this new scheme.
Naturally, there are several pending issues that need to be discussed. However, since none of these impact whether or not the scheme is supported, my personal call is that it is better not to wait in order not to jeopardise things from getting done when there is some reasonable agreement on them.
Also naturally, as a BOLD action, all of this may be reverted and discussed. Double sharp (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- As a temporary stopgap, the lede of post-transition metal has been rewritten slightly, and the article moved to Sandbh's preference metals close to the border between metals and nonmetals. More work can be done later, I expect. Double sharp (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Arbitration case request declined
The Elements case request, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)