Double sharp (talk | contribs) |
→On the periodic table article more generally: Fresh energy for the periodic table: A bold start |
||
Line 400: | Line 400: | ||
::Equally, it's not about "basis in scientific merit". It's about whether there is a genuine agreement in the relevant sources; if there is, then we can say it. And if there is not, then we should be focusing only on mentioning the major viewpoints, and weighting them according to the most relevant sources. And it's not about "personal, irrational dislikes" as you write. You can argue as much as you like. So can I, so can anyone else. We can all try our best to ''persuade'' others. That's just as in [[Wikipedia:Consensus#Through_discussion]]. But if you can't persuade others, you can't force them to agree with you. That does not mean they are opposing just because of "personal, irrational dislikes". [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 15:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC) |
::Equally, it's not about "basis in scientific merit". It's about whether there is a genuine agreement in the relevant sources; if there is, then we can say it. And if there is not, then we should be focusing only on mentioning the major viewpoints, and weighting them according to the most relevant sources. And it's not about "personal, irrational dislikes" as you write. You can argue as much as you like. So can I, so can anyone else. We can all try our best to ''persuade'' others. That's just as in [[Wikipedia:Consensus#Through_discussion]]. But if you can't persuade others, you can't force them to agree with you. That does not mean they are opposing just because of "personal, irrational dislikes". [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 15:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
{{cob}} |
{{cob}} |
||
===Fresh energy for the periodic table: A bold start=== |
|||
{{ping|Double sharp|DePiep|YBG|R8R|ComplexRational|EdChem|Andrew Davidson}} |
|||
* This is an experiment in ''cooperative continuous improvement editing'' (CCIE). |
|||
* I've made a start on bringing the [[periodic table]] article back up to FA standard. |
|||
* IMO, part of the issue was that the lede and overview sections overlapped. |
|||
* So I removed the overview section! |
|||
* The structure of the lede now matches the structure of the whole article, as it should. |
|||
* If there's something you feel is missing, that I trimmed, that's OK: give some thought as to where it would be best postponed, then go ahead and add it back in. |
|||
* This experiment in CCIE won't work if their is a mass revert, or mass reverts. |
|||
* The aim is continuous improvement editing i.e. ready-''fire''-aim, rather than ready-aim-''fire.'' |
|||
* [[User:EdChem]] provided plenty of fresh energy for our PT article, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements&oldid=988132561#On_the_periodic_table_article_more_generally here], which is ripe for harvesting. |
|||
--- [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 05:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC) |
|||
====Discussion==== |
|||
== The actual formal group 3 proposal == |
== The actual formal group 3 proposal == |
Revision as of 05:07, 15 November 2020
Elements Project‑class | |||||||
|
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Article alerts |
---|
Today's featured articles Featured article candidates
Featured article reviews Requested moves
|
FA | A | GA | B | C | Start | Stub | FL | List | Category | Disambig | Draft | File | Portal | Project | Redirect | Template | NA | ??? | Total |
29 | 0 | 97 | 104 | 119 | 93 | 35 | 0 | 171 | 305 | 3 | 3 | 116 | 1 | 22 | 3,893 | 227 | 9 | 1 | 5,228 |
Isotopes
|
Categories
|
The location and constitution of Group 3
|
Periodic table
|
Article quality |
31 |
31 featured content items:
Featured articles (30) Featured topics (1) Signpost interviews: 2011, 2013 |
On the periodic table article more generally
Extended content
| |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I admit that I haven't read all of the above. I am aware of the La v Lu and related debates in the literature and here, and also on the style of colouring the PT on WP. I have also looked through our article on the periodic table, and I am wondering if the debates here are the most important, or whether they go to the issues from the perspective of encyclopaedic content. We are writing for the average of 30,000+ page viewers per day, most of whom will not be chemists with broad knowledge of the topic. Some examples:
Going on from there, the PT article goes into categories, metals v non-metals, etc, which seems more like the content for an article on the history of the elements than for an article on the PT. After outlining what the PT is, doesn't next come history (how it came to be that way) with element properties history that led to changes in the PT appearing at the appropriate point in the development of the PT? Do others see that we have a problem with the structure of the PT article itself, and that we should discuss this first? For example, I can see how the debate about colouring and blocks v. categories in the PT in the overview arises. For me, the table given is too complex, though it is suited for the lede image and the article, but in reorganising the overview in some way (perhaps as I suggest off the top of my head), there becomes a natural presentation with the categories complicated one at the end and a blocks option preceding it. Thoughts \ Comments \ Suggestions \ Criticisms \ etc? EdChem (talk) 03:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
DS comment@EdChem: I think you are almost totally right, both about what you suggest, and that the debates here are strictly speaking less important than how the lede and the overview are not doing their jobs. (In fact, there's at least one statement in the lede that is flat-out wrong. Six groups do not have accepted names, because IUPAC never said that the names applied to the whole group. Only for the alkaline earth metals did they name all the known elements in the group, and when element 120 is discovered that also goes out the window. ^_^) In fact you remind me of my somewhat-naughty-for-WP user subpage when I tried to write as an example what I'd do if I had my pedagogical hat on rather than my encyclopaedic hat on: User:Double sharp/Teaching periodicity! That's certainly not OK for WP, but I now think it was worth doing as an exercise because even though the language changes a lot, it certainly sheds light on what the logical sequence is supposed to be. I just have two little pet peeves with what you propose (albeit ones I can substantiate by reliable sources). Please don't take my expounding on this at length the wrong way; I love everything else about it. I just really really dislike especially the first one being gotten wrong when we actually have reliable sources getting it right. ^_^
This is something that I have had to complain about for ages, but no, the blocks do not come from the electron that differentiates an element from the previous one. I am sure of course that you know this, but I think we should not simplify this in such a way that the resulting statement is incorrect. Simplify yes, but we have to keep things correct; this is an encyclopaedia, we will get readers of every level, and we should probably not lie to children. To substantiate my case, I give some reliable sources below. Yes, I know some books say that blocks come from differentiating electrons. But I think this is outweighed by the fact that reliable sources are in agreement that electrons are literally indistinguishable. (Not to mention that I have never seen any reliable source that succeeded in defining what a differentiating electron is in such a way that the definition actually applies to cases like vanadium d3s2 proceeding to chromium d5s1, or lawrencium d0s2p1 proceeding to rutherfordium d2s2p0, but that's a minor additional point.) Serious sources covering physics understand this. If you look at them, they may use the sloppy language, but they make it very clear and apologise that it is sloppy. Like Feynman's lectures on physics:
So we cannot single out the 2s electron in a lithium atom and call it the differentiating electron because we cannot even distinguish which electron is the 2s electron. Yes, he talks roughly about the "third electron", but he says it's a rough way of talking, and explains that in reality we cannot distinguish which is the third electron. I realise that using the sloppy language is very tempting. I am often tempted to use it too. Some people who know better do it, like Eric Scerri who in 2009 made the point "electrons in any particular atom cannot be distinguished, which means that speaking of an atom as actually having this or that d electron for example is also strictly an approximation", but in 2019 still talked about differentiating electrons. But we're not a textbook and I don't think we should simplify things down to a level that is too likely to cause a misunderstanding. And, you know, we have a precedent for ignoring the textbooks when studies are clear that what they say isn't right. That would be hypervalence, where I'm sure you'll still find textbooks explaining SF6 and friends with expanded octets and d orbitals because it's apparently still in some syllabi. The only problem is that we've known for a while that that's not true at all and that there is no significant d involvement there. So, as an encyclopaedia, we in fact reflect that understanding in our article on hypervalence even if textbooks are being sluggish. And that would be because school-level textbooks have something else constraining them other than the facts: they need to simplify things to the reader who is only just encountering something new, and even if they want to do things right, they may have to conform to the official syllabus in their country. Similarly, reliable sources understand that the situation with d and f block configurations is actually not too significant, whence I quote Feynman again:
So it's not really that important that the configurations don't match. What we have, and every periodic table poster shows, are gas-phase configurations. This is a situation that is about as far from chemistry as you can get: a single atom with nothing else around. As Feynman quite clearly states, for many d elements the configuration can change depending on exactly what elements are around. This is also stated for f elements in Christian Jørgensen's lecture-paper The Loose Connection between Electron Configuration and the Chemical Behavior of the Heavy Elements (Transuranics). In the same author's review Influence of Rare Earths on Chemical Understanding and Classification he writes:
So, finding reliable sources to refute the simplification is not a trouble. The only trouble is that this is mostly explained in textbooks near the beginning of a chemistry course when d and f elements are not on anyone's mind, and so I suspect many textbooks will be sloppy about it just because the oversimplified version works perfectly for main group elements and the rest of the table can be swept under the rug. I know there is someone who explains it properly, and that's William B. Jensen:
Now, it's true that Jensen very strongly supports the Lu option, and that his criteria were stated in the context of that support. On the other hand, Lavelle in his reply (on the next page of that article) is a strong La supporter, and he also wrote "I agree with Jensen’s four points on classifying elements in the periodic table". Not to mention that the La vs Lu dispute is basically related to the foundations of what the PT is all about: outside textbooks, I suspect this is one of the few places where those things will be talked about rather than disregarded as obvious stuff known since school. Therefore I think we can use this one. It accords with the generally accepted science rather than being a pedagogical simplification; since we do not have our pedagogy hat on here, I feel we should focus on the former So I'd replace some of your points in the middle (italics for what I've changed) with:
This way, we avoid having to mention the electron configuration outright in the lede and need to explain exactly what needs to be fixed about that picture for the d and f elements; we cut straight to an easily explained version of the correct statement. A sentence on the problems with gas-phase configurations for d and f elements might be fine here only as a footnote. In the main body, of course, we can talk about this in a little bit more detail and promote it to the actual text. And I say "elements with some chemical similarities" rather than "chemically similar elements" to avoid having wiseacres at the back of the classroom wonder how nitrogen and bismuth got into the same group even for Mendeleev. (I know, it's not a classroom, but probably the same personality type. ^_^) He was looking at the valence there, if I am not mistaken: for both elements maximum valence is +5. So that's a chemical property that matches even though many others don't, which is why I think my wording may be a bit better there. Again, it's just a fine line for me about being both simple and right.
This thing at the very end segues into what I think is one of the two issues we are discussing. I don't even think we should colour to signify categories in the first place because nobody can agree on what categories to use and what their boundaries are. Yes, most textbooks show categories. But what categories? Anything we colour, like Se as a nonmetal rather than a metalloid (which one quarter of sources do!) or as a metal, picks a side. In the absence of a warning for just about any element near this borderline I feel that any colouring along a metallicity line gives undue weight to one side. Worse still, we outright put in places like I think you are correct, EdChem, to prioritise pnictogens and chalcogens in the lede over those metallicity p block categories, because the former are actually IUPAC-approved and the latter are not. But I think that for the above reasons, what is best is to display nothing but blocks as a general thing for colouring our general PT images. Outside the group 3 issue (which is something else in itself), which elements belong in which block is at least something that is 100% agreed on by everybody. Many textbooks colour more than that indeed; but I find it likely that most of those textbooks also know what a block is and talk about it when explaining the structure of the periodic table. Once that one almost-universally agreed thing is done, then we can talk about categories. And by talking about them, we eliminate the sticking point that many of them overlap and that chemists don't agree on the scope of each category. Sandbh has already given two sources that disagree with the WP colour scheme. The fact that the literature is split 50-50 on whether the Zn group should be considered transition elements or not should already caution us about any colour scheme in the first place! Those are hard to reflect in a picture where we have to colour each category clearly. But if we just want to describe where each category lives in the table with text, then everything is 100% fine! So we can talk about the chalcogens category (O, S, Se, Te, Po), without in any way jeopardising other categories like metalloids that commonly includes Te and sometimes Po, or post-transition metals or the myriad of other similar categories that quite often include Po. And we can talk about the transition metals as a category while making it clear that there's disagreement in the literature about group 12, without having to pick a side when colouring. I feel that would reflect the large spread of what the sources do far better than any colouring choice would do. So I would prefer to replace your last sentence with: "The PT below presents one widely-used layout, with colourings to signify blocks; many tables also colour in specific categories, many of which are described below." Looking forward to your comments. And sorry for spending so long on what amount to such minor proposed changes from what you've very kindly suggested when I love almost everything about what you've written; it's just that once you know that the first thing is not quite right, you get slightly annoyed whenever you see it wrong. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
DePiep commentFollowing up EdChems post.
YBG comments@EdChem: Thank you for giving a fresh review to our PT article; I agree largely with what you say, but I have a few questions. Where to from here? Here are some ideas, in no particular order.
The common thread in these items is my desire to get the most reader-bang-for-the-editor-buck by finding changes that improve our corner of WP without waiting for some hard-to-reach consensus. By all means, we should tackle the more difficult issues, but at the same time we should intentionally find non-controversial efforts that provide us with significant improvement. This will maximize the benefit the readers receive from the effort we editors put in. YBG (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy with pretty much everything in EdChem's list that I didn't comment on. ^_^ In other words, other than some peeving in the middle about the exact significance of electronic configurations and how there is no such thing as a differentiating electron as agreed by such an august reliable source as Feynman, I pretty much like everything he wrote as it stands. (The second disagreement is just that I don't think we should colour categories at all.) So if it went through with just that one minor thing amended it would be fine. It just looks like a bigger disagreement than it really is because I quoted a bunch of reliable sources to back up what I'm saying. I am pretty sure that Lists of metalloids#Appearance frequency clusters falls under WP:NOR. Specifically because it's statistical analysis per Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH is not numerical summarization. Of course I would prefer User:EdChem to opine on that since he likely has a firmer grasp on policy than I do. Personally, I don't understand why we have to give categories this much of a pride of place. As used in the literature, their names are mostly fuzzy, their existence can be fuzzy, their boundaries can be fuzzy. Everything is fuzzy! That's not a situation I think the infobox is worth using. And many of the category names that have been mentioned here are not even ones that would be widely recognisable. I still strongly suspect that "reactive nonmetal" is going to give chemists the question "reactive relative to what?" That's not so much a category in usage as it is a two-word phrase. And exactly which category name are we picking among the multitudes of names given for categories that are sort of like but possibly not quite the same as post-transition metals? Do we have to list all sixteen from Post-transition_metal#Related_groupings when listing the categories tin is in, or what? Common names, that are in textbooks, that are approved by IUPAC, yes, those can be spared. We can still write in the articles things like "Sodium is an alkali metal", "Cobalt is a transition metal", "Holmium is a lanthanoid and one of the so-called rare earth metals". Those are all fine. And in the more problematic p block we can write things like "Arsenic is a pnictogen that has both metallic and nonmetallic properties; it has variously been classified as either a metal, a nonmetal, or a metalloid." Or maybe "Tennessine is a member of group 17 of the periodic table, but it is expected to behave quite differently from the halogens fluorine through astatine and should have predominating metallic properties". (Note how I avoid saying there if Ts is a halogen or not.) That is all fine with me. But let's not put them in the infobox as if such category assignments are fundamental to the element. They really are not. And they really are not agreed. Basically: I feel this is a way better job for article text than an infobox. Yes, if you asked me to put on my pedagogy hat, then yes, I can very easily define for you clearly what a metal is. And I can very easily define for you some categories. And that can solve all those problems. But the literature isn't unified behind that, and it isn't even split up between a few options, and that isn't even a particularly common option. So, we can do that as we please in our own books, in our own articles, but not here on Wikipedia. Now, the rest of it. Regarding "building up the PT": I am not sure how an animation would help. Because the way to build up the PT in reality depends on getting each element by itself, looking at its electron cloud structure. I am not sure how an animation really helps with that. Generally how it's done is to show the first few elements and then periodicity appears because Na-Ar match properties of Li-Ne (the first clear example), but for that it's easier to do if you see everything at once. If we mostly agree that the section needs a redesign, I can dust off some of my mental drafts and produce something. Basically like a scientific description of how this whole thing was set up, i.e. not how it historically was discovered. But, now I need time again for RL. Later. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC) DraftingSince the Inspiration Fairy has struck, here is a first draft of the lede section. Overview to come at her next visit. It is a rushed first draft, it is too long, and it does not read perfectly yet, but I think it does a better job at getting across the important stuff than what we have so far. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
P.S. A minor request about that lede PT: could you help me (1) remove the stray line below period 1, (2) if possible add atomic numbers, and (3) if possible deliberately misalign the f block rows so that there is no vertical alignment with the d block columns? I do not want to give the readers the impression that La belongs in group 3, Ce belongs in group 4, etc. They have similarities (secondary relationships) but I feel it just confuses the particular readers that are not super advanced yet (and anyway in the 32 column form this all disappears). Double sharp (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Wow... that stimulated some discussion!Thanks to everyone who has commented, and for having done so in a constructive and collegial manner. I was hoping to find support for the idea that the overview needs a re-write, but I guess after ANI was not expecting the idea to be enthusiastically embraced. I am grateful and encouraged, so thank you. That having been said, I think some of the above is going in directions that I didn't expect. In no particular order:
Finally, which of my thoughts / suggestions ends up being used is always subject to consensus. I know that's obvious by policy but I want to be totally clear that I don't believe my thoughts should have any more weight than anyone else's, nor do I expect that they will. I do think deciding what in the article should be kept, what should be changed, and what is contentious is worth identifying fairly soon, in part as it avoids work being reverted, etc. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
|
OR, SYNTH and DUE
Extended content
| |||
---|---|---|---|
@EdChem, Double sharp, and YBG: I have no concerns about any of these, as far as postings on this page go. The latter live or die according to their reception, here. I'll qualify that by saying our project is very small and sometimes, IMHO, good ideas get stuck due to personal, irrational dislikes (which have no place in an encyclopedia) rather than any basis in scientific merit, no matter how many supporting sources are provided. I've posted about this previously. But that's life; you have to manage it and learn from it, as best you can; it's likely no different in other forums; and how people feel or think can enrich your own perspective on whatever it is that is being discussed. There is WP:RFC in any event which I'd never chance my arm on without first testing the water, including here and with other chemists, physicists, scientists, and in other forums. WP:IAR. I'm more interested in WP:IAR, in pursuit of a better encyclopedia. The quality of an encyclopedia doesn't rest on quoting WP policy to one another. Much more relevant is Wikipedia has no firm rules:
This is particularly relevant, I feel, in chemistry, where there is much fuzziness not helped by the disinterest of the IUPAC, when it comes to terminology. Principles, spirit, and knowledge gathering and summarising are what count, rather than quoting WP policy. Obfuscating knowledge. A particular peeve of mine is seeking to hide knowledge that exists in the literature on the grounds that explicit consensus is lacking in the literature. These are some of the most interesting aspects of chemistry IMO, and they deserve ventilation. If we'd still been hiding behind a say-nothing do-nothing see-nothing approach our metalloid article would still be subject to repeated back and forth editing as to which elements are metalloids. If there is no explicit consensus in the literature I seek to accomodate that fact in the best, most pragmatic way I can, consistent with the principles and spirit associated with improving Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia. That is the commendable approach the founders of our colour category periodic table took in 2003, in the absence of complete consensus in the literature, and in the best tradition of encyclopedia building. Irony. In writing all of this I realise the irony of myself quoting WP policy. I plead making an exception in this case since the policies I refer to are antithetical to interpreting other WP policies in black letter law fashion. Categories. On categories, we have some kernels of agreement. I support YBB in merging AM and AEM; Double sharp has expressed some support for this; R8R is not keen. On splitting the reactive nonmetals, I support this, Double sharp too, and R8R has expressed in principle support. YBG is not keen since he is interested in reducing the number of categories per 7±2. EdChem, I see you don't have a strong view on it beyond that the lens to examine it from is (IYO) how it assists / supports readers, which I agree with. So there is some reasonable support, with a few o/s concerns. Sandbh (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC) R8R
@R8R: The common reader will have effectively no idea what e.g. AM, or AEM are, or halogen N, for that matter. There may be a few who have heard of older "halon" fire extinguishers, and perhaps read the label and noticed a reference to e.g. chlorine or bromine. There is effectively nothing to confuse the common reader. As for astatine, effectively none of them will have heard of it. I once again note the references in the literature to the less active, moderately active, and highly active nonmetals, and that a chemist, who has written about nomenclature, suggested the name moderately active nonmetals to me. Here are the examples again:
The lengths you will go to in avoiding or ignoring literature, even if it is ugly, are extraordinary. Sandbh (talk) 04:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
@EdChem: I believe User:R8R, User:Sandbh, and I are having a disagreement in this section that you could help with by providing a perspective. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 09:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
@EdChem: Just drawing your attention to this for your view. @R8R: And yours too, since it relates to you. Double sharp (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@R8R: Thanks. My comments follow. Noting your closing comment, if I feel a need to continue discussing this interesting topic, as opposed to starting an RFC at the periodic table talk page, I’ll start a new thread. 1. Regarding the common reader, I make no assumptions about what they may or may not know, nor their motivation for looking up or reading any particular article. An encyclopaedia is an encyclopaedia. We are not in the business of second-guessing the nature of individual readers, nor their motivations. What one will find familiar another will find boring, and vice-versa. It’s none of our concern. A quality encyclopaedia focuses on consistency of its articles and a consistent reading level approach, that’s all. 2. We do not include a category of moderately active metals because the “transition metals” category is about 30,000 times more commonly encountered in the literature. If there was no such thing as a transition metals category I expect we would look at what terminology the literature uses to refer to the metals involved, and choose a category name on that basis. We took the same approach with the PTM category name. 3. There is nothing confusing about “halogen nonmetals”, given we chose to colour categorise astatine, having regard to the literature, as a PTM. Astatine is still a halogen according to IUPAC, of course. Cleary, some halogens are nonmetals, and at least one is a metal. So what? The confusion you are concerned about is a manifestation of what I wrote about before i.e., “…we are knocking ourselves out…striving to attain unattainable consistency and terminology standards which just don't exist in chemistry”, rather than focussing on what the science tell us, as per EdChem’s suggestion (and I include classification science here), even if we find the outcome to be unpalatable or ugly, according to our subjective personal experiences, which have nothing to do with science, per se, nor with an encyclopedia. 4. I agree that you and Double sharp, and I, are committed to developing a better encyclopedia. 5. It occurred to me that our encyclopaedia has > 6,000,000 articles. I presume there would be room in such an encyclopaedia for an article on halogen nonmetals, and another one on moderately active nonmetals or another equivalent from the dozen or so alternatives there are. Certainly there would be no shortage of literature to draw on; ditto metalloids, and noble gases. Oh, not forgetting that “moderately active nonmetals” was suggested to me by a non-WP editor chemist who has written on nomenclature matters. Sandbh (talk) 09:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC) EdChem
Double sharp
|
Fresh energy for the periodic table: A bold start
@Double sharp, DePiep, YBG, R8R, ComplexRational, EdChem, and Andrew Davidson:
- This is an experiment in cooperative continuous improvement editing (CCIE).
- I've made a start on bringing the periodic table article back up to FA standard.
- IMO, part of the issue was that the lede and overview sections overlapped.
- So I removed the overview section!
- The structure of the lede now matches the structure of the whole article, as it should.
- If there's something you feel is missing, that I trimmed, that's OK: give some thought as to where it would be best postponed, then go ahead and add it back in.
- This experiment in CCIE won't work if their is a mass revert, or mass reverts.
- The aim is continuous improvement editing i.e. ready-fire-aim, rather than ready-aim-fire.
- User:EdChem provided plenty of fresh energy for our PT article, here, which is ripe for harvesting.
--- Sandbh (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
The actual formal group 3 proposal
Extended content
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Should the periodic table on WP be presented in this form (Sc-Y-La): or this form (Sc-Y-Lu)? Note that this is not going to be about the categorisation. The only topic I plan to have discussed here is the group 3 issue.
Added later: the precise wording of the footnote is open to discussion, and the important thing is just that there be one. So even if you don't like the footnote in either option, you can first write which form you prefer to have in terms of the main PT, and afterwards discuss how to change the footnote. The important question is which form you support as the main one and relegating the other to the footnote. Double sharp (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
OpinionsRequested from @R8R, YBG, DePiep, Droog Andrey, ComplexRational, Sandbh, Officer781, and EdChem: who have discussed things on the ELEM talk page recently and are still active. Double sharp (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
SupplementsAnyone can write a long wall of text here supporting a position. I prefer the opinions above to be kept short (one paragraph of justification, maybe) to avoid confusing the issue, but here we can go on as long as we want. Double sharp (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Long justification by DS for his !voteWhen asking this, we need to look at reliable sources by policy. So what do the most reliable sources say? Here's my view. In contrast to my previous postings on it, I am not going to mention the scientific arguments at all because they are not relevant for WP: only the sources. IUPAC Well, there's the rub. They haven't exactly decided. Since 2015 they have had a project specifically to deliver a recommendation on which it should be. Some sporadic progress updates have been posted, but there is no indication on a time schedule. Given that IUPAC has not actually approved any form of the periodic table (link is to their website), this is maybe not surprising. Now, it is true that they currently do show something. They show a compromise form with all fifteen lanthanoids, and all fifteen actinoids, in group 3 below yttrium. The only trouble is that if you look at their project page, this compromise is specifically not among one of the two alternatives that will be picked. All they say there is:
So, what we can say is that IUPAC has acknowledged that there is an argument and has set up a process to make a decision. In my opinion that shows clearly that we should not present any one form as if it is uncontested. The only problem is whether to make it:
We can also ask where this compromise came from. That seems to be from the 1988 IUPAC report New notations in the periodic table prepared by Ekkehard Fluck.
The arguments for Sc-Y-Lu in the literature, judging by this, seem to have been considered convincing by an official process of IUPAC. (One may argue that Fluck prepared the report, but IUPAC also published it and others gave comments.) This is suggestive, although weak because it did not lead to its adoption. The reason for Sc-Y-* to be adopted seems to be just to compromise between this and the fact that Sc-Y-La was more common. However, that is also a bit moot because the IUPAC project is specifically not going to pick the compromise option; evidently it is not a compromise that actually made anyone arguing about this happy. So this doesn't strongly support anything very well in my opinion: surely it eventually decided in favour of showing Sc-Y-*, but apparently now this is not going to be the final decision; and surely it suggested that some people at IUPAC were convinced by Sc-Y-Lu arguments, but it didn't translate to its official acceptance. I personally read this as a point mildly in favour of us showing primarily Sc-Y-Lu over Sc-Y-La (since Sc-Y-* is due to be deprecated), but it is not the strongest one. The report refers to the 1988 Red Book. Now, there wasn't actually one. But there was a 1990 Red Book (maybe it got delayed?), which contains 8, 18, and 32 column periodic tables. The 8 and 18 column forms shown indeed follow the compromise arrangement just as Fluck said. However, in a 32 column form this compromise is simply impossible without stretching scandium and yttrium. And lo and behold, on p. 283 it shows a 32 column table with a Sc-Y-Lu group 3. With "3, IIIA, IIIB" very clearly presented above the column with Sc, Y, Lu, and Lr, and nothing above the column with La and Ac. The only subsequent Red Book is from 2005, and there only the 18 column form is presented: they write "Lesser omissions include ... the several different outdated versions of the periodic table." So the significance of the Sc-Y-Lu group 3 in the 1990 Red Book is in doubt, since it is for the 32 column form that they call outdated. OTOH, that 32 column form is actually still used, and our navbox templates actually show it, so it's not really that outdated. One could equally make the argument that since we show the 32 column form sometimes, and that is the latest 32 column form shown officially by IUPAC, that we should follow it. I do read this as a minor point in favour of showing primarily Sc-Y-Lu over Sc-Y-La, but again it is not the strongest one. Which is maybe not surprising because they have not recommended anything yet, so we cannot read too much into this. A paper by Holden that was supposed to be presented to the IUPAC general assembly in 1985 clearly supports the Lu under Y option. But IUPAC has not yet officially recommended it. Therefore, the situation with IUPAC seems to be:
This suggests to me that:
So IUPAC isn't so helpful as it doesn't clearly support anything at the moment. All we can get from it is confirmation that the dispute exists. Textbooks A IUPAC survey of textbooks shows that while the La form dominated in the past, support for it significantly weakened with the start of the new millennium. We have now reached the point where it does not have a majority. Indeed, no form seems to have an overwhelming advantage anymore:
I have given percentages that were not in the original, but that is WP:CALC I guess. It's not a full-blown statistical analysis. Although the set of texts with lanthanum in group 3 is still a majority, it has significantly lost its former plurality. Moreover, the set of texts with lutetium in group 3 has quite a few well-known texts in it (not a complete list):
Excluded from the survey but also extremely well-known is
There is also
I think it's clear that the Lu form cannot be dismissed. It has to be mentioned in some fashion with such adopters. Of course, the La form also has very significant adopters, such as Greenwood and Earnshaw; I just list more Lu adopters to make it clear that these things do exist. I draw from this situation the conclusion that:
So textbooks aren't so helpful either. We can get confirmation that the dispute exists, and that we have significant names on both sides, but we still don't have any idea which should be primary. Specific articles, texts, books, etc. focusing on the issue We now come to what I feel is the most important argument. Probably most textbooks do not have their focus on this issue, and so it is necessary to look at articles also that do. Probably one of the most cited articles about this is William B. Jensen's from 1982 supporting Lu. That is the one that even IUPAC referred to above. In fact even La advocates have complained about how often it is cited (e.g. Lavelle). In this article he brings together much supporting evidence from various articles by physicists and chemists. Among those that he cites are:
Another source from this time period (maybe less cited) that additionally support this placement is:
Today, many articles focusing on the question refer to Jensen (1982) or some of his sources, such as Thyssen and Binnemans (2010) which clearly refers to Jensen (1982), or Labarca and Gonzalez (2019) which clearly refers to Jensen (1982) as well. As can be seen from the above, this took some time to percolate into chemistry textbooks. Jensen complained in his 1982 article that chemists were at that time generally unaware of the dispute. But now it has been getting quite somewhere. In the 2000s even more articles came in, and a particularly strong voice in favour of lutetium has been Eric Scerri who chairs the IUPAC project mentioned above that is aimed at resolving this question. In recent years his rhetoric has even gone so far as saying that the paradigm of lanthanum in group 3 "must die".
In particular, note his books The Periodic Table: Its Story and Its Significance and The Periodic Table: A Very Short Introduction. Both are popular treatments and both supports the Lu under Y option. Of course Scerri is not the only source supporting it. We also have quite a few more:
And what of lanthanum arguments? Well, from before Jensen's 1982 article there is:
The only ones present in specific articles or sections of books focusing on it, dating from after 1982 when Jensen brought things to chemists' rather than just physicists' attention, are those of Lavelle; Restrepo; and Vernon (= User:Sandbh).
Of the last two, I cannot complain; they are legitimate reliable sources supporting Lu. But Lavelle's three articles have all been strongly rebutted by Jensen in his articles of 2008 and 2015. His verdict on Lavelle's La advocacy is particularly devastating:
And he also points out that, contrary to Lavelle's charge that his 1982 article is outdated, the support for Lu in group 3 has significantly increased since he wrote that article, pointing to Ouyang et al. (2008) and Fang et al. (2000). Although Jensen clearly has a stake in the matter himself as a strong Lu supporter, I feel this should be taken into consideration in some way. Disagreements where one source rebuts another's arguments are of course nothing too special (e.g. Vernon does so to Alvarez), because these are literally opposing views. But the scale of this rebuttal is pretty huge compared to Vernon's rebuttals of a few recent Lu arguments in his paper. So is its tone. Looking at the fact that La supporters among articles that address the problem in some way are fewer in number, contain one that has gotten a very devastating rebuttal, and the fact that Lu supporters are greater in number and are having a clear effect on what textbooks show (it was slow at first but it's getting somewhere), I submit that the literature-based case is in favour of lutetium as a default. It has the support from most of the articles discussing the issue, and that has already percolated into support by some significant, established textbooks such as Clayden et al.'s Organic Chemistry (hardly fringe), as well as significant, established popular treatments of the periodic table such as Emsley's Nature's Building Blocks and Scerri's The Periodic Table: Its Story and Its Significance. This isn't just a bunch of articles saying B is true and railing against A when textbooks continue to say A in spite of them, like it would have been in the 1990s. It's a bunch of articles saying B is true and railing against A when a significant number of noted textbooks have followed them and have started to say B. And creating an argument that IUPAC has acknowledged. Note that Scerri, Jensen, Lavelle, Restrepo, and Ball are all on the IUPAC project! That is not to say that we should sweep the whole issue under the rug and pretend that Lu has already won and gotten the IUPAC approval. Of course we shouldn't do that. But it does mean that I think the best way to deal with this situation is to present lutetium in group 3 as the main thing, and to mention in the footnote that lanthanum in group 3 is also a common placement. For a generally used template, this could be done like so as I proposed above. That nicely reflects the situation: IUPAC hasn't yet made a decision, and the literature is undecided as a whole, but the subset of it focusing on this issue skews towards Lu in group 3. When IUPAC makes a decision, we can revisit depending on what they say and how many chemists listen to them. Finally, insofar as that is worth something, this layout is exactly that of the 32 column form given in the IUPAC 1990 Red Book (expect that it doesn't have the colours, has the old alternative group numbers also, lacks the note on group 3, and lacks the elements past Lr which had not yet been officially named at the time). Double sharp (talk) 10:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Although my personal inclination is already swayed by the above argument, focusing on the sources focusing on the group 3 question based on my reading of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, User:YBG gave another argument I agree with in his !vote. The point of that argument is that Sc-Y-Lu in group 3 is definitely more consistent with the Aufbau principle in that it clearly puts the 4f elements before the 5d elements. That is in the sense of just filling in electrons: so when trying to guess the electron configuration of erbium in the ground state, you see 68 electrons as Z = 68, and fill them in from lowest energy orbital up in the order 1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, ... demanded, and get [Xe]4f126s2 as it correctly is. This is, in general, the sense in which Aufbau is discussed: not about differentiating electrons, but about whether the total ground-state gas-phase configuration matches what happens if you do that. This is why molybdenum [Kr]4d55s1 is universally considered an Aufbau anomaly even though it has the correct 4d differentiating electron from niobium [Kr]4d45s1, because Aufbau used in the accepted sense would predict it to be [Kr]4d45s2 (which is a little bit up in energy). But technetium [Kr]4d55s2, the next element, is never considered an Aufbau anomaly even though it has the wrong 5s instead of 4d differentiating electron from molybdenum. The argument therefore is that since it is pretty universally agreed that the Aufbau principle has something to do with the shape of the periodic table, it is significantly easier to do the sort of explanations typically found in textbooks on periodicity if one uses a Lu table. If one uses a La table, one often ends up with the "pedant's hand raised at the back of the classroom" phenomenon: one has to note that the table does not follow Madelung there, that La is the one transition metal of the third transition series that is not affected by the Ln contraction, and so on. Yes, some sources happily self-contradict (Greenwood and Earnshaw actually does it for the second issue I mentioned), but it's an easily avoidable self-contradiction. That seems to me to be a case where WP:IAR could be reasonably applicable: both La and Lu have some reasonable source-based cases going for them, but it is just easier to write the article without lurking self-contradiction to be swept under the rug if Lu is given first place. Double sharp (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC) A couple of notes from beforeI originally posted this as a discussion thread, but we have discussed this to death already, so I decided to turn it into a !voting thread since no one else has posted !votes / opinions yet. I posted an extremely long rationale for my !vote, but the actual question itself seems pretty neutral to me. Mostly, I just want to get this through, having discussed this topic in various iterations on WP pretty much since the year started. Some earlier discussion took place and is below. Double sharp (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@EdChem: Forgot to ping you, sorry. Double sharp (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC) @Double sharp: One question, if I may: is the proposal only about the group 3 debate or is it also about moving the primary categorization scheme to blocks only? I had the feeling it was the former but the illustrative table uses new categories, too.--R8R (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Moved from Opinions to SupplementsComment by EdChem and ensuing threadThis subsection moved from § Opinions with the permission of its two contributors, EdChem & Double sharp: as noted in § A small question. YBG (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
End of copied thread. YBG (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC) Details of Sandbh's opinion and ensuing threadThis subsection moved from above (in § Opinions) with the permission of Sandbh as noted in User talk:YBG § Another small question.
End of details of Sandbh's opinion moved from above (in § Opinions). YBG (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC) This subsection moved from above (in § Opinions) with the permission of its two contributors Sandbh & Double sharp: as noted in User talk:YBG § Another small question. YBG (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
End of Double sharp's response and Sandbh's replies moved from above (in § Opinions). YBG (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC) Discussion on YBG's reasons for supporting LuYBG's post, hereunder, as copied from here.
@YBG: If I may rain on your parade ^_^:
R8R's considerationsLuckily, by the time I found enough spare time to write down a response, the most prominent supporters of both versions have spoken up. Double sharp's position amounts to a few key points:
Sandbh's position boils down to the following points:
I do not entirely agree with either line of reasoning.
Given that we are a tertiary source, a phrase I used a number of times over the last few weeks, I believe the arguments still show there hasn't been a game changer (one may consider a possible future resolution of the IUPAC group 3 project in favor of -Lu-Lr such a game changer), and we should stick to -La-Ac for the time being, as much as I would have personally preferred to pick the other option.--R8R (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
@Double sharp: IMO:
Sandbh (talk) 06:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@Double sharp: Was that ping for me or R8R?? Sandbh (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Other discussion@Droog Andrey: I'd like to read your article about the group 3 issue. The images linked by User:Double sharp (thank you!) are too low quality to enable a translation into English. Is there anything that could be done about this? Sandbh (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Aesthetics and symmetryIntroduction As promised, here is a discussion on the (non-)relevance of aesthetics and regularity in the context of the Group 3 question. It is taken and adapted from my peer-reviewed open access article which now has 400 accesses, in Foundations of Chemistry. The editor is Eric Scerri, who is also the chair of the IUAPC Group 3 project.
My conclusion is that, akin to a game of whack-a-mole, attempts to improve regularity in the appearance of the periodic table increases the number of irregularities amongst various other properties and relationships across the table, and cognitive dissonance with respect to chemical relationships between or within groups or series of elements. Further, while Nature does not care about aesthetics, the composition of Group 3 as Sc–Y–La–Ac appears to be more consistent with the texture of the world. Scerri sets the sceneScerri (2008, p. 57) has argued for lutetium under yttrium (and helium over beryllium), since the periodic table can then be arranged, from a philosophical point of view, so that it shows the greatest degree of regularity and symmetry. Such a table may better reflect the regularity of the periodic law. He cites as an example, the left-step or Janet periodic table (Fig. 9). Such a table facilitates a regular array of vertical triads (Fig. 10), in which the middle element of the triad has an atomic number that is the average of those of the first and third elements. Scerri does not support lanthanum under yttrium since, in a 32-column table, and on the basis of regularity and symmetry, this once again results in awkward split d-block (Fig. 11).[n13]
Scerri's argument remains inconclusiveHis argument remains inconclusive as there is no basis to regard regularity or symmetry as fundamental requirements (Scerri 2004, p. 149; 2019, p. 385). Stewart (2018b, p. 75) observed that, “Triads are a consequence of the structure of the system and cannot at the same time be its cause.” Scerri (2020a, pp. 387, 401) acknowledges that we should be aware of arguments based on regularity or symmetry. Jensen (2019), whose 1982 article in the Journal of Chemical Education kicked off the debate on the composition of Group 3, recently attacked the relevance of [vertical] triads. Curiously, as discussed later in this article, increasing regularity in the shape of the periodic table increases the number of irregularities amongst various other properties and relationships across the table.[n14] Indeed, as Imyanitov (2016, pp. 153–154) observed: If one seeks for the maximum chemical utility…[one] should opt for the more ‘unruly’ tables. If one seeks maximum elegance and orderliness above all…[one] should favor the more regular representations.
The historical obsession with symmetryThe obsession of the Greeks with the concept of symmetry retarded progress in astronomy for at least 1500 years (Yang 1996, p. 271). They perpetuated the idea of the Harmony of the Spheres and the Dogma of the Circles. According to these works, the heavenly bodies must observe the most symmetrical rules, and the circle and the sphere are the most symmetrical forms. But the heavenly bodies do not make simple circular motions. So they tried to fit their motions with circular ones superposed on circular ones. When that did not work either, they tried circular ones on circular ones on circular ones, and so on. My shock and realisationThe first time I saw a 32-column table with a split d-block (Fig. 11) I thought it must have been “wrong” since it appeared so awkward; I later came to realise that I’d subconsciously adopted the Western cultural obsession with symmetry.[n15] Jensen earlier referred to the abuse of (Platonic) symmetry considerations in the construction and interpretation of periodic tables in general, including to the extent of triumphing over the inconvenient facts of chemistry (Jensen 1986, passim; 2003, pp. 953–954).
Symmetry breakingAn emerging field of thought is the importance of symmetry breaking,[n16] rather than pure symmetry:
As Eugen Schwarz (2019, pers. comm., 8 Dec) stated, "The real, rich pattern of elements’ chemistry does not fit into a clear-cut rectangular grid." This view is consistent with that of Dias (2004, p. 375), who asserted that:
Real chemistsIn this vein, Mendeleev used horizontal triads when he predicted the properties of the then undiscovered elements scandium, gallium, and germanium. He discussed his technique using the horizontal triad arsenic-selenium-bromine to estimate the atomic weight of selenium (Scerri 2008, pp. 585–589). A high degree of orderliness, and explanatory power, can nevertheless be found in Rossotti’s (1998) split d-block periodic table template (Fig. 12). Rossotti shows where each subshell starts; how the lanthanoids and actinoids are interpositioned between Groups 2 and 4 and, in this instance, the electron configuration make-up of gadolinium and its predecessor, europium. Here, the lanthanoids run from cerium to lutetium; and the actinoids from thorium to lawrencium. The split d-block is thus integrated into the overall design of the table. The domain of chemistryA related consideration is that the internal structure and external shape of a chemical periodic table is determined by chemical facts rather than considerations of regularity, beauty or symmetry (Cao et al. 2019, p. 26, passim). Here, the use of multiple considerations to triangulate a solution is consistent with the role of classification science, as well as the premise that “Classes are usually defined by more than two attributes…” (Jones 2010, p. 169). In other words, in the absence of a categorical solution we are obliged to use quantitative or qualitative arguments to establish a solution.[n24]
ConclusionIt is ironic that, akin to a game of whack-a-mole, attempts to improve regularity in the appearance of the periodic table increases the number of irregularities amongst various other properties and relationships across the table, and cognitive dissonance with respect to chemical relationships between or within groups or series of elements. While Nature does not care about aesthetics, the composition of Group 3 as Sc–Y–La–Ac appears to be more consistent with the texture of the world. That said, since periodic tables or systems form a continuum-like series of representations, different approaches to the Group 3 question (even that used within the IUAPC) will continue to have their uses. And please remember to explain the relevant context to your students. ClosureI would like to propose that this thread be closed with no action. We have since heard from Sandbh that Scerri is writing an article for Chemistry International which will contain some information about how the IUPAC project is going. Since things are happening on schedule there, it seems to me that it doesn't make sense to pursue this line further when the doings of that project are going to be of utmost importance when it comes to affecting the situation one way or the other. We may revisit it once that article is published. The thread can then be archived with the understanding that we'll not re-broach this topic till then. It simply records our current positions and rationales with no prejudice at all to changing them when new information arrives in the form of news from the IUPAC project. So, we will have a friendly understanding (I hope) that say, I lean Lu and Sandbh leans La, but we will not discuss it again until something really new happens off WP on it. Double sharp (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC) |
New periodic table: implementation
Extended content
|
---|
I have a proposal about what we're going to do once we've established what changes, if any, we want to see in our future periodic table. So far this includes the group 3 question and the question about categories. I'd like us to implement those changes, if they are approved, simultaneously, and on top of that, there is one more pending change which we could also implement at the same time. We have established that the current color scheme has potential for improvement. I propose to change the coloring scheme once we have figured out what categories it should have and what their composition would be. As soon as we have agreed what categories the periodic table should have and what their composition would be, we should not change the periodic table instantly. Instead, we note that a conclusion has been reached and we start a sufficiently long period of time, say, two months, in which all editors who would like to propose a new coloring scheme for the periodic table can craft one. When the period ends, we discuss the submitted schemes and choose the best coloring option. Once we have chosen the next coloring scheme, all changes we have agreed upon go live. I submit this idea to the project and I would like to hear what other editors think. @Double sharp, Sandbh, DePiep, YBG, ComplexRational, and Droog Andrey: comments are welcome. Sorry if I forgot anyone.--R8R (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I converted my immediately prior thread to become the consensus-gauging thread for Q1. So you and everyone else can !vote there. I kept the question neutral, I left my opinion to my !vote. Hopefully to remain open until all major participants of this project and this discussion have !voted. Double sharp (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Since there has been some discussion on the exact form of the footnote, we may add a Q11⁄2 between Q1 and Q2 regarding how the footnote should read. Double sharp (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC) |
Coloring principles
Here are the requirements that I can discern; everyone is welcome to add more ideas.
- Bare minimum
The following principles must be fulfilled for a legitimate attempt to recolor the periodic table:
- Each category has a separate color that is not used for anything else;
- There are five text colors: black, unclicked wikilink, clicked wikilink, liquid, gas. Of these, only the last two are variable. The five colors must be sufficiently different from one another to allow to tell them apart easily.
- More conditions
The following conditions do not constitute a barrier for proposed scheme, but it is nonetheless highly desirable to fulfill them:
- Each pair of a category color and a font color used in the periodic table should have a contrast greater than or equal to 4.5;
- Different types of borders should have colors that are easy to tell apart from both one another and the category colors used for cells that use this type of border.
- Different category colors should be easy to tell apart for users with protanopia, deuteranopia, or tritanopia, and all pairs of a font color and a background color that can be found in the periodic table should be easy to tell apart.
Discussion
The only idea that I am not certain about is whether we want to have colors for predicted elements or not. We currently don't use them, but we might want to rethink on that.--R8R (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- @R8R: Let's maybe think about that last one once we've gotten to the phase of discussing whether or not we should have colour categories in the first place – because if anything my concerns about WP:OR apply even more strongly to predicted elements. Other than that, seems quite reasonable to me. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Double sharp:
once we've gotten to the phase of discussing whether or not we should have colour categories in the first place
– sorry in advance if I missed something obvious (I haven't had time to read the whole thread), but I don't understand this: why would we not have color categories? I understand the logic behind perhaps not having predicted colors, but almost every PT I've seen has color categories. If I missed this, would you kindly point me to it or offer a condensed version? - @R8R: Should we follow the same principles we discussed during an email thread pertaining to the color scheme of the SHE decay modes chart—namely attention to contrast of adjacent categories and colorblind-friendly combinations? In that case, we also should be careful about how many font colors we introduce, but specifics can come later. ComplexRational (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- @ComplexRational: I have a draft proposal ready to explain just why I don't think it's wise to have colour categories, but I wanted to keep the issues discussed one at a time, so I have not posted it yet. The brief reason is that although it is common for sources to give categories, the literature has no agreement on (1) what categories to use, (2) what names to use for those categories, and (3) what elements are included in each category. In other words: many PTs have colour categories (not all though, see Greenwood and Earnshaw), but exactly how they divide the elements into which colour categories is not something you will find any agreement on. That is why I am of the view that we are implicitly taking a side by colouring everything in as if it was all agreed and that that is against WP:NPOV and more specifically WP:DUE. And that is why I have been advocating scrapping the colouring of categories in favour of discussing element categorisation in article text, and colouring only blocks, because (1) that's not unknown in the literature as many Russian tables do it, and (2) that is something that apart from the group 3 issue people actually agree on. You can find disagreement in the literature about whether arsenic (or quite a few others in the p block really) is a metal, nonmetal, or metalloid, but you will find no disagreement that it is a p block element. But the full proposal and rationale will wait a bit I think to not muddle issues. It will appear once everyone has commented on the La vs Lu default issue and we put into action the result. Double sharp (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Double sharp, ComplexRational, and R8R: I think we can go full steam ahead here without regard to the result of any other discussion. Even in the most radical change envisioned, we would still have color categories, although there would only be four of them: s, p, d, and f. We should still apply the same color principles in that case. YBG (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Complex Rational: sorry for a late response. More or less, yes. This one is going to be more complicated, however, because there are more color combinations to consider. If you want me to, I could describe it to you later in greater detail, at least what I see. There shouldn't be considerations like "this category should be green," but for example, one thing that is rather obvious is that there is a number of gaseous elements in the top-right corner of the table, and the color of those categories shouldn't look too much like the color of the gas font color. Solid elements are present across the whole table, so it's no wonder the color for solid is likely to be black (not reddish, greenish, or blueish).--R8R (talk) 11:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- @ComplexRational: I have a draft proposal ready to explain just why I don't think it's wise to have colour categories, but I wanted to keep the issues discussed one at a time, so I have not posted it yet. The brief reason is that although it is common for sources to give categories, the literature has no agreement on (1) what categories to use, (2) what names to use for those categories, and (3) what elements are included in each category. In other words: many PTs have colour categories (not all though, see Greenwood and Earnshaw), but exactly how they divide the elements into which colour categories is not something you will find any agreement on. That is why I am of the view that we are implicitly taking a side by colouring everything in as if it was all agreed and that that is against WP:NPOV and more specifically WP:DUE. And that is why I have been advocating scrapping the colouring of categories in favour of discussing element categorisation in article text, and colouring only blocks, because (1) that's not unknown in the literature as many Russian tables do it, and (2) that is something that apart from the group 3 issue people actually agree on. You can find disagreement in the literature about whether arsenic (or quite a few others in the p block really) is a metal, nonmetal, or metalloid, but you will find no disagreement that it is a p block element. But the full proposal and rationale will wait a bit I think to not muddle issues. It will appear once everyone has commented on the La vs Lu default issue and we put into action the result. Double sharp (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Double sharp:
- @Double sharp, ComplexRational, R8R, and YBG: re we could run ahead, save for time reasons right away. And save for: this is not a one-dimensional problem. A redesign should have a strong base (including science communication and webdesign, not strongly available in us, habituals). Also, other discussions on this page these months take loads of time to follow, evolve and to disentangle.
- For starters, we need the User Requirements for all PT colors (and graphics alltogether), before flying head on into 'solutions'. Anyway, there is no deadline so we have time to build this part properly and fruitfull.-DePiep (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: well, since we're discussing criteria, it will be nice if you tell us what is missing. Because otherwise, it reads like this: we have to stay put for now until we formulate better criteria, I know there could be better criteria, but I will not expand upon this thought.
- What kind of science communication are we talking about? You previously argued that there should be no dependance on cultural issues in a coloring scheme. Have you changed your position since then or are the two statements reconcilable; if so, how?
- What is User Requirements? Googling does not return a satisfactory answer, so I'll gladly listen to what I may not know.
- Other discussions on this page do not directly affect this one. The only thing that matters is the outcome of the group 3, nonmetal, and block discussions, for which we are waiting. The rest does not have anything to do with this one, so they are thankfully not a factor. If some other outcome pops up, it will matter too, but not before it does.
- There is indeed no deadline per se, Wikipedia is always work in progress. Yet it doesn't mean we can't do anything now. If it indeed takes loads of time to create a perfect table, it doesn't mean we can't do anything in the meantime; if it did, that would be dawdling. Again, my end goal is replace the present coloring scheme for something better, and I hope you share that goal, so that you can help us formulate criteria for what is better and perhaps even create the scheme we'll end up picking. If you can't for whatever reasons devout time now to creating a new scheme, that's fine, too; after all, some scheme is passed before you can join in on the fun, you can always ask to consider your scheme, too, once you present one, and there is (and should be) no way of stopping you from doing that. No scheme will ever be final.
- However, if you don't present one, will not aid the discussion of formulating criteria for a future scheme, and will ask that no change is made even though you previously agreed the current scheme was not particularly good, other editors will likely think this is counterproductive behavior, and will likely act upon it. You expressed interest in creating a new scheme in 2016 and said it was in your to do list in 2017; however, it's 2020 now and despite all the "time to build this part properly and fruitfull," we haven't been presented a scheme yet. I do want you to help us create a better scheme, possibly even create the one we'll go with; by all means, please go ahead.
However, if, all things considered, you can't aid that, then I'll ask you to at least not obstruct creation of such a scheme by other editors, and I expect understanding in asking for that from other editors.(retracting this comment since this worry turned out to be unfounded)--R8R (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- @R8R:. First reply: I don't like the tone and approach of this post. It is trying to tie me to quotes (old, and out-of-context), edits not made (really, why did you not restart the 2016 discussion? Why do you keep suggesting that it was frustrated instead of not well-fleshed-out?). And no, contrary to what you say it's not affected by just one discussion here. By now, all discussions on this are contaminated with ANI-reports. See, before I can respond in content, I have to weed out aspersions and derailed discussions. -DePiep (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- I admit that I did think, when I first read R8R's comment, "oh no, this is going to start things again", because of the last sentence. I would probably have felt a bit annoyed if it were directed at me. It seems to me that User:DePiep is perfectly willing to start now; he just seems to want user requirements to be fleshed out before a solution is reached, but that seems to be part of a possible road towards a change. If I have read him wrongly, then I apologise and ask him to clarify what he meant. So I am unsure if the characterisation of obstruction is accurate, and I also wonder if it was appropriate. Double sharp (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- @R8R: Forgotten ping, sorry. Double sharp (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- About right, Double sharp. The "willing to start now" might need a pinch of salt, because other discussions need attention too.
- Then, about "requirements". In the design process, there are two poles to recognise: the science & content we want to show versus the good-webdesign we want to apply. Example details of the first, content: (7-8-9)+1unk cats; express other properties (SoM, origin, today by fontcolor and borderstyle); other info (say make possible to clarify electron config with support colors). Example details of good (web)design: sure font contrast per w3c (black+wikilinkblue or more?); colorblindness (CB) awareness; what to hyperlink; and prime legend-functioning: ability to connect cell bg-color<-to->legend location two-way, and also between cells to distinct colors; understand what the Reader of this encyclopedia expects (subconscious too), and what helps them, and even invites them to discover more. These examples are just for starters. These poles in general have competing requirements, and each requirement (whichever pole) will reduce the degrees of freedom of design. Consider that, likely, "9+1" will make it impossible to serve all i.e. expect a need to compromise *somewhere, somehow*.
- Now getting the requirements (desires, wishes, aims, options) clear & agreed upon is not a one-dimensional route, and so not suitable for a discussion/thread like this page uses (I'd think: per pole a WP-page+talkpage). Each set of requirements needs thought development, establishing principles, instruments to work with, check options. Over this, it requires a design attitude from those involved, willing to communicate and accept, to learn and understand, to explore new areas of knowledge. (For example, I am thinking about inviting WMF webdesign people, to help solve our quests; like a "zoom-in/zoom-out option" to go from cell<->PT, would be great ah!). So far for step 1: 'requirements'.
- After this, the design can start. It is a pilgrimage with uncharted routes, guided by stars. In the end we will meet atop a hill, together with thousands of readers, to enjoy the many shining bright periodic tables above us—the ones we thought were the stars guiding us all along. -DePiep (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- @R8R:. First reply: I don't like the tone and approach of this post. It is trying to tie me to quotes (old, and out-of-context), edits not made (really, why did you not restart the 2016 discussion? Why do you keep suggesting that it was frustrated instead of not well-fleshed-out?). And no, contrary to what you say it's not affected by just one discussion here. By now, all discussions on this are contaminated with ANI-reports. See, before I can respond in content, I have to weed out aspersions and derailed discussions. -DePiep (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- First of all, Double sharp, thank you for stepping in when you sensed the discussion was getting heated. May I ask you to stick around this discussion until we've finalized the requirements?
- When I proposed in the previous section we invent a new coloring scheme, DePiep said we should discuss the requirements first. So I set up this section to talk about requirements. I would normally expect to see here some actionable suggestions, ones we could write down and refer to later, but what I saw instead is some vague description of how the problem is difficult (at least, that's what it appears to me: I could not extract any proposition from it one could say yes or no to), but at the same time, I was reminded that we need user requirements. That is precisely what this section is for. I welcome what explanation DePiep has just provided. I sort of wish it was provided the first time I asked, but late is better than never.
- DePiep, I have a question. You mention there are other things you are preoccupied with and you cannot devout all of your attention to this quest. We don't know how long it will take to have you turn all of your attention to this quest. We don't know how long it will take to formulate the perfect requirements. We don't know how long it will take to produce a perfect table based on these perfect requirements. This could take a lot of time, so the question is this. Would you agree we try to create a new coloring scheme in the meantime, before the perfect one has been produced, and not oppose adoption of such an interim scheme unless there are ways in which it is worse then what the current scheme? If the answer is yes, then of course all of my obstruction concerns will be clearly devoid of any substance, and I'll gladly take that word back.
- Since there were two questions pointed at me, I feel obliged to answer them.
- Why did I not restart the 2016 discussion? -- the simple answer is, I did, back in 2017. I even asked this question: "Could you explain to the amateur that I am what's wrong with them [the 2016 colors]?" I didn't get a sound answer for that one. What I did get is that saying they were not perfect, and no actionable comments. I was hyped up back by what you could produce then, but this hype has waned now that it's been three years since then and nothing has been exhibited, and it's still far from clear when it will.
- Why do I keep suggesting the 2016 proposal was frustrated instead of admitting it was not ideal? -- the answer is simple, too. It was a clear improvement compared to the old scheme, and it was frustrated because it was not perfect even though it was an improvement. In fact, the fact that it was an improvement is something you mention in the 2017 discussion, too. But to quote, you said, "please do not propose that" (italics in original), because the 2016 proposal was "not perfect." I didn't press for adoption of the proposal at hand back in 2017 because I thought you'd create an even better scheme. Three years later, nothing has happened, and I begin to think we could've spent those years with a better scheme.--R8R (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- @R8R: Thanks for your kind words; I will have a time shortage, but I will try to at least stick around at the project page issues. I confess that I am not 100% sure about starting to create a new colour scheme in the meantime, when we have not even gotten to the stage in our plans where we arrive at deciding what categories there are, but for me it is simple: if that is what a majority of project members want, then so be it. Double sharp (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! I'm reassured by that.
- The point in having an interim scheme is simple. The way DePiep describes it now sounds impressive, but what description I heard in 2017 sounded impressive, too, but it didn't result in anything. If I were confident that a coloring scheme would actually be created this time, then this would not be necessary. I was confident back in 2016 and 2017 that a new scheme would be produced, and I didn't press for the proposal at hand precisely for that reason, but in the end, nothing was presented, so there's a chance this might happen again. (I am absolutely sure DePiep means it now, but I'm just as sure they meant it back then, and we didn't get anything.) I think there shouldn't be a problem recognizing an interim scheme in case the creation of the perfect scheme takes far too long again; after all, if the perfect scheme is created, it will likely supersede what interim scheme there will be.--R8R (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- DePiep, I have posted to user talk:R8R about the tone of his post, which I agree was inappropriate. Would you be able to look past the tone and comment on the questions that R8R raised that you see as pertinent to this discussion? Thank you. EdChem (talk) 04:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough, R8R. This week I will publish a structured subpage to discuss and develop the whole issue of periodic table graphics (say, presentations). PT content topics (like which categories to cover? do blocks instead?) belong here at WT:ELEMENTS. From there too, we will look at the feasibility of an early new color scheme.
- I will report here. Anything to clarify? -DePiep (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Due to distractions, I have not been able to meet my stated one-week goal. Personally, I am fine. -DePiep (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Astatine
Extended content
|
---|
I suspect that there are many readers who vaguely recall their high school chemistry who would be surprised to see astatine classified as a metal. Am I correct in saying that astatine shows properties that are halogen-like and also that are metal-like? WP's article lede states that "most of [astatine's] compounds resemble those of iodine" and that it is "usually classified as either a nonmetal or a metalloid." Does the article need an update or is putting it as a metal another choice where multiple perspectives are reasonable? I note that we also state that "astatine is the least reactive of the halogens," citing an article from 1959. Is it predicted Ts would be less reactive still? Or not a halogen? Should the table or PT article cover the classification of elements like At and the more recent discoveries? I know the hassium article includes that the properties were consistent with its expected position in the PT, for example. Would a reader expect Og to be a noble gas? If we are talking about changes to the PT article and display table, I think it's worth looking at other potential topics / issues. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@EdChem: Immediately following its production in 1940, early investigators considered astatine to be a metal. No surprise there considering iodine looks like a metal under white light and is a semiconductor with a band gap of about 1.3 eV. Batsanov in 1971 gave a non-relativistic calculated band gap for astatine of 0.7 eV i.e. a semiconductor with a metallic appearance. Relativistic calculations in 2013 predicted astatine would be a full-blown fcc metal. This article has been cited 35 times without dissent. As far as the p-block is concerned, there is no drama and no fuss. We know from RS that the elements commonly recognised as metalloids are B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, and Te. To the left are the post-transition metals. In the literature, group 12 are treated as TM or PTM on about a 50-50 basis. Since group 12 have a predominately main group chemistry, not to mention the dramatic weakening of physical properties going from group 11 to 12, we count the latter as PTM. To the right of the metalloids are the noble gases, and the halogen nonmetals. The residual nonmetals, H, C, N , O, P, S, Se exhibit a rich array of shared attributes and some or all of them have been referred to by as many collective literature-based category names, some of which are not unique to the nonmetals involved, including:
Some other terms that are about to appear in RS are:
The last of these arises since the seven nonmetals concerned have properties that are neither too extreme, nor too weak, but just right to support life as we know it. Further, each of them nonmetals have their own WP biogeochemical cycle article. Sandbh (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
A better quote about astatine from C&EN News rather than just a chemist's blog: "is astatine more like a halogen or like a metal?" So there's proof that it is not clear cut if "halogen" is a group name or a category name, and that it is not even clear cut if At is a halogen in the first place. Double sharp (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@EdChem, R8R, and Double sharp: The general reader. I'm reminded of EdChem's comment, somewhere, that we're writing for the general reader. In this context it doesn't matter what a chemist thinks. What does science say? EdChem, I support your approach of considering what the science says, rather than what our personal preferences are. Fuzzy thinking. On the science front, fuzzy concepts are, as I understand it, a part of chemistry and explain why, to some extent, chemistry cannot (not yet, anyway) be fully reduced to physics. That said, sharpish and fuzzy categories have always played a part in the development of science, generally. In chemistry there are fuzzy concepts like acidic-amphoteric-basic; metal-metalloid-nonmetal; or ionic-polymeric-covalent. Despite their fuzziness, these basic groupings include some of the most powerful ideas in chemistry. The breadth of a discipline. I cannot speak for chemistry but in my own area of professional expertise (strategic people management; learning and development), I know a lot and I don't know it all. And I was never worried about unfamiliar jargon; there are too many models, theories, luminaries, and sub-disciplines, to be across them all. The good thing was I never stopped learning. In strategic people management you can always fall back on something called the people management life cycle (capability > raise > train > sustain > capability > repeat). Anything else you either learnt doing your post-grad, or you pick it up along the way, as required. In chemistry, as far as I have read, the PT serves as the organising or learning icon, plus whatever you learnt at university, and you pick up the rest along the way, as required. H, C, N, O, P, S, Se. The WP situation strikes me as being akin to post-transition metal territory. There are several nomenclature possibilities found in the literature. Scientifically, my pick would be moderately active nonmetals. It’s an ugly, clumsy and relative term. But it’s generic; not tied to any particular sub-discipline, like biochemistry (important as that is); doesn’t have significant overlap issues; and is conceptually anchored in the left-right activity progression seen across the period table, as widely recognised in the literature. For the nonmetals this of course refers to the chemically weak metalloids to the left and the highly active halogen nonmetals to the right. I no longer support other nonmetals. The great majority of Ngram hits are to vague and irrelevant expressions like “plastics and other nonmetals”. Ambiguity. When it comes to situations where there is ambiguity or disagreement or the like I strive to make reference to all the possibilities. See, for example, metal; nonmetal; post-transition metal; metalloid; heavy metals; and lists of metalloids. Sandbh (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC) |
Duplicate article
Introduction to superheavy elements is a duplicate of Introduction to the heaviest elements; only the latter is transcluded in element articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
A WikiGnome writes
Extended content
|
---|
One interest of a fellow gnome, Certes, is fixing bad links to WP:PTOPICs. I lunged with krypton, lithium and neon, and he fixed 150-odd bad links. He parried with chromium, lead and palladium. I riposted with copper, gold, radium and silver. (Discussion here.) Are there any other elements which may have collected bad links? Narky Blert (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
|
RFC proposed: Nonmetal categories
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Colleagues, I intend to put the following RFC, at Periodic Table talk:
I’ll draft some accompanying notes. Comments please. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 08:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
1. Yes, I'll add some notes about the two new categories, including along the lines you requested. 2. A funny thing: I looked at the 2 column in the above table and wondered how so many nonmetals could be "lumped" together in one category, given their diverse attributes. 3. I feel there's no need to e.g. add "Se" after "CHONPS", since S can be read as S and Se. Not forgetting S and Se are in the same group, and share an appreciable number of properties. For example, selenium is found in metal sulfide ores, where it partially replaces sulfur; both elements are photoconductors—their electrical conductivities increase by up to six orders of magnitude when exposed to light. The two nonmetals form about a dozen chain and ring entities of composition S(1−7)Se(1−6). As well, CHNOPSSe doesn't sound or look quite as good. 4. There are some citations in the table. Note the three variations: CHON (this one is very old); CHNOPS and CHONPS. 5. We have an article on the CHON elements. This article, sans attribution, notes "The acronym "S.P. Cohn" was also used in high school biology classes to represent the six chemical elements." 6. Here is the link to the Wiktionary entry. 7. The WP PT is a metallicity based PT, showing the L−R progression in metallic to non-metallic character, so a group name such as chalcogen is not so relevant here. 8. I've asked some chemistry teachers if they use CHONPS. One said, "Yes, I have used CHNOPS for years." @EdChem:, a chemist, is familiar with it too. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC) |
Final RFC
- Q1: Should the WP periodic table show two, or three nonmetal categories, as set out in Table 1?
- Q2: If you support three nonmetal categories, what name/s do you support for the third category, as set out in Table 2? You can pick more than one.
Table 1: Two or three nonmetal categories? Two Three - Noble gases: He,Ne,Ar,Kr,Xe,Rn
- Reactive nonmetals: H,C,N,O,F,P,S,Cl,Se,Br,I
(existing category)
- Noble gases: He,Ne,Ar,Kr,Xe,Rn
- Halogen nonmetals: F,Cl,Br,I
- Your pick/s from Table 2 nonmetals: H,C,N,O,P,S,Se
Table 1: Two or three nonmetal categories? Two Three - Noble gases: He,Ne,Ar,Kr,Xe,Rn
- Reactive nonmetals: H,C,N,O,F,P,S,Cl,Se,Br,I
(existing category)
- Noble gases: He,Ne,Ar,Kr,Xe,Rn
- Halogen nonmetals: F,Cl,Br,I
- Your pick/s from Table 2 nonmetals: H,C,N,O,P,S,Se
Table 2: Category names found in the literature for
nonmetals other than halogen nonmetals and noble gasesName Comment Name Comment 1a. Bioelements
1b. Biogens
1c. Biological frame-work elements
1d. Primary bio-essential elements1a. H,C,N,O,P,S,Se[3]
1b. H,O,N,C (1873) or H,C,N,O,P,S
1c. H,C,N,O
1d. C,N,O,S,P9. Nonmetals - Implies or suggests that halogens and noble gases are not nonmetals
- Can include Se e.g.[4]
2. Carbon & other nonmetals Excludes H, which is in its own category 10. Moderately active nonmetals - Elaborated below
- Probably the most easily understood category name for the average chemist
3. CHNOPS Also CHONPS; predecessor “CHON” dates from 1865 11. Organogens Overlap into some halogens
4a. Core elements
4b. "Core" nonmetals- C(H)NOPS[5]
- H is a hanger on, "whenever there is a spare electron going". (p. 212)
- Se is on the fringe (p. 260); it occurs in selenocysteine, the 21st amino acid of life (p. 210)
- CHONSP = the "core" of nonmetals to the L of the halogens, when H is located at the centre of the PT, thus "core nonmetals"; H2S may've formed the chemical cradle of life.[6]
12. Orphan nonmetals [7] (juvenile nonfiction)
5. Covalent nonmetals 13. Other nonmetals “Other” means “existing besides, or distinct from that already mentioned"; "auxiliary", "ancillary, secondary" (2nd ed. OED; thesaurus entries for "other")
6. Essential elements Depending on the source,[11][12][13][14][15] essential (nonmetal) elements include from 5 to 9 of P; HCNOSCl; F(?)SeI; Si. 14. Redox nonmetals - H,C,N,O,S,Se although in text this class of nonmetals is given as H,C,N,O,P,S.
- The halogens F,Cl,Br,I are "extreme nonmetals". [16] (2001, pp. 10–11)
- Elsewhere, S, Se and the halogens are referred to as redox nonmetals (p. 489)
7. Intermediate nonmetals Excludes O 15. SPONCH 8. Light nonmetals Overlap with He, Ne, (Ar); and F, Cl, (Br)
Ionisation energy (kJ/mol) | Electron affinity (eV) | Electro-negativity | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Metalloids | ||||
B | 897 | 27 | 2.04 | |
Si | 793 | 134 | 1.9 | |
Ge | 768 | 119 | 2.01 | |
As | 953 | 79 | 2.18 | |
Sb | 840 | 101 | 2.05 | |
Te | 879 | 190 | 2.1 | |
No standout category name nonmetals | ||||
H | 1,318 | 73 | 2.2 | |
C | 1,093 | 122 | 2.55 | |
N | 1,407 | −0.07 | 3.04 | |
P | 1,018 | 72 | 2.19 | |
S | 1,006 | 200 | 2.58 | |
Se | 947 | 195 | 2.55 | |
O | 1,320 | 141 | 3.44 | |
Halogen nonmetals | ||||
F | 1,687 | 328 | 3.98 | |
Cl | 1,257 | 349 | 3.16 | |
Br | 1,146 | 324 | 2.96 | |
I | 1,015 | 295 | 2.66 | |
Only the halogen nonmetals have consistently high values of IE, EA, EN | ||||
Noble gases | ||||
He | 2,372 | −50 | 5.5 | |
Ne | 2,088 | −120 | 4.84 | |
Ar | 1,521 | −96 | 3.2 | |
Kr | 1,351 | −60 | 2.94 | |
Xe | 1,170 | −80 | 2.4 | |
Rn | 1,037 | −70 | 2.06 |
Preamble
- The aim of this proposal is to provide more information about the elements in this part of the Wikipedia periodic table.
- The existing category of "reactive nonmetals" overlaps with the noble gases. For example, xenon reacts with F, Cl, C, N, and Au, and itself, among others. Krypton is less reactive; radon would be expected to be more reactive.
- After the sharply delimited halogens and noble gases, there is no standout category name in the literature for the remaining nonmetals: H, C, N, O, P, S, Se. A similar situation occurs with the post transition metal category, with at least 17 alternative category names found in the literature.
- Category boundaries can be fuzzy, and overlap in some cases. Chemistry has all sorts of fuzzy definitions[18] often leading to unnecessary disputes concerning the periodic table e.g. re H, He; and Group 3.[19]. Other fuzzy concepts include e.g. acidic-amphoteric-basic; metal-metalloid-nonmetal; or ionic-polymeric-covalent.
- A list of the shared properties of H, C, N, O, P, S, Se is here. Table 3 shows the delineations between the categories of nonmetals, in terms of ionisation energy, electron affinity, and electronegativity. The metalloids, which have a predominately nonmetallic chemistry, are included for comparison.
- Strictly speaking, for name #12 "SPONCH", the nonmetals H, C, N, O, P, S, Se ought to be referred to as the SeSPONCH nonmetals.
- Such a name is not found in the literature so it could only be regarded as a descriptive term.
- In the literature, "SPONCH" or "CHONPS" appear to refer only to H, C, N, O, P, S.
Survey instructions
- Anything beyond a simple !vote for either two categories; or three categories (and your Table 2 pick/s), should be placed in the "Discussion" sub-thread, following.
- If you support three nonmetal categories, please include the number/s of the Table 2 name/s you support.
- The survey will be closed after 30 days by an admin, unless it is reasonably apparent that consensus has been established before then.
- If the "three categories" option achieves consensus, the choice of name with the most votes "wins". In the event of a tie, there would be a follow-on run-off, after a due period of discussion.
Survey votes
…
Discussion
…
Comments on draft RFC
Extended content
| ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Narky BlertCHNOPS looks to me like a wholly anthropocentric, and therefore arbitrary, selection, based on biology not chemistry. 99.9% or better of biologically important compounds (on Earth, at any rate) contain nothing else. Most of the remainder include a metal cation. The number of compounds which contain any other element covalently bound is tiny. All the ones I can think of (other than the I-containing thyroxine) are peculiar specialist defences against predation, or are manmade pharmaceuticals or things like nerve agents. How many biological molecules can you think of which contain covalently-bound B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Se or Te? Narky Blert (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC) @Narky Blert: Thank you.
--- Sandbh (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
DePiep
@DePiep: The word category is found three times in the IUPAC Red Book, including:
Fowler's modern English usage (1998) says:
Here in WP, we refer to "Chemistry" as a category, [22] with 72 subcategories. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC) R8RThere is no comment on the content of the RfC proposal I could give (I think it's fine), but I am wondering what Double sharp has to say. My understanding is that Double sharp has effectively suggested there should only be four categories, namely, the s-, f-, d-, and p-blocks, and expressed his desire to have an RfC on that topic, too. That proposal directly conflicts with this one, and my thinking is, there should ideally be an attempt to coordinate the two given that they are mutually exclusive.--R8R (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
@Sandbh: I am seriously concerned about the changes introduced to the draft since I commented on it. The idea that a vote for a different change the one being implemented can be still counted as a vote for a change is very disturbing. Votes may not be counted the way they were intended to be counted. That's a serious problem. There are better ways to conduct a multiple-choice poll. For example, when New Zealand was considering a flag change, citizens first voted on which new flag should be adopted if there was to be a change at all, and then they voted on whether there should be a change to that selected flag. This seems much fairer to me; however, I am concerned that participating a two-stage RfC is a bit much to ask from outsider participants, which is why I think the first round (selecting the favored option) should happen within our project, and then the agreed upon name should be offered to outsider participants. It was my impression this was what was going to be proposed the first time.--R8R (talk) 12:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
EdChem
An RfC is meant to offer a simple question for outsiders to consider and offer a comment. The background should neutrally present the arguments / evidence for others to consider in forming a view. Advocacy belongs with comments / views / !votes, etc. The above list points to potential issues that an outsider might wonder about and which thus are worth considering in constructing an RfC. Also, an RfC cannot override what the consensus of RS is... and so should not offer such an option. For example, we wouldn't hold an RfC to decide on metalloids as a separate collection / set if the consensus of literature is that they are; rather, we'd document the RS consensus and (as needed) discuss its implementation. We may hold an RfC, for example, if RS given DUE consideration support two possibilities and we choose which to present and which to discuss as the alternative. Some of the issues are ones I haven't reached a conclusion with my Wikipedian hat on. As an educator and thinking pedagogically, I can't see the benefit that comes with "halogen non-metals" over "halogens" given the insignificance of astatine. As a chemist, I can see the benefit of precision but wonder if chemists will simply understand when astatine is included / excluded by implication. As Wikipedian, however, as RS are drawing such distinctions I have to wonder about the appropriate inclusion of such terms... but at the potential cost of over-specialising encyclopaedic content and in so doing rendering WP less accessible for non-specialist readers. Not an easy one, either to decide or even to construct an RfC about... but the draft needs some re-drafting, IMO. EdChem (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
--- Sandbh (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Sandbh@Narky Blert, DePiep, R8R, EdChem, Double sharp, and ComplexRational: I intend to go live with the RFC on Friday 6 Nov, my time (Eastern Australia). Sandbh (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC) @Sandbh: I hope the issue of the collusion between your proposal and Double sharp's will have been resolved by then, and a way to coordinate the two proposals will have been found.--R8R (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC) @Sandbh: (1) I presume the RfC text to be centralized will just be Q1 and Q2. (2) Do you want to explicitly request that people not respond to !votes in threaded discussions (3) You said @YBG: (1) Yes. To be clear, I intend that the RFC will include everything between the two pairs of double lines. (2) I believe this is covered by the "Survey instructions", namely "Anything beyond a simple !vote for either two categories; or three categories (+ your Table 2 pick/s), should be placed in the "Discussion" sub-thread, following." (3) Yes, quite so. The full question was, "Have any chemistry teachers heard or used this term?" To which one responded, "Yes, I have used CHNOPS for years." Sandbh (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC) @Sandbh: (2) I agree it is covered, but I'm not sure sufficiently that people will "get" it. But your choice. (3) Right, my joke only worked by eliminating the term "term". YBG (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC) @YBG: Roger that re (2). I'll look at it. Brevity is everything in an RFC, but. Sandbh (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC) |
DS
I guess people may be surprised to hear this since I have been arguing strongly against categories, but I actually think Sandbh's current version of this RFC is very good. I have absolutely no objections to this being raised. Double sharp (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
RFC supporting information
Moderately active nonmetals
- Timm (1950): "Oxygen is a moderately active nonmetal and will combine directly with nearly every other element to form an oxide.
- Gelender at al. (1959): "This oxidation may be accomplished by: (a) The use of suitable oxidizing agents for moderately active nonmetals."
- Perlman (1970): "Between Groups I and VII there are gradations from active metals (Col. I) to less active metals to moderately active nonmetals to volatile nonmetals (halogens Col. VII)."
- Wulfsberg (2000): "Most of the moderately active metals and nonmetals (the electropositive metals and electronegative nonmetals) are reduced from their oxides…using carbon."
- Welcher (2001): "The elements change from active metals to less active metals, to metalloids, to moderately active nonmetals, to very active nonmetals, and to a noble gas."
- Sorokhtin at al. (2007): "Nitrogen is a moderately active element, reacting weakly with natural inorganic compounds."
- They appear sub-metallic (C, P, Se), coloured (S) or colourless (H, N, O), and are brittle if solid. Black P, the most stable form in ambient conditions, is these days easily prepared.[23]
- Being sandwiched between the strongly electronegative halogen nonmetals and the weakly nonmetallic metalloids, their net chemical nature is moderately non-metallic. Hence the term moderately active nonmetals found in the literature.
- Each one has an associated biogeochemical cycle, thus: hydrogen cycle; carbon cycle; nitrogen cycle; oxygen cycle; phosphorus cycle; sulfur cycle; selenium cycle.
- Multiple vertical, horizontal and diagonal relationships[24]
- A proclivity to catenate peaks in this part of the periodic table (for H, see here). Silicon and boron do this too, but they are two of the elements most commonly recognised as metalloids, and are shown as such on the WP periodic table.
- Uses in explosives and combustion; nerve agents; and organocatalysis.
- A capacity to form interstitial and refractory compounds, in light of their relatively small atomic radii and sufficiently low ionization energy values[25]
WP:ELEM Protocol (very draft)
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
As mentioned at WP:ANI here’s a suggested protocol setting out aspirations for the way we do things around here. I've strived to keep the word count as low as possible. Less is more, in my view. In no particular order, after item 1( = no change):
These items have been informed (and biased) by my recent experience here and at WP:ANI. Feel free to shoot, salute, amend, suggest or add your own items. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
@EdChem: Thank you; I'll certainly be taking on, and considering your carefully put thoughts. A quick comment. Consistent with WP:IAR, there is no "absolute" prohibition on anything at WP. Sandbh (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
@EdChem: Oh my. I just looked at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and ran head long into a 6,400+ word count extravaganza. Talk about a wall of text.
@Sandbh: I do not find that this protocol will aid the development of the project as it stands. I do appreciate the effort put into it but I think that many points need a greater level of precision before we could discuss them because they are very open for different interpretations. 2. "keeping in mind that the purpose of our rules and guidelines is to make the best encyclopedia possible" -- people will inevitably disagree on what this means. Say, there has been disagreement about that between you and me. This phrase will hardly help us resolve the differing views because it's rather vague, and you and I will fill it in differently. 3. "Being sharp, at times, does not constitute incivility" -- I, again, fear that this phrase lacks sufficient substance to make sure it means the same thing to all editors. 5. "Nobody owns any article, template, table, content or domain of knowledge." -- the same comment. What does it mean exactly? Is WP:OWN not enough? 8. I feel my previous concern has not been resolved. We are not supposed to focus on science, we are supposed to focus on reliable sources. Wikipedia:Reliable sources is a core policy of the English Wikipedia. We can't adopt a guideline that would contravene that. We shouldn't have such a guideline. 9. My concern has not been resolved, either. What is "undue WP:POLICY citing"? Again, you and I differ on what is undue policy citing and what isn't. How is this guideline going to help us? One thing I agree with is explicitly stating that lack of beforehand consensus is not a sufficient reason to revert someone's bold edit unless there is an established consensus behind the current standing that such a bold edit would contradict.--R8R (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
I have another concern about adding project-specific guidelines in a small project such as ours. Whenever you have guidelines, there is the possibility of differing interpretations. If a dispute over project guidelines arises, our ability to find uninvolved project members to mediate is severely limited. But if we have a project disagreement on the interpretation of some site-wide guideline, it is much more likely that we can find uninvolved mediators who can resolve the issue. Even with the ugliness of our project's recent experience at ANI, I still prefer that forum to a free-for-all just amongst ourselves. YBG (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Sit rep comment by Sandbh: I haven't recently commented or edited here pending the outcome of ANI #3. I may do so if I have some spare time. Sandbh (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC) |
Straw poll
@Sandbh, Double sharp, YBG, EdChem, R8R, ComplexRational, and DePiep: Do you think we should spend more time on this subject? Please add your signature below without additional comment. YBG (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I think WT:ELEM should spend time developing project expectations/guidelines
- ComplexRational (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Double sharp (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
No, I think WT:ELEM should NOT spend time developing project expectations/guidelines
Comments re straw poll
- YBG thoughts: If most of us think we should spend time on this, my recommendation would be that we have another straw poll to decide when we should do it, eg, immediately (eg to avoid ArbCom) or later (eg after ArbCom is complete). If on the other hand, most of us do not think we should spend time on this, then we should archive this thread and agree not to bring it up again for a reasonable period of time. YBG (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- ComplexRational comment: Clear expectations and guidelines (of course not forming a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS) would probably do well to clear ambiguity and misunderstandings, and enable more constructive content collaborations. IMO this talk page has gotten way out of hand, both in length and the nature of some discussions, and I'm astonished by the headbutting and lack of progress on perennial issues. ComplexRational (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- DS comment: I was originally of the POV that this was unnecessary because we already had global guidelines that should be applicable. However, since much of this seems to really be about how to understand global guidelines in the context of our situation, I have been persuaded by CR's rationale to support the idea. I agree with CR's characterisation of how things have gotten here and apologise on my part for having contributed to it. Double sharp (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Double sharp:, please add your signature to the count above. YBG (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- More from YBG I think this thread becanme a train wreck because it tried to bite off too much. If the majority of us decides we should spend more time on this, then I suggest that we tackle soemthing small, perhaps by (1) editors submitting potential guideline areas (2) a simple !!vote to decide which small topic area to take up (3) a discussion aimed at reaching consensus on that simple topic area, fiercely limiting scope. I have more to say, but I will wait until there is a majority of Yes !!votes in the straw poll. YBG (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Eric Scerri YouTube workshop
This workshop (1h 41m) was conducted remotely via Zoom. 150+ people from 16 countries registered. It was organized by the American Chemical Society in association with Yale University.
Topics discussed by Eric include:
- teaching 3d-4s orbitals
- Madelung Rule
- differentiating electrons
- Group 3
- HFSS (half-filled sub-shells).
--- Sandbh (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Ten most influential chemists today
Here. --- Sandbh (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
IUPAC Group 3 project update
From Eric Scerri: "Before delivering a report I will be publishing an article in Chemistry International which discusses our preliminary conclusions and will be asking for comments and feedback. I'm still writing the article." "By all means share this update." --- Sandbh (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: Thank you, this is useful information to keep in the back of our heads. We can start to consider it for content discussions when his article appears – which I hope happens soon. Double sharp (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
On the inevitable misunderstandings that arise from giving individual elements single category colourings
Extended content
|
---|
Textbook example. Double sharp (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
This thread merits further consideration. On the status of B there is this article (by me), Which elements are metalloids? [28] with 29 GS citations. It appeared in the Journal of Chemical Education and concluded that B is one of the six elements that are commonly recognised in the literature as metalloids. There has been no dissent across the 29 citations, as to my conclusion. More to follow. Sandbh (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
--- Sandbh (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
An article on the use of colour in periodic tables: [37]. Sandbh (talk) 10:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
A related article: Looking for an order of things: Textbooks and chemical classifications in nineteenth century France [38]. Sandbh (talk) 04:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC) @Double sharp: I want to address some questions you raised earlier: 1. Is it "lanthanides" or "lanthanoids"? Consensus (majority opinion, not unanimity) appears to exist for all of these things in the literature. On Og we tread cautiously and show it as unknown properties; presumably we will do the same with 119, 120. Encyclopedia Britannica, the World Book Encyclopedia, RSC, ACS, and LANL take similar approaches, allowing for the fuzziness of chemistry, which we acknowledge in our periodic table article. So too does the most popular online PT [39] itself modelled after WP.
@Double sharp: Our PT represents a form of words in graphical form. If a reader, cookie-cutter stye, chooses to focus on those words alone, absent of their context, that is their choice. We note the otherwise missing context i.e. the fuzziness of the categories in the periodic table article. I've suggested adding a small note to the graphic to this end and have not done so, due to opposition expressed here. I'll draft an RFC about this, and post it to the periodic table talk page. On Q6, WP:ELEM chose those spilts, IGF, via consensus, on the basis of our understanding of the literature, as did the founders of the WP colour category table. I've proposed overlapping categories for the WP PT, only to meet staunch resistance from colleague here. I recall you even pointed out one of these tables on another of the WP's, the German one if I recall right? I looked at the 149, by my count, non-English WPs. I found three showing just metal-metalloid-nonmetal; and two block-only tables. So 96%+ show colour categories, such as we do. Cool tables:
I casually mentioned frontier metals in passing, as a way of referring to the metals that occupy "frontier territory: abutting the metalloids. The term itself comes from a peer-reviewed open-access article in the literature (that I wrote), now with 5,400+ access. As the PTM article notes, the name frontier metal is adapted from Russell and Lee, who wrote that, "…bismuth and group 16 element polonium are generally considered to be metals, although they occupy 'frontier territory' on the periodic table, adjacent to the nonmetals."[40]. --- Sandbh (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC) |
Time out (1)
This discussion is unclear about its central question or postulate. It is unuseful because of its unstructured and chaotic flow & layout. It is unhelpful because of extremely long texts that do nothing to make an argument or a point. Unless restructured, we can leave it alone without consequences. I call it basically senseless. -DePiep (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: OK. Double sharp (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Eh, nothing personal, nothing wrong with your early contributions Double sharp, even when lengthy. This is about the overall thread so far. Have a nice edit. -DePiep (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: Oh, that's good to hear, but I do think I was a little too verbose. I admit I found it difficult to formulate succintly – but I should have tried harder. Have a nice edit too. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- NO! my statement is: you did nothing wrong, it's the thread itself that exploded! DePiep (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: Oh! Okay, I understand what you mean now. Thank you. Double sharp (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- NO! my statement is: you did nothing wrong, it's the thread itself that exploded! DePiep (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: Oh, that's good to hear, but I do think I was a little too verbose. I admit I found it difficult to formulate succintly – but I should have tried harder. Have a nice edit too. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Eh, nothing personal, nothing wrong with your early contributions Double sharp, even when lengthy. This is about the overall thread so far. Have a nice edit. -DePiep (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
A nice pair
Noble metals | Noble gases |
---|---|
--- Sandbh (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
RFC register
Current
Proposal | Sponsor | Notes |
---|---|---|
Should there be two or three nonmetal colour categories? | Sandbh | Here |
Should the lede PT graphic include a notation noting the fuzziness of its categories? | Sandbh |
Frozen
Proposal | Sponsor | Notes |
---|---|---|
Should group 3 be La or Lu? | Double sharp |
|
Withdrawn
Proposal | Sponsor | Notes |
---|---|---|
Double sharp | Withdrawn | |
YBG | More focused wording than what I suggested here. WithdrawnYBG (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC) | |
Sandbh | As per discussion |
Discussion
I believe the table sets out where things are up to.
If anybody would like to take over as sponsor for any one of these proposals, please speak up.
I suggest a current sponsor may choose to decline a take over request.
IMO, the best place to host these RFCs is at Talk:Periodic table. Our project is too small, insufficiently representative, and does not represent an NPOV "venue". Since the RFCs are about the periodic table, they ought to take place at that talk page. Sandbh (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
That said, anyone can put an RFC at any time. Sandbh (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sandbh, I believe this list is accurate as well, and I do not object to putting up the RFC's at Talk:Periodic table. Since you have given us information that suggests that some preliminary information about the IUPAC conclusion may come out soon, I feel that we can put the La vs Lu one on hold at least until Scerri's article appears in Chemistry International. (That doesn't mean I intend to bring it out immediately once that appears; rather it means that his article, when it appears, will be an important point to be considered as to where to proceed next.) I was previously going for it because we didn't have informationI a about a timescale for IUPAC to make its decision and very little progress was being publicly displayed, so I was worried that we might be in a permanent "limbo" of sorts; however, since it seems that progress has indeed happened, I feel it makes sense to wait now. As for the categories one – as stated in my section below I think this is simply an issue regarding two conflicting interpretations of WP:UNDUE. Since I can now see a policy-based argument for keeping the categories, and in all honesty I wasn't so much against them because I didn't like them as because I was worried about the policy-based thing, I think that we can withdraw this issue as well. Hopefully it was just a good interesting icebreaker that let us reexamine the situation and conclude that indeed, policy lets us keep on with what we're doing.
- That being said, however, I think EdChem is right that there are other issues with the article that are not covered by this, that would be more useful to solve first for the benefit of the average reader. Double sharp (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I have taken the liberty of adding a note to your table saying that I intend to "freeze" the La vs Lu one at least until Scerri's article appears. Please revert if you think this addition was inappropriate. Double sharp (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Double sharp, Sandbh, DePiep, EdChem, ComplexRational, and R8R: I have added a re-worded RfC about WP policy issues related to our current color scheme. I recall years ago thinking that our color scheme was an acceptable violation of WP:OR, but I have become increasingly uncomfortable with that. But I don't like the abvious consequences of that POV, the elimination of the beautiful colors on our PT. I would welcome any policy-based effort to convince me otherwise, ideally at User talk:YBG. I will gladly mark this RfC proposal as withdrawn under either of two conditions (a) someone convinces me that it does not violate WP policies; or (b) a clear majority of WP:ELEM members support retaining the colors. But apart from those two conditions, I think we should get WP-wide input on this one. If we go down that path, it should IMO be before the nonmetal question. Also, I think it should be decided on policy based considerations alone, not preferences, and so the question of what to replace it with should be a separate issue to be considered only after a definite decision of the policy issue. But I would much prefer a scenario that allows us to retain our color scheme. YBG (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Noteworthy post. Standing out, to me, is "acceptable violation of WP:OR". I think this is the discussion plan (or one of them) we need. -DePiep (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- @YBG: I've tried at your talk page. I thought it might be good for me to try, because as you know I agreed with the view that it's problematic till today. Double sharp (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: I suggest not holding the recoloring RfC. There are two major reasons for this: 1) this is not an RfC question, and 2) we have already established a way forward (that I am quite content with).
- 1) This is not the sort of question that should be resolved via an RfC. An RfC can be useful if we find ourselves in a procedural deadlock and seek more comments to establish a way forward, but there already is a way forward. Another situation when an RfC could be useful is when we don't know what should be done, and we seek a solution, but I fear what opinions we may attract will be based on personal preferences, and this will likely not be very helpful for this goal. One more case is that we seek more legitimacy for a desired solution, but I think that we as a project should take agency for our decisions unless there's a reason why we can't.
- 2) There already is a way forward that we have established, and I am quite content with it. First of all, we hold the RfCs that may change the structure of our PT. If that happens, my old scheme becomes irrelevant, so we have to find out first whether it will. Then we know what kind of a PT we want to have, and we hold a contest open for everyone that will last two months (unless we agree that the submission period should be longer). When two months have passed, we as a project decide whether we want to replace our current PT for any suggestion, and if we do, for which one. And if we decide for having a new scheme, it goes live. DePiep may present their own scheme at a later date, and upon presentation we will decide whether we want to replace the scheme we will have at that point for DePiep's scheme; if we decide we do, it goes live.--R8R (talk) 09:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @YBG: I've tried at your talk page. I thought it might be good for me to try, because as you know I agreed with the view that it's problematic till today. Double sharp (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Noteworthy post. Standing out, to me, is "acceptable violation of WP:OR". I think this is the discussion plan (or one of them) we need. -DePiep (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Double sharp, Sandbh, DePiep, EdChem, ComplexRational, and R8R: I have added a re-worded RfC about WP policy issues related to our current color scheme. I recall years ago thinking that our color scheme was an acceptable violation of WP:OR, but I have become increasingly uncomfortable with that. But I don't like the abvious consequences of that POV, the elimination of the beautiful colors on our PT. I would welcome any policy-based effort to convince me otherwise, ideally at User talk:YBG. I will gladly mark this RfC proposal as withdrawn under either of two conditions (a) someone convinces me that it does not violate WP policies; or (b) a clear majority of WP:ELEM members support retaining the colors. But apart from those two conditions, I think we should get WP-wide input on this one. If we go down that path, it should IMO be before the nonmetal question. Also, I think it should be decided on policy based considerations alone, not preferences, and so the question of what to replace it with should be a separate issue to be considered only after a definite decision of the policy issue. But I would much prefer a scenario that allows us to retain our color scheme. YBG (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
WP:ELEMENTS up for ArbCom
So as of yesterday, WP:ELEMENTS is up for Arbcom [45].
I won't (have to) reply to any talks, nor 'engage'. I consider all edits in this WP contested. For lack of discussion and lack of consensus. -DePiep (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Comments from EdChem
As all the current regular contributors to WT:ELEM are well aware, but for the sake of those unfamiliar with the project, there have been discussions at my user talk page that have led to me offering specific advice on Arbitration. ArbCom cases are never easy or pleasant and they can be brutal. It is a necessary process for intractable disputes that is something to avoid if that is possible, not least because outcomes may satisfy no one and can end disputes in ways that are wounding for many or even all of the editors involved. I advised that a path that may avoid a case being taken now, and hopefully avoid it ever being necessary, required those who have participated in reaching the present point providing ArbCom with a reason to delay taking a case or even declining it for now. I also said that this needed to come from the participants.
I am very encouraged to see the effect that my words have had. Discussions on user talk pages and in the section below have included many expressions of interest in rebuilding the collaborative spirit that WP:ELEM once had. I have been reading what I see but not commenting as I believe it is best that you can collaboratively decide what you want and how you want to do it. There are many 'right' ways to do this and I have not been asked to provide input, which I see as encouraging, and so am glad to see progress happening between you. When I wrote that I thought working together to give ArbCom an alternative was desirable or necessary, I do so without being certain what would happen. I knew there was a risk that a project-centred attempt for a settlement would degenerate and prove to ArbCom that their intervention was necessary. I am very pleased to see that the risk in my suggestion was worth taking. This project can emerge stronger (and with more participants) so long as the desire to rebuild remains strong.
I have also been watching to see which (if any) of the steps that I see as necessary in some form for this to work are happening. It is good to see that most have arisen in some form, though I believe that there are some difficulties that need to be faced for this to work ahead. These may not happen before ArbCom makes a decision, which I see as fine. One issue I have had concerns about since becoming involved is the way that efforts in multiple directions are pursued simultaneously. It is difficult to progress in many directions at once without a large team that will divide naturally into sub-groups based on interests, ideally with mutual respect and confidence between the groups. Sub-group membership is flexible and fluid, with outcomes returning to the whole project for ratification by acclamation or RfC. I see different issues coming up below, all of which are relevant / important, but which we might need to organise to approach sequentially rather than simultaneously. In no particular order, I think we need to consider:
- placing some of the existing conflicts on hold – Double sharp has offered a path forward here that seems to be getting good support
- clearing the air between editors – some excellent starts here, though I believe a frank and fearless discussion of ourselves and our concerns about others may be desirable. As an example, I was glad to see that R8R felt able to raise a concern about DePiep and did so in a reasonable way, and DePiep has undertaken to respond but wisely chose not to do so immediately and based on "first primitive
reactionreflexes." This is certainly a step in the right direction, IMO. - discussion on how we want to handle disputes, both content-based and conduct-based, and those with overlaps – the ideas for project guidelines fit here.
- contemplation of how we got here and what we have learned – in this regard, I suspect that binary thinking and dichotomies are one cause of issues. Double sharp writes below on categories that "(1) Refusing to use categories is in some sense undue weight because most sources use them, but (2) using any one particular set of categories may make things a little dicey around the boundaries where categorisations in the literature don't always agree (so, things like polonium or astatine). It seems to me that Sandbh has been more concerned about (1) while I have been more concerned about (2)." In this case, I have been wondering if the solution was not actually (π^2 − e) / 4.37 (and so between 1 and 2): using a set of categories that suit the particular application for the best support to our readers in the relevant context, and if a different set is more appropriate in another context, use that. Having a default for consistency need not mean that every circumstance uses the default. This also means that there are places where the La / Lu debate arises that showing PTs in both forms may best support our readers.
- an objective look at what content problems there are in the project's articles – I pointed out issues with the early parts of the PT article, which produced general agreement that there was a problem. I had hoped that working together on a confined piece of text where the science is not disputed would allow us to not only make progress, but also hold discussions of policy issues where we should be able to find consensus. What references are needed for such information? Which RSs to choose, or are any ok? Are we using multiple references to SYNTH what we want, and if so, how do we fix it? What does a reader need to know (ie what is DUE), and who is our 'typical reader'? Is the presentation NPOV? Does the text meet the criteria in GA and FA? All these considerations and more are relevant for uncontested text and in areas where the answers are not clear, so making sure we are on the same page for non-controversial text can (a) help remind us of being a team working together to mutually-held goals and (b) help us to see what we have in common on policy and application. This can be extended later to more contentious areas.
- I'm sure there are more.
Many will have noticed that brevity is not a strength of mine, though I do better in working on article space text. :) My short message here is:
- Good job so far, keep it up – and I think that at least delaying an ArbCom case, and ultimately avoiding one, is increasingly likely
- This is the start, and it is most important that we keep going in the same general direction together
- Thank you for showing me that you do want end the conflicts (disagreements are inevitable at times, but they need not become wars) and strengthen this project, and thank you for doing so by showing everyone that you can work together and do want to work together
EdChem (talk) 03:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Deciding between ourselves
I have read EdChem's excellent comment at his talk page, and I think he has an excellent point. Therefore I would like to start the discussion that he suggests.
Firstly: I think we should put aside existing differences. We have been squabbling over how the sources should be reflected for the layout and colouring of the periodic table. And while I can see why we did it, since this appears on every element page, we have allowed our sometimes strong views there to vastly overbake the importance of this issue. As EdChem has correctly noted at the top of the talk page: the periodic table article lede still isn't succeeding at giving the reader the needed information. I think we should seriously think first about the important things from the reader, instead of turning the issue into a WP:BIKESHED.
Secondly: I think we should make an utmost attempt to solve the issues between ourselves. EdChem has already told us that going to ArbCom has no good outcome for us. At best it just extends hostilities, and at worst there is also the risk that everyone involved gets banned from chemistry topics. I don't think anyone wants that, because all of us are enthusiastic about the topic area and have a good deal of knowledge. To that end, therefore, I feel that we have to somehow get the content and behavioural disputes separated.
Therefore, I would like to put aside all existing differences. We sometimes have very different views on the matter, but at the core, we all want to improve Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia works by consensus, we have to let go of any residual desires to "win" the debate. That should not be our goal. Our goal should be high-quality encyclopaedic content. Everyone here is aware of RS, and we just have different viewpoints about what exactly is DUE or SYNTH or OR.
To that end also, I would like to let go of any strong feelings about the issue when it comes to what Wikipedia shows. For example, yes, it's true that outside WP I do strongly feel that the Lu form is somehow "correct". But I recognise that this is not a universally held view. It is no longer important to me that I "win" this and manage to install the Lu form as the standard situation – because regardless of how many RS I throw at the issue, the point is not to "win". Wikipedia is indeed not a place to right great wrongs, as EdChem helpfully linked. The point is simply that Wikipedia should describe the dispute in a neutral way that serves the reader – which may be quite short. Whether that means Lu or La is shown is not in any sense the important thing. I would like to make it clear that from now on, I make no claims to OWNership of any of the articles. Let's think first about the reader instead of trying to "win".
Additionally, I would like to ask that we all reflect on our own problematic behaviours while doing so. While I did have concerns about the behaviour of User:Sandbh in particular, I do feel that I have gone too far into being "against" him. I would like to end that. From now on, let's agree to end all hostilities, and not to restart them again. Let's not squabble about who was "right" in the behavioural dispute just as we shouldn't squabble about who was "right" in the content dispute. Let's instead work together. And I would like to say the same for myself towards everyone else here. I may disagree with you sometimes, but I respect you and what you bring here, and I will not see anyone as an opponent. Let's draw a black line and say: that's all over and we'll work together now.
So far, we have mostly confined ourselves to the talk page instead of the article, which is a good start. But we have allowed the talk page discussions to spiral endlessly and degenerate, which is not good. Therefore I would like to suggest that we resolve things together and not fight.
To that end I would like to invite User:R8R, User:DePiep, User:Sandbh, and User:YBG to join in this discussion. I have behaved badly here and failed to consider the readers first, but EdChem has explained it to me and I pledge to follow and change. I hope everyone also does so. I am confident that this can succeed.
Now, let me explain how I propose to solve this by compromise.
First of all, let's leave the La vs Lu thing aside. Sandbh has presented to us information to the effect that progress is happening on IUPAC's end and that the preliminary results of their discussion will soon appear in Chemistry International, so my previous concerns that we may be stuck in a "limbo" with no good answer have proven unfounded. In any case, reactions here suggest that this issue is only polarising for no good reason, and also that it will probably only result in a no consensus to change. Therefore I feel it makes sense to wait for Scerri's article to come out, because that can alter the situation, and then decide briefly what to do next. After all: anything IUPAC says will certainly clarify the situation. I will not pursue it till then and we may consider the case of changing the table closed. Since Sandbh has recently published an article supporting La, I also think that not trying to change it until something new happens from IUPAC may also be appreciated as a goodwill gesture. We will probably have to visit how to describe the situation in the periodic table article, but hopefully this will not cause too much of a problem (EdChem has already given us an idea).
Second, I think the main issue about the categories thing is because of a somewhat unfortunate complicated situation in the sources. (1) Many more sources provide categories than stick to blocks alone, but (2) the precise categories they use change between sources whereas the precise boundaries of blocks don't. So it seems to me that the issue is really about conflicting interpretations of WP:UNDUE. (1) Refusing to use categories is in some sense undue weight because most sources use them, but (2) using any one particular set of categories may make things a little dicey around the boundaries where categorisations in the literature don't always agree (so, things like polonium or astatine). It seems to me that Sandbh has been more concerned about (1) while I have been more concerned about (2).
We could possibly discuss this with mediators like EdChem. But let me try to resolve it between ourselves first. I would agree to a compromise situation in which the categories remain, but it's made clear in the article text of periodic table that this is just one way of doing things and that sources sometimes don't agree on things. We could even keep the entire current classification this way. It would seem to me then that everything would be fine: we could continue to give major categories, and for problematic elements (are group 12 elements transition metals, for example) we could simply have something like we already do at the infobox {{infobox zinc}}
where it's mentioned. Same thing would happen for something like astatine, for which we could appeal to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS about the relevant sources to justify why we call it a metal (since the relevant sources are probably the ones who focused on its chemistry and physics itself, since it is so hard to actually investigate). I think this would address my concern about (2), while simultaneously not go so far as to result in reopening Sandbh's concern about (1). I propose this in the spirit of compromise and hope it could be accepted. In fact, this would mean doing nothing but mentioning on periodic table that the category boundaries are a bit fuzzy and some other possibilities are around. There wouldn't even need to be any perennial disclaimer on every PT in this proposed compromise of mine.
As for the proposed nonmetal splits: this may be discussed between ourselves. I think that it may be a similar issue: it's indeed common to call out the halogens as a category, but what happens when the halogens hit the metalloids and metals for relatively unexplored At and Ts is not quite agreed. So I would say that a similar compromise like "halogen nonmetals" would be acceptable to me. Hopefully these compromises get somewhere at resolving this issue.
Since this basically completely wipes out all the disagreements I had with Sandbh's approach to the colouring, and freezes the group 3 dispute until a new situation comes, it seems to me that this can likely totally solve the situation. The only thing left would be Sandbh's nonmetal RFC. Double sharp (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I am glad with EdChem's descriptions ('about ArbCom'), and this initiative by Double sharp. I think I can sign up for this. One question though: could we say something about discussion-discipline, like preventing TL;DR and unstrtuctured threads? Without checking for some WP:... guideline, there is some common approach needed to make then productive; I think it is about attitude now. -DePiep (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: Glad to hear you like it. I am mostly waiting for Sandbh's reaction, but I think he will like it. I think the TL;DR syndrome is partly a result of the policy-interpretations issue; when you have one thing that is interpreted in two different ways by people, the usual result is that they talk past each other. So, I think it will be fine as long as we make it clear that the first step we take is to ask if in any doubt for how the editor sees policy applying to the case, and if still in doubt to ask an external third opinion. Double sharp (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. We should try to settle this amongst ourselves. As I commented at ArbCom, I think it would be a great misfortune if our 3rd appearance at WP:Signpost turned out to be an ArbCom case. YBG (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: Glad to hear you like it. I am mostly waiting for Sandbh's reaction, but I think he will like it. I think the TL;DR syndrome is partly a result of the policy-interpretations issue; when you have one thing that is interpreted in two different ways by people, the usual result is that they talk past each other. So, I think it will be fine as long as we make it clear that the first step we take is to ask if in any doubt for how the editor sees policy applying to the case, and if still in doubt to ask an external third opinion. Double sharp (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Double sharp: this sort of discussion was the thing I had in mind when I proposed we discuss an internal guideline, so naturally, I welcome it.
- I like one particular phrase you said: "I would like to ask that we all reflect on our own problematic behaviours while doing so." While I have seen some self-reflection from both Sandbh and yourself, as well as expressed some of it myself, I particularly want to see some self-reflection from DePiep, but that remains yet to be seen. As far as I can recall, you were not told to grow up; didn't have a disparaging post written about yourself on a TFA talk page; were not a subject of a series of very serious but baseless accusations, for which you could not find any base even when you pushed for it, and the one time you cornered the accuser, you learned that your words "Please read my words more carefully" were the basis for the accusation that you had personally attacked them (not the whole basis, granted, but the rest of it was "attacks" of similar caliber); after the end of the ANI, you did not have yet another personal attack against yourself commence, this time on your own talk page. That would be a lot of behavior to reflect on. However, all of this happened to me.
- @DePiep: I am not looking for a satisfaction of any kind, but I am looking for your acknowledgement that this behavior of yours was not appropriate and for a commitment that you would not do any of this again. I am genuinely worried that whatever the evidence is, you do not see yourself guilty of anything; therefore, you don't feel the need to correct your behavior and therefore, there is no guarantee from something of this sort ever happening again. I would like it very much that you prove me wrong and dispel whatever doubts I may have about this. You said it yourself, you could sign up to Double sharp's words. The best proof of that would be the acknowledgement of your misdeeds and a commitment to not repeat them. I will not forget all of this, as you suggested in one of the sections above, but I will be very glad to leave it all aside, consider the matter settled, and act as if it hadn't happened as soon as I hear that. Can I expect to hear it?--R8R (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Will reply, but not by first primitive
reactionreflexes. -DePiep (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)- @DePiep: I think that's a good idea. I slept on one of these issues last night and I think it did a lot of good. Double sharp (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Will reply, but not by first primitive
On creating a compromise colouring
Collapse first compromise attempt, as I think I have a better way to deal with the problem; second one to come later Double sharp (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
There's something Andrew D. said at the ArbCom case page that I think makes a lot of sense, too: "perfect is the enemy of good". Now, I've stated a way above in which one can think of the current colour scheme as policy-compliant. It reflects the situation in the sources adequately in the sense that most sources show some kind of colouring, and that it is usually not too far from this one. It seems to me that as long as this variation exists in the sources one cannot do better, but one is not doing too bad. Now, I'll also note that we've had almost this colour scheme since literally 2002. And it served us pretty well up to 2013: the categories there would correspond basically to alkali metal | alkaline earth metal | lanthanide | actinide | transition metal | post-transition metal | metalloid | other nonmetal | halogen | noble gas So let's ask: what's changed since then? Not very much, honestly.
Then there is the one element that caused all the trouble.
I think that, looking at Sandbh's RFC with so many plausible options, as a contrast to that linked 2017 RFC that dealt with group 12, this may be a case of "perfect being the enemy of good". It seems to me that the literature generally agrees that if a PT is coloured, halogens should be coloured, but it doesn't seem to have any agreement on what to call the other nonmetals. That would certainly explain why Sandbh was able to marshal some level of support for multiple options, but I don't think there is total dominance for any one of them. So I'd like to turn our eyes back to 2002 and think: suppose at that point, just having built a good enough PT, we had just heard that At turned out from early chemical studies and modern theoretical corroboration to be a metal. What would we do, now that it's not clear in the literature even whether halogens extend past iodine? I think there's a relatively simple solution. Just replace "halogen" with "halogen nonmetal" as has been suggested above. Then that actually manages to please all sides. If you agree with the part of the literature that thinks a halogen has to be a nonmetal: then it's just a pleonasm, but not wrong. If you agree with the part of the literature that thinks a halogen is anything in group 17: then it's actually necessary to be right. So both parties will agree it is right, and the general idea that F-Cl-Br-I are distinct enough to deserve being a category is there. For astatine, we invoke WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and say: OK, well, it's an element most people will never encounter, so let's look at the few sources that cared about it. In fact, that's going to create exactly Sandbh's 3-category solution, so I guess he may be happy. Although he may be less happy about what I propose to call the new-old category. ^_^ Sure, it's not "perfect". But it seems to me that many of us are actually looking favourably at restoring halogens just because that's what most sources have. I worry that in Sandbh's proposed RFC, because there are so many possible options for the remaining nonmetals, none will get a clear consensus. I also worry that the fact that there are so many possible options rather strongly suggests that the literature isn't unified and that it will scotch any possible consensus (in fact, I still can't bring myself to really strongly support any option that isn't "other nonmetals"). So I'd ask: why let the perfect get in the way of the good? Let's just do a small improvement that keeps things still OK, and it'll be better than nothing. If we try to go for the gold from the beginning, we'll get nothing. Therefore I would like to ask: could everyone accept this compromise? It doesn't matter if you think it's not the best we could do, just whether you think it could be better than what we have now. I'd rather we have one modest improvement than try for a huge and great improvement that ultimately is too radical to pass. This way, we at least get halogens back on the table like they usually are, even if we don't have the name for the other category.
I edited this from a 2011 revision; obviously it'd be updated to current styles. We can change the colour scheme later, but that's a different topic. Thank you User:DePiep and User:R8R for your work there. ^_^ In that spirit, I would like to suggest that if this is acceptable, we "lock in" the categorisation and the layout for a while. No sense in arguing about it again when there's an entire article to improve and any further improvements run the risk of getting no consensus. That's inspired by what User:Jehochman said at User:EdChem's talk page: If need be, the name of the category "other nonmetals" can be revisited later, and that particular thing need not be locked in. But remember, the change from group 12 to leave the transition metals was tried twice. It failed the first time because then the category name was "poor metals" and its situation in the literature was more iffy than "post-transition metals". The second time, the new category name was "post-transition metals", and it resulted in a WP:SNOW success. Basically: if generally there did seem to be agreement between Sandbh and me at least in October IIRC that splitting out the halogens was justified (and that maybe counts for something because we generally post here more stuff than anyone else about all this categorisation stuff), I would prefer that that less controversial step not be jeopardised by mixing it with something more controversial. Do we need disclaimers? I guess on the main periodic table article we do, and for the infoboxes we probably do need them just as we do for something like No, this is not my personal favourite ideal colouring across the whole spectrum of colourings, but I think that probably speaks well for it being a good compromise: no one is completely satisfied, but people should feel it's better than nothing. And within the constraint of being close to the centre of what sources really give, I cannot think of any way to do much better, which makes me think that trying to better it is trying too hard. Why do I think this might be a plausible compromise? Because such a split of the nonmetals is something Sandbh has proposed, so it is presumably not going to cause an argument; because the name "other nonmetals" is one of the options Sandbh mentions in his RFC, so it is presumably not completely unacceptable to him; because it is my preferred option from his RFC and seems the most obviously non-controversial one; because IIRC most supported some sort of restoration of halogens; and because it is based on something that lasted for years uncontroversially before new information about astatine threw a spanner in the works. But most of all; because I think that these reasons give it a chance to stop the fight completely, as something like this was around for over a decade and no fighting resulted, so I feel like tweaking it the minimal amount possible now to correctly reflect new information about astatine is a plausible way to go. But we will see; the more important thing is to have some compromise stop the fight, rather than for it to be this one specifically. Anything that can solve this issue swiftly, take our minds completely off it, and let us work together on actually improving the parts of the periodic table article without controversy would be a good thing in my eyes even if it doesn't end up being this. Double sharp (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC) |
Could we perhaps agree to freeze this issue for a while too? It seems to me that so far, we have a couple of views on the current colouring, but it seems to have worked fine since 2018, and I don't think anyone's current idea is that radically far from it. So, I'd like to suggest we stop talking about it at least temporarily and get to work on the periodic table article itself as EdChem is suggesting to us. We may perhaps return to it when the memory of the difficult previous situation is not so close. Double sharp (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes please. Our today's discussion flow is not effective. (Is there something about 2020?). -DePiep (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Although if Sandbh wishes to go ahead with his proposed nonmetal-splitting RFC, I think it may not be too much of a problem provided we just !vote, explain ourselves, and don't argue with each other. Double sharp (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes please. Our today's discussion flow is not effective. (Is there something about 2020?). -DePiep (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Philosophy: Coming to grips with the fuzzy nature of chemistry
NB: I’ve prefixed the section title with "Philosophical:" so that those of us less enamoured by such matters can skip the whole section.
In this JChemEd article from 2002 [46], about electronegativity scales, the author warns us that certain central notions of chemistry are broached, in chemistry textbooks, from a set of diverse and not always concordant explanations.
18 years later, a couple of philosophers analysed that 2002 article [47].
Here are some extracts and observations from their open access article:
- 1. …on certain occasions, such as for scientific and didactic purposes, in order to avoid confusion either in learning or in the development of an experimental process, the simpler option is better; that is why traditional scales are so popular even nowadays.”
- 2. OTOH, “Real science is home to a wide variety of scales, and associated conceptualizations, that coexist in the scientific communities...The question is not one about which scale should be chosen, but is instead about the reasoning for choosing only one.”
- 3. “Objective and univocal truth is not an aim of scientific practice.”
- 4. "The teaching of a 'mummified' chemistry, free of conceptual problems and the associated debates, does not reflect the scientific practice."
- 5. "At the same time, we believe that scientific monism, according to which there is only one scientific story about the world that can be told, should be avoided as far as possible as well."
- 6. "There is a vast philosophical literature and a scientific practice that supports this perspective…objective and univocal truth is not an aim of scientific practice. Pluralism must engage in cultivating multiple scientific systems and lines of enquiry, as science is a multi-aimed enterprise, not the search of literal truth…"
- 7. "But why is it better to be pluralistic? Why keep multiple systems of knowledge alive? The immediate reason for this is the sense that we are not likely to arrive at the one perfect theory or viewpoint that will satisfy all our needs...If we are not likely to find the one perfect system, it makes sense to keep multiple ones."
Suggested implications for WP:ELEM
1. Writing about e.g. the chemistry of the elements and the periodic table is hard.
2. In many case there is no one true way. At the same time, "for scientific and didactic purposes, in order to avoid confusion…in learning…the simpler option is better."
3. The question will not be about which approach should be chosen, but instead about the reasoning for choosing only one.
4. The teaching of chemistry free of conceptual problems and associated debates does not reflect scientific debate.
5. Some pragmatism and judgement will inevitably required in order to accommodate the desirability for simplicity and the fuzziness of chemistry.
Grateful for your thoughts. Sandbh (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sandbh, when I said that your article touched on areas that are not sufficiently explored in the literature, this is exactly the sort of material that I had in mind. It is, IMO, central to some of the problems with writing an article on the PT, starting from considering who are the readers. It goes then to a more general question as to what the PT actually is. Is it a tool for summarising information about the properties of elements? Is it a tool for students to use to learn relationships between elements (like valency and what the formula of phosphorous(III) oxide is)? Is it a convenient summary form for relative atomic masses for use in carrying out stoichiometry? Is its purpose to provide electron configurations? Is it really meant for use by scientists and so should incorporate complexities even if these are confusing to students and lay people? Should there be different tables for different groups or different applications, each tailored to specific needs? Is including complexities an aid to student learning about multiple and co-existing models or is the confusion produced a hinderance – or is it both, an exemplar of the Perry Model in action?
- There are a wealth of interesting question here, ones that are well-suited to the literature and rather less well-suited to an encyclopaedia while the discussions continue unresolved. If we had an article on the Perry Model, this would be a suitable topic for it, but the question for the project (and certainly for discussion at talk:Periodic table is how to take what is in RS and give it DUE weight to present a clear and readable article that provides our readers with what they want / need to know about the periodic table.
- As a chemistry educator, I regularly think about these issues. I make sure to introduce students to the idea that a model is not the same as reality, that models are tools that do not fit / work well in all circumstances. A classic example (for me) is in introducing oxidation states. This is a model with great power for analysing redox processes, but at the same time is predicated on assumptions that are fanciful. I know that dichromate oxidation of 2-butanol to butanone involves reduction as chromium goes from CrVI to CrIII, but I also know that this model seeing dichromate as a Cr6+ cation surrounded by oxide anions and with no covalency in bonding is ridiculous. I value the model of oxidation state for its utility in understanding redox chemistry, whilst simultaneously looking at it as a tool with limitations and not as a reflection or representation of reality. I have the freedom when teaching to explore this concept. However, as a Wikipedian writing about oxidation state, I do not have the freedom to work in content on models and representations of reality without RS on the subject with sufficient coverage to pass DUE for inclusion. Otherwise, I am engaging in OR and SYNTHesising what I know of models and learning and the literatures of those areas and applying them to a chemistry topic in a way unsupported by the literature.
- For the Perry Model and multiple models, I introduce / explore these when discussing acids and bases as students often first try to choose between Arrhenius, Lowry–Bronsted, and Lewis models as if one is true. I encourage them to see each model as useful for different circumstances, each model being more complicated than the last but the simplest model that is valid being the wisest to choose for a situation. None of them are reality or truth, each is simply a model to understand reality, and choice of model is dependent on which best fits the situation. Like ArbCom being a sledgehammer and the right tool to use to crack some disputes, in circumstances where it is the wrong tool, its use may not have the desired result.
- I also explore the breakdown of models in discussing gas laws and explain that the ideal gas law is a mathematically-constructed model to approximate reality, based on assumptions, and that when those assumptions are unjustified, the model's approximations to reality become unreliable.
- I'm happy to chat more about such topics on one of our user talk pages, but for the continuation of the discussion here, I ask we concentrate on how the topic you raise can be implemented (if at all) in article space in line with policy, and to which articles it is supported by RS given DUE weight to apply. EdChem (talk) 04:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- PS: This is also overlapping with the comments made by DGG at the ArbCom case request – Who are our readers? Students? Experts in Chemistry? Lay persons interested in Chemistry? And, what is it that they need from us in terms of what content we cover and how? There is the problem, however, that if the RS literature consensus sees the PT as (say) a tool for chemists / experts to use in their work then WP must say so, even if that group is not our typical reader... and raises consequent challenges of covering RS and giving DUE while producing understandable and appropriate encyclopaedic content. To your point, Sandbh: yes, writing about chemistry and the PT is hard but we have guidelines from what RS tells us on what to say and from considering our readers in deciding how to say it. EdChem (talk) 05:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- EdChem, (btw, as background, I'm a biochemist who has also worked as a chemistry librarian). Since the PT is a tool used by chemists to organize and conceptualize their work, of course we should say so and explain how they use it. But the PT is also a teaching device, central to both the teaching of general chemistry and to what the public knows about chemistry, and we need to discuss this aspect also. (Similarly, we discuss other aspects, such as the historical aspects (best handled I think in the frWP article), and its use as the prototypical organizing device in other fields, sometimes seriously, sometimes humorously). This problem of the dual goals of being understandable and being accurate has long been a problem with all encyclopedic coverage in WP and in other encyclopedias of such fields as mathematicvs and much of physics. But I don't think this is so esoteric that it need to be split into two articles on the analogy of Introduction to general relativity .This problem of the dual goals of being understandable and being accurate has long been a problem with all encyclopedic coverage in WP and in other encyclopedias of such fields as mathematics and much of physics, and is now confronting us also with biology--and the subject of a recent arb case in which I did not participate--Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
EdChem; DGG, The PT article is not “mine”. I recall adding some content leading up to the FA process , but wasn’t the instigator of it.
The PT is a model, that’s all. The important thing is to explain the context for the particular model in use. This is relatively easy. The La form remains popular. The colour categories are the relatively popular ones: AM, AEM, Ln, An, TM, metalloids, halogens and noble gases. That just leaves the metals between the TM and the metalloids; and the nonmetals between the metalloids and the halogens (plus H).
Those categories illustrate the L-R progression in metallic to nonmetallic character going across the table, and the top-down increase in metallic character seen in most notably in the p-block. This is traditionally taught by contrasting the alkali metals with the halogens.
As long as I’ve used RS, I’ve never understood what the “undue” concern is about SYNTH and DUE etc. The RS keep me on track. As long as the end result is a better encyclopaedia. I’ve seen other editors who view minor IGF infringements of SYNTH and DUE as relatively harmless. YMMV.
Whoever said perfect is the enemy of good was right on the mark. Sandbh (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- I kind of agree with everyone here. The questions EdChem raises are matters that are extremely interesting and, I daresay, peeve-inducing once you get to know about them. But the fact of the matter is that for many of those cases the situation is that the literature is not really settled and a lot of different things are taught to students. For example, just try finding a universally accepted definition of what a block is in the literature. The fact that you'll never find one doesn't stop people from using the term, however. And if that's the situation, then we should tread somewhat carefully and mostly follow the textbooks. Are they sometimes just plain wrong and contradicting themselves with specialised RS being able to prove it? Yes – but we can't say that here because that would give the issue disproportionate significance and rather defeat the point of explaining things to laymen. It might make a good commentary for JChemEd, but their goals are not ours. Does the way they write sometimes lead to inevitable hands raised at the back of the classroom? Yes – but I guess these things ought to be discussed, if at all, in footnotes. Because having tried to explain periodicity myself in a way that I would find completely accurate to literature esoterica and still understandable, it seems to me that while it's not impossible, what you end up with if you try it becomes far far far to the extremes when it comes to what most textbooks do. Which is not, I think, what an encyclopaedia should be doing. Double sharp (talk) 11:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments, DGG, and I do agree that issues such as those raised here and elsewhere in the disputes / discussions have parallels in other areas and pose challenges that have been solved in other contexts on WP before.
- Sandbh, I agree that no one WP:OWNs any WP article. I did comment at talk:Periodic table that you and Double sharp are the originators of more than 50% of the bytes in that article, according to the history and page statistics tools, but that tells us nothing about which parts. It's an FA with strong and weak parts and I don't know who contributed what, nor do I plan to investigate. I just hope we can all work together to improve the weaker parts.
- As for your comment on RS, DUE, SYNTH, etc, I am reminded of the movie Reach for the Sky about WW2 fighter pilot Douglas Bader, where he and Harry Day exchange the maxim "rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men." EdChem (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)