→About thread lengths: pls do not use collapse this way |
|||
Line 2,081: | Line 2,081: | ||
{{ping|EdChem|Double sharp}} I reduced Z by another half-point. Removing the white line will take me more work than I have time for just now. I experimented with multiple asterisks; they take up more room. I've changed the footnote markers to be consistent with sequence suggested by the ''Australian Government Publishing Service Style Manual,'' since I have that one at hand. I have changed the footnote explanations along the lines you suggested, with some rationalisation to reduce duplication. The underlining connection is more visible know. I haven't said anything about Nh, Fl, Mc, and Lv, since we have no reason to expect that they will be anything other than metals. This is case for the elements from 99 onwards, none of which have been produced in bulk. OTOH, for Cn, At, Ts, and Og, theory suggests they will be something else than their lighter congeners. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 03:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC) |
{{ping|EdChem|Double sharp}} I reduced Z by another half-point. Removing the white line will take me more work than I have time for just now. I experimented with multiple asterisks; they take up more room. I've changed the footnote markers to be consistent with sequence suggested by the ''Australian Government Publishing Service Style Manual,'' since I have that one at hand. I have changed the footnote explanations along the lines you suggested, with some rationalisation to reduce duplication. The underlining connection is more visible know. I haven't said anything about Nh, Fl, Mc, and Lv, since we have no reason to expect that they will be anything other than metals. This is case for the elements from 99 onwards, none of which have been produced in bulk. OTOH, for Cn, At, Ts, and Og, theory suggests they will be something else than their lighter congeners. [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 03:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
:{{ping|Sandbh}} 114 (Fl) may have issues, see [[Flerovium#Experimental chemistry]]. [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 09:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC) |
:{{ping|Sandbh}} 114 (Fl) may have issues, see [[Flerovium#Experimental chemistry]]. [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 09:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
===Too Bold=== |
|||
I wish to note that this revamp appears to be way too much using "Bold", without searching for consensus. There seems to have been some voting process on a userpage. There was no fleshed out proposal -- instead, a clarification was only provided after someone asked for it. Also, since the change involved dozens of mainspace edits which were bulldozed over us, this does not look like a true Wikipedia process. FWIW, any next time I meet this I might claim like "No Consensus". -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 19:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
==Category colors {{anchor|1=Colors}}== |
==Category colors {{anchor|1=Colors}}== |
Revision as of 19:52, 10 December 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 |
---|
Featured article candidates
Articles for creation
|
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 | 36 | 0 | 171 | 305 | 3 | 2 | 116 | 1 | 22 | 3,892 | 227 | 8 | 2 | 5,227 |
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
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:
- Overview – the first section after the lede
- I invite you all to stop for a moment and think about what a non-chemist needs to know in the overview of the PT at the start of our article. If you don't remember what is in our article, all the better. I suggest stopping to jot down a few points. If you were asked by someone about the PT, someone with little knowledge, what would you tell them?
- Ok, here is the Overview we give. In sequence, it says:
- Below is a widely-used layout but there are others discussed later
- 18 column PT provided
- Every element has a Z giving the number of proton, followed by a note about Z = 0 for neutronium – which isn't on this PT and having mentioned only protons
- A section about differing neutrons and isotopes – which are not separated on the PT – and going on to atomic masses of of most stable of the non-stable isotopes in parentheses
- Listed in order of increasing Z. Rows/periods when a new electron shell has its first electron, columns / groups by electron configuration.
- "elements with the same number of electrons in a particular subshell fall into the same columns (e.g. oxygen and selenium are in the same column because they both have four electrons in the outermost p-subshell)"
- "Elements with similar chemical properties generally fall into the same group in the periodic table, although in the f-block, and to some respect in the d-block, the elements in the same period tend to have similar properties, as well"
- "Thus, it is relatively easy to predict the chemical properties of an element if one knows the properties of the elements around it"
- 118 confirmed elements, most recent discoveries confirmed in December 2015 and names / symbols in November 2016 (Nh, Mc, Ts, Og)
- first 94 elements occur naturally (83 are primordial and 11 occur only in decay chains of primordial elements); the remaining 24 synthesized in laboratories
- No element heavier than einsteinium (element 99) has ever been observed in macroscopic quantities in its pure form, nor has astatine (element 85); francium (element 87) has been only photographed in the form of light emitted from microscopic quantities (300,000 atoms)
- Is this really what a reader needs? Just some points that occur to me, and a suggested sequence:
- This is the periodic table of elements yet there is no explanation of what an element is or why they are tabularised. Maybe define atoms as the building blocks of normal matter and that the table has evolved throughout history and is still being modified based on additional research as a way to summarise the properties.
- Stating that all elements are made of atoms, each consisting of a nucleus with protons and (usually) neutrons, surrounded by an electron cloud to provide charge balance
- Then address that 94 occur naturally and others have been synthesised
- Diagram of single PT cell, noting it provides name, symbol, atomic mass, atomic number = Z. Atomic mass the weighted average of naturally occurring isotopes
- Chemical properties largely arise from electrons and their configuration. Neutral atom, electrons = Z but can gain or lose to become ions
- Then offer PT, perhaps coloured just for shells / sub-shells to indicate that organisation occurs by preceding from previous element and looking to where the additional electron is placed – covering s-, p-, d-, and f- blocks and electronic configurations
- The present statement (6) is not correct. If O and Se are in the same column because they have 4 electrons in p subshell, why aren't they in same column as Be (as all have 2 electrons in outermost s subshell). Further, Cr is in group 6 suggesting a d4 configuration but we all know it is actually s1d5, making positioning unclear under this statement. I know the answers, of course, but would a non-chemist understand from the statement made?
- Statement (7) – perhaps more useful to say that arrangement historically placed chemically similar elements together and that the arrangement by electronic configuration retains this as the similarity in valence shell configuration explains the similarity in chemical properties
- For heavier elements, and especially those in the f-block and to some extent the d-block, elements share similarities across periods. For this reason, the properties of elements can be predicted relatively easily in these parts of the PT if the properties of surrounding elements are known.
- This arrangement led to gaps for missing elements being identified and predictions made about their properties, which proved useful in the search for missing elements. All such gaps have now been filled. All elements up to einsteinium (element 99) have been observed in macroscopic quantities in pure form, with two exceptions - astatine (element 85) and francium (element 87), though the light emitted due to radioactive decay of a microscopic quantity of francium (300,000 atoms) has been photographed. No element beyond einsteinium has been observed in macroscopic form.
- Historically, alchemists sought elemental transmutation, changing one element into another – can only be achieved by changing the nucleus whereas chemical processes only rearrange electrons. However, by introducing radioactivity, we find that elements can spontaneously decay in which the nucleus is changed and element is transformed into another. The 94 naturally-occurring elements are divided into 83 primordial and 11 formed in the decay chains of some of the primordial elements
- Fusion, the combining of smaller atoms into larger ones, is possible and is responsible for the energy coming from the sun, and for the formation of all elements heavier than H. Fission, the splitting of heavier elements, can also be achieved for some elements and occurred for uranium and plutonium in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively, at the end of WW2.
- Since WW2, scientists have investigated fusion processes to prepare new elements and in so doing have added 24 new elements to the PT, the latest being Nh, Mc, Ts, and Og that were confirmed in December 2015 and had their names / symbols assigned in November 2016. In each case, the new elements need evidence of their chemical properties to confirm that their anticipated position in the PT is correct. The mass shown is for the isotope of greatest stability, and given in parentheses to indicate that it is synthetic.
- Arrangements and categorisations have been debated over time. The historical division of elements into metals and non-metals based on chemical properties has been expanded to include metalloids with similarities to each group. Metals within the s-block are sometimes subdivided into alkali metals (group 1) and alkaline earth metals (group 2), while the d- and f-block elements are sometimes called transition metals and inner transition metals, respectively. The non-metals are also sub-categorised by groups into the pnictogens, chalcogens, halogens, and noble gases, though this leaves hydrogen and boron uncategorised. 18 column periodic tables have varying placements of the f-block, reflecting different views of the appropriate location for elements like lanthanum and lutetium. The PT below presents one widely-used layout, with colourings to signify categorisations within the PT as a means to concisely summarise the wealth of knowledge of the elements.
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)
- @EdChem: The periodic table is a map. In an encyclopaedia, world maps are usually coloured by region. Your thoughts are refreshing albeit they don't address the substance of many of our discussions re how to colour the map. That is to say, a reorganising of the article, in order to improve its clarity, can be done by anyone who gives some thought to its presentation flow, as you have carefully done.
- The debates about colouring are not that important in one sense but on the other hand we like to get things "right", so to speak, and doubts have been raised among us, as to wether this is in fact the case.
- From a survey of 62 more recent chemistry textbooks, just 15% confine their lede periodic tables to showing just the blocks. Hence the interest, as an encyclopaedia, in showing more than this. Encyclopedia Britannica starts with nine categories (their table and its colour scheme predates ours); the most popular periodic table in the web emulates the WP table. Sandbh (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: Not quite, when it comes to https://ptable.com/ – you will notice that they colour the Zn group as transition metals even though we don't, that they talk about "lanthanoids" and "actinoids" following IUPAC even though we don't, that they show the table in 18-column form with a gap under yttrium even though we don't, and that when you click "Wide" or those placeholders the table expands to the Sc-Y-Lu form that we had in 2016 and that I still think we made a mistake in ever leaving. So even when the categories are this similar we can't expect agreement in other sources in quite the same way we can expect it (outside group 3) when it comes to the question "which element is in which block?". As for EB, they depart from ours even more strongly, by saying that group 3 are apparently not transition metals (although group 12 is – so much for IUPAC), accepting to use "halogens" as a category (with At and Ts coloured as halogens!), and refusing to use "metalloids" as a category. Categories are common indeed, but no one agrees on what they are and what elements go where. Why take a side, I ask? And are we even allowed to take a side by policy, I ask? ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- @EdChem: Good and well-written point, EdChem. The short explanation (not justification) is: in my experience, the term "overview" was primarily used to give a visual overview of the graphic table itself full stop. As you write, that is not enough, especially since there is only this one section (no subsections) for what is the encyclopedic essence. I'll think of a new setup, using your
numberedbulleted list. -DePiep (talk) 09:42, 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. ^_^
- Blocks, differentiating electrons, and electronic configurations.
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:
“ | For lithium, however, the situation becomes quite different. Where can we put the third electron? The third electron cannot go on top of the other two because both spin directions are occupied. (You remember that for an electron or any particle with spin 1/2 there are only two possible directions for the spin.) The third electron can’t go near the place occupied by the other two, so it must take up a special condition in a different kind of state farther away from the nucleus in part (c) of the figure. (We are speaking only in a rather rough way here, because in reality all three electrons are identical; since we cannot really distinguish which one is which, our picture is only an approximate one.) | ” |
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:
“ | In copper an electron is robbed from the 4s shell, finally completing the 3d shell. The energy of the 10, 1 combination is, however, so close to the 9, 2 configuration for copper that just the presence of another atom nearby can shift the balance. For this reason the two last electrons of copper are nearly equivalent, and copper can have a valence of either 1 or 2. (It sometimes acts as though its electrons were in the 9, 2 combination.) Similar things happen at other places and account for the fact that other metals, such as iron, combine chemically with either of two valences. | ” |
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:
“ | The two major reasons why this series intended for gaseous atoms strongly bewilders chemists is that undue emphasis is made on irrelevant irregularities (such as the chromium, rhodium, palladium . . . . , atoms) and that the lowest level of two different configurations, such as [Xe]4f96s2 and [Xe]4f85d16s2 are only separated by 285 cm−1 in the terbium atom, much less than 1% of the spreading of J-levels of each of the two configurations, and quite negligible for chemical purposes. | ” |
— Christian Jørgensen (1988), Influence of Rare Earths on Chemical Understanding and Classification |
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:
“ | Classification of an element in the periodic table is based on four steps:
|
” |
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:
- Chemical properties largely arise from electrons and their configuration. Neutral atom, electrons = Z but can gain or lose to become ions
- Then offer PT, perhaps coloured just for shells / sub-shells to indicate that organisation occurs by looking at how many electrons are available for chemical reactions and which subshells they appear in; covering s-, p-, d-, and f- blocks.
- Statement (7) – perhaps more useful to say that arrangement historically placed elements with some chemical similarities together and that the arrangement by valence electrons and subshells retains this as the similarity in valence shell configuration explains the similarity in chemical properties.
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.
- Colourings to signify categories.
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 {{infobox oxygen}}
things like "Element category: Reactive nonmetal", as if the categories we had decided to use were the only ones that actually existed! No mention of chalcogens at all even though that is IUPAC-approved and "reactive nonmetals" is not! Meanwhile we cannot even get all the IUPAC-approved and common categories in there without overlaps (where did pnictogens and chalcogens go?)!
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)
- I am happy to find DS here saying what I wrote below (in an ec): for the first description of the PT, we could remove the categorisation and catogory colors. And to point to another suggestion DS made (in their userpage); from memory: "when discussing elements, we should talk about their concept as specimen [~gas-phase then? DP], and forget about their appearance in RL chemistry" (IIRC). In element pages, that would mean we should move to bottom of page: diatomic substances (O2), allotropes, std atomic mass even. Could also conceptually simplify the PT article. -DePiep (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: I don't remember exactly what I said, but from what you say it might have been the distinction between the chemical element as in atoms and as in simple substances. So, oxygen as in "the type of atom with eight protons in its nucleus", rather than as dioxygen the gas or ozone the gas, because oxygen the element is just as present in MgO or CO2 as it is in O2 or O3. Sure, that's an important concept too: Jensen talks about it here. The only trouble is that this distinction is, AFAIK, not clear enough often in English-language sources. So while I would dearly like to get rid of the conflation of the two notions, as French Wikipedia could do, I am not sure if we can. Maybe we have to do what Polish Wikipedia does and admit that in our language "chemical element" has two meanings. Remember, on my userpages I sometimes say things that are not standard yet, just significant minority viewpoints that I happen to agree with, and I try to keep that separate from the articles. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- P.S. Glad to hear you're in agreement too about categorisation and category colours. ^_^ But I go a bit further and advocate removing them altogether from the infoboxes and PT templates. There are simply too many categories in the literature that overlap and have fuzzy boundaries for me to think that trying to interpret this as "there are a finite set of categories we use, some elements are disputed" is acceptable. To my taste anyway. It is a failing at following reliable sources, IMHO, that we mark out oxygen as just a reactive nonmetal but not also as a chalcogen. The latter category is IUPAC-approved when the former is not; it just fits badly in a scheme that tries to cover every element once and once only. I once again plead that we follow reliable sources, and noting that categories may differ very widely whereas blocks don't outside the group 3 dispute, suggest that the best way to do that is to not take sides on categories by not colouring them everywhere. Only describing them. I strongly support saying in the articles things like "Selenium is a chalcogen, and has been variously classified as a nonmetal, metal, or metalloid (most often the former)" (for the selenium article); I do not support trying to reduce this situation to colouring it only as one category everywhere. Double sharp (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Remove cat+colors altogether (except for dedicated articles + their PT graphs) better be discussed separately, to keep thread on topic. But indeed removing them when describing the PT in its main article is helpful (because: another non-essential detail; and a very attentionseeking distraction at that). Now let's look further on what more should be in/out of the Overview. -DePiep (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: OK, new top-level section coming at some point to keep that issue separate. I won't discuss it here anymore. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 13:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Remove cat+colors altogether (except for dedicated articles + their PT graphs) better be discussed separately, to keep thread on topic. But indeed removing them when describing the PT in its main article is helpful (because: another non-essential detail; and a very attentionseeking distraction at that). Now let's look further on what more should be in/out of the Overview. -DePiep (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
DePiep comment
Following up EdChems post.
- New Overview setup thoughts
- As a first suggestion, we could overhaul the "Overview" section & intention like this.
- In general: it should describe the PT's essence (structure, relations, resulting appearance). This also implies:
- 0. Leave out details that are irrelevant to the goal (advantage: makes it easier to build the descrition without sidetracking). So for the overview, do not mention: history (Mendeleev, intermediate PT forms), isotopes, discovery of elements (new, predicted, added noble gasses), open issues (He placement, group 3), difference between concept (specimen) of an element and its RL appearance: use the concept only (no allotropes, difference natural/synthetic, atomic mass vs. Z -- though A=Z+N might be needed), alternative structures (Janet's left step), alternative graphic layouts (18/32 column), categories and other secondary trends/patterns(!). However, is an extra, late subthread we can introduce a few of those, as being related to the PT.
- Section: Overview (==-level). Subsections:
- 1. Section: Element. Note chemical and physical difference (we need later on). Mention valence (0, I-VIII). Add single cell graphic example+explanation.
- 2. Section: Build the PT yourself (as is has been build before). Step 1: Order all elements 1-118 in a single line, one cell each, by increasing Z. (This order shall not change!). Step 2: Add a linebreak and blank cells such that: in the second row, elements with similar chemical behaviour (same valence, by RxOy valence) are in the same column. Repeat this (you'll need six linebreaks, creating seven rows). +example maybe.
- 3. Section: PT graph (simplified into essentials only, add group valence, rm catcolors?)
- 4. Section: explain hiccups as simple as possible: A/B valence columns, no-valence for f-block, blank cells in upper part & blocks. Or write: "described and explained in [wl]".
- 5. Section: Physical background. Shell filling & valence, blocks, A=Z+N (but not isotopes).
- 6. Section: Other patterns and properties (could be new ==-level section, still overview only), e.g.: categories (metal-nonmetal, maybe subcategories?), isotopes, RL appearance as Ar, std and allotropes, m.p. b.p., discovery of elements.
- 7. Section: Related topics. Introducing like isotopes, graphical variants, structural variants, some historical problems now solved.
- Below, existing sections on PT aspects can stay (though checked for consistency, and reordered by being essential and non-essential aspects).
- This tries to make a buildup line for a complete description. The tough parts will be to leave out details as much as possible, then write the remaining stuff to the point. From here on, I'll leave it to you to write it :-) -DePiep (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: I think you have a point: the overview should, to my taste, simply be about
the theoretical justification for the PTwhere the PT comes from, how to read it, and the patterns that come from it. At the very least, I think the current organisation is simply not good: blocks and periods should come before categories, and Klechkovsky's / Madelung's rule should appear far earlier than it actually does. I am not so sure about some of the details you mention, but I think we are in agreement on the basic idea. I can try to write it, but I'm busy and it may take a while. ;) Double sharp (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)- @Double sharp: Well, describe by theoretical justification is quite different from describe by the (historical, Mendeleevian) buildup. Looks like it is the approach from the opposite direction (explaining vs. discovering). If by theoretical justification you mean "Classification of an element in the periodic table is based on four steps" (per Jensen; you wrote above), with me the question raises: what 'classification' is that? Does it inevitable lead to the column/row structure, so essential to the PT? As opposed to, say, enwiki-like categories, or electron filling issues solved -- IMO not essential in this. A warning is that ascending Z has to be "verified" in step 4. As far as I, interested layman, understand it now, the theor'al.justif'ion, it would add a strong physical base (e.g., shell filling), but I do not recognise yet how it would describe periodicity encyclopedically. Alas, we'll see what others think. -DePiep (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: Yes, it's about the column/row structure. Jensen uses this to put elements in blocks, then in groups within blocks, and then verifies that the resulting placement may make sense. His approach is not everybody's, but the general idea that there's something about electronic structure that explains the PT structure is present across sources. The point of the periodic law is that the configurations of the atoms and hence the properties of the elements depend periodically on atomic number. So I'd describe periodicity as such (statements of the periodic law can be found in the literature) and then describe the subshell filling that justifies it. And I think this is already done in EdChem's proposal. Of course, historically that is not at all where it came from, but I think that is something that should be covered under "History".
- As for the words "theoretical justification": yeah, in the literature this is apparently controversial, regarding the actual status of Klechkovsky's rule for one. I dislike that situation, but it is what it is and we have to reflect it. So, OK, I should have said basically where the PT comes from. So I've struck my words out and corrected it. ^_^ But let's work on the details later and focus on EdChem's proposal first. Double sharp (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- P.S. I guess perhaps it might be better now that I briefly think about it again to first show the table, mention that periods are rows and groups are columns and the blocks are those rectangular areas, before stating where all of this comes from to explain what they mean. Double sharp (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Double sharp: Well, describe by theoretical justification is quite different from describe by the (historical, Mendeleevian) buildup. Looks like it is the approach from the opposite direction (explaining vs. discovering). If by theoretical justification you mean "Classification of an element in the periodic table is based on four steps" (per Jensen; you wrote above), with me the question raises: what 'classification' is that? Does it inevitable lead to the column/row structure, so essential to the PT? As opposed to, say, enwiki-like categories, or electron filling issues solved -- IMO not essential in this. A warning is that ascending Z has to be "verified" in step 4. As far as I, interested layman, understand it now, the theor'al.justif'ion, it would add a strong physical base (e.g., shell filling), but I do not recognise yet how it would describe periodicity encyclopedically. Alas, we'll see what others think. -DePiep (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: I think you have a point: the overview should, to my taste, simply be about
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.
- Re #EdChem's PT article proposal @DePiep, Double sharp, and Sandbh: You have each expressed some agreement and some disagreements with EdChem's suggestions. Is there any subset of the suggestions that is generally agreed upon that could be implemented apart from the remainder? If so, I think a good first step would be to implement agreed upon aspects before deciding the areas where we have disagreement. But I don't know if those areas are in fact separable. Does anyone think this possible?
- Re DePiep's #Build the PT yourself idea. This sounds like an excellent idea for an animated graphic. I'm not sure if this is something for WP or an off-wiki project.
- Re Double sharp's #Colourings to signify categories, specifically
Anything we colour ... picks a side
. I have been struggling with how to do a better job of representing all names for sets of chemical elements and not just the "winners" from our past and future mega threads. I have come up with two ideas which I think can be and benefit our encyclopedia and could be implemented independently of any other efforts, and even more importantly, could remain in place even if we make substantial changes to our category coloring system. Here are my ideas:- (3a) For each named set of chemical elements, develop a page modeled after lists of metalloids. This represents a substantial amount of work, but I think it would have great benefit. If Sandbh were willing to take this on, we could depend on his research skills to make these lists complete and reflective of the literature.
- (3b) Change our {{infobox element}} by replacing "Element category" with "Element categories" and including a list of all names for sets of chemical elements that generally include the given element, possibly distinguishing the sets an element is almost always included in from the sets that less frequently include it, but probably excluding sets that very rarely include the element. This also represents a substantial amount of work, and should eventually be coordinated with the previous work, but the first draft need not wait on that result. If DePiep were willing to take this on, we could depend on his template-building skill to fully integrate this information into our template system, maybe by adding {{Infobox element/symbol-to-category-list}}, something along the lines of {{Infobox element/symbol-to-valence-group}}
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)
- @YBG: my replies in ~short:
- re 1. Looks like both EdChem, DS and me agree that the Periodic table#Overview section needs a complete redesign. Note that this section is the only one in article that handles the whole if it; other sections are just aspects. (Just showing a PT graph with some clarifications is not enough). This is the general agreement. Listing details, subtopics and incidental miswritings as issues does not help, once appreciated that we do need a redesign to rewrite this encyclopedically. For this, I'd definitely prefer to agree on a general line of approach (say section titles) to describe the PT.
- re 2. When I wrote "Build a PT yourself", that's not a final text proposal TBH. But it does say the good part: being good science, the Reader can reproduce the original, Mendelevian 'experiment'. (Personally, when introducing the PT to people I learned that, after defining 'element' first, the Z-order is not to be skipped (having to smuggle with weight vs. Z). Only then the rhythm eh periodicity can be introduced (my 'line break' thing is useful in such a talk). So I build my proposal along this 'Mendeleevian' line.
- OTOH, Double sharp gives an other approach: describe periodicity from the physical atom model. Our first task is to find a good overall line for the Overview. To keep in mind: needs an encyclopedic result for sure.
- re 3a. We could treat each "category" (i.e., any set of elements, not just our enwiki nine) equally, at least create a good set of articles & overvierw lists. However, could be that categories are not part of the future redesigned PT#Overview section at all ;-) -DePiep (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- re 3b. Of course we can develop that categories-list-per-element. Let's get the articles right first ;-) -DePiep (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- @YBG: about 'list of categories/sets an element is member of': here at #Element_membership_list I started that list for us to fill (to end up in new {{Infobox element/symbol-to-sets}} for automation). While in this thread here, better categories & coloring not be mentioned again without good reason (these are deemed futile to the new periodic table article's main overview). -DePiep (talk) 22:26, 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)
Drafting
Since 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)
- Yess. I like the energy. -DePiep (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- DS, I understood EdChem was criticising the #Overview section for being eh nopt encyclopedic. Now your link shows a new lede and a new colorisation (by block). I wonder: a. the lede folows from the article body. Why start there? and b. you #Overview section is quite rudimentary. Why not start there, and later on derive the lede+top image from it? -DePiep (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- Because the lede is supposed to be shorter and doesn't need me to fill out citation templates, that's the lame reason. I plan to write an Overview similar to what EdChem states (although I may move some things around), but it would have taken more time, and I think it is better that I could make something come out now rather than have something perfect come out too late. ^_^
- Not to mention that I still need to formally write up as a proposal why I feel we made a mistake in ever abandoning the Lu form as a default. With the sources. But that's for another section. Double sharp (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- DePiep, I did imagine working on the overview while looking at what else can be better structured / organised and coming back to the lede at the end, but a different sequence doesn't matter so long as Double sharp recognises that the lede will likely be re-visited once the body is sorted. Also, Double sharp, I know that citations are not required by policy for the lede but I generally prefer to have them in the lede as it is a good way to make sure the lede is tied to the article (is every citation in the lede also in the article) and is tied to RS. It is easy to write a lede about a topic that one knows well but that can also be influenced by your own views (OR risk) or priorities (not reflecting the coverage in the article). Say a lede has citations 1 to 15, I can see that they all appear in the article, that they are used in its major sections (so coverage of all big ideas / concepts), and that looked at together, they cover or at least sample from the major sources (review articles, books, etc). Of course, no one has to take that approach, but it is what I have found to be effective for me. :) EdChem (talk) 00:52, 18 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)
- Did the graph things here. Fine tuning and Z's later on, now about the concepts you want to convey. -DePiep (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: Thanks. I'd rather it misalign entirely by a fraction of a column, if you can do that, to make it clear that not only is there no Sc-Y-Lu-Lr-La, there is also no Sc-Y-Lu-Lr-Ce or anything else. ;) Double sharp (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Double sharp: I have a few comments. May I edit your draft page per my likings and then undo my edits, so that nothing changes but you could see what I think could be improved in the article history? I'll leave my rationales in the edit summaries.
- As a more general comment, I think it would be great to highlight how the PT is actually used. Periodic tables often include non-essential details such as standard atomic mass. It would also be important to include a brief mention of how the PT went from being a bold idea people were cautious of to becoming as popular as it is today. That is something that I have yet to learn myself (although this information will sooner or later appear in history of the periodic table, likely thanks to ComplexRational), but that is a very important detail. On the other hand, I think blocks are given too much attention, and I would leave the group 3 and He controversies out of the lead section altogether; one way or another, they're both pretty minor, and I feel that any discussion about them should follow after a proper introduction of these elements, i.e. the big table in the Overview section.--R8R (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- @R8R: Please, please, go ahead! I started this just as a first draft so that we could get something started. If you want to change it, please do! Double sharp (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Double sharp: I've made a few changes. As promised, I undid them, but you can find them in the article history. Hopefully they will aid your future writing :)--R8R (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- @R8R: And I undid it back because I liked your changes a lot. ^_^ It will definitely be inspirational for writing the Background and Overview according to User:EdChem's proposal, thank you! Double sharp (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Double sharp: I've made a few changes. As promised, I undid them, but you can find them in the article history. Hopefully they will aid your future writing :)--R8R (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- @R8R: Please, please, go ahead! I started this just as a first draft so that we could get something started. If you want to change it, please do! Double sharp (talk) 10:59, 18 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:
- I think the lede needs work, but it is a summary of a topic / article. If I write an article from scratch, I'll sketch a brief lede and come back to it once the article is fairly stable / complete. It is difficult to summarise an article that is not written. Worse (IMO), doing a lede first makes it much easier to write what I think or add OR rather than reflect the RS / DUE etc that is built into the article itself. Double sharp, I am not saying that there is anything wrong with your draft (to be honest, I only glanced at it), but please think of it as a draft that likely would need revisiting after other changes.
- I started with the overview for several reasons:
- It is the first proper section and doesn't tell a reader what they need, IMO (and we appear to all agree on that point)
- It was meant as an example of reflection on what is there that can be applied to other sections, and I think some need serious work. I was hoping others might take a look at the rest and suggest other parts that don't meet readers needs.
- I would like a discussion of what is good and what needs change from a global perspective rather than diving into detail immediately, though those observations are valued too.
- So, I was thinking of changing the overview section first, rather than the lede.
- If I may sample from a few ideas above:
- The idea of new separate articles is one I had a while back too. Certainly there is the material for an article on categorisation or clustering of elements (to avoid the double-meaning of "grouping"), so long as there are sufficient RS to write it. There are oodles of sources and perspectives but also a huge risk of OR. Many sources (like textbooks) adopt some categorisation system without explaining or justifying it, and talking about that without RS that do would be OR. Thus, this is an interesting idea and a good one for resolving disagreements but we'd need to consider carefully whether it is a good idea in a policy sense.
- Related, are there other new articles that could be appropriate? I know WP once had an article on La v Lu, is that worth reconsidering – or even broadening based on other PT geography issues.
- Double sharp, I note your comments about electron configurations and electrons being indistinguishable. I don't view it as seriously as you appear to because I don't mean (and this is an exaggeration) that we take a 4He atom, with its two nice blue electrons in the 1s shell, and make 7Li by adding a proton and two neutrons to the nucleus, and a nice red electron which will sit in the 2s subshell and be distinguishable from the two blue electrons that were already there... because that would be both scientific drivel and highly misleading. I do agree that indistinguishability is important – just yesterday I was talking with a student about coordinate covalency and used the example of formation of NH4+ in a Lowry-Bronsted acid-base reaction and pointing out that the reaction involves a proton transfer and thus the formation of a coordinate covalent bond, but then emphasised that this model of how the bond forms does not mean that the resulting bond is in any way different from the preexisting nitrgogen–hydrogen bonds. On electron configurations, what I meant was that the difference in configuration from [He]: 1s2 to [Li]:1s22s1 is that the change is the 3 electron configuration of Li has a 2s electron that the 2 electron configuration of He did not. Of course, that raises problems with cases like V to Cr, but we are also talking about an overview. I agree it should not be scientifically inaccurate but it does not have to canvass every issue. How it is presented ultimately is a matter for consensus decision, of course.
- Sandbh, you are correct that I took no position on the colouring, and deliberately so. Firstly, it is contentious here so it needs to be discussed but other changes can be made while that continues. Secondly, I offered to help with policy and to hopefully foster collaboration and building to consensus, so starting with "I think X" would be either to take one side or to say both sides are wrong – hardly a good way to start given my goal to help resolve the dispute rather than inflaming it. Thirdly, I don't actually have a strong view on it beyond that the lens to examine it from is (IMO) how it assists / supports readers.
- DePiep, your explanation of how the overview came to be sounds quite likely to me, and I agree that how it got there is much less important than the question of how useful it is. I wonder if the section should not begin as "Background" because what is an atom / element, etc, is necessary background to organising them into a table.
- Double sharp, on Feynmann, one simple explanation of how to distribute 3 electrons and needing a new orbital is the Pauli exclusion principle – no two electrons in an atom may have the same set of quantum numbers. Since any orbital automatically has three the same, and there are only two values for spin, the maximum occupancy of an orbital is two. Once any two of the three electrons are assigned to 1s, the unassigned must be placed in shell 2 and energetics then dictates it will be in the 2s orbital. Of course, orbitals / subshells / shells and quantum numbers are required for this. How the configurations are arrived at is not relevant for an overview, nor are irregularities like Cr, nor are the issues of gas-phase single atoms rather than physical substances in macroscopic quantities. Like in so many other parts of chemistry, we are dealing with models to aid our understanding rather than with reality – (aside) how many times have I tried to get students to accept that for oxidation states, and dissuade them from permanganate having an Mn7+ ion rather than a MnVII centre covalently bound to four oxo moieties?
- On my (7), if the term "valence electron(s)" is to appear, it too will need defining / explaining.
- YBG, I like the approach of looking for areas of agreement to work on.
- I am concerned about OR. Some of the posting on this page, IMO, have drifted into OR and/or looking at single sources that do not meet the requirements of DUE. Textbooks are certainly reliable sources and if virtually all of them say X, which we know from the literature is actually an inaccurate simplification, we need to be very careful if we try to say Y cited to literature (particularly to little-cited literature). DUE calls for sources to be weighted by their prominence and widely-used textbooks are awfully prominent. They are also flawed at times, which leaves us with a dilemma. Some such issues might best be discussed at a noticeboard where community input is sourced. If undergraduate texts say X but a more nuanced statement Y is given by advanced books (Cotton and Wilkinson, for example) then we have an easier situation. It's also easier if IUPAC have made a definitive statement. Unfortunately, some of these issues are cases where WP (as an encyclopaedia) needs to be behind and wait for the sources to support a change to be present.
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)
- @EdChem: Yes, I understand. It's just that the whole differentiating-electron thing has become a particularly frustrating pet peeve for me since the massive group 3 discussion. I think we may be OK because we do seem to be in a situation where advanced textbooks give a correct statement: Greenwood and Earnshaw gets things right and carefully avoids mentioning differentiating electrons on pp. 22–3 where it discusses the building up, and I already quoted how Feynman deals with it (yes, it's a physics textbook, but the build-up of the PT is basically at the intersection of chemistry and physics). So I think we will be fine if we talk just about the configurations but somehow avoid saying that the block is actually given by the differentiating electron. Indeed perhaps it's best to simply waffle and follow Greenwood and Earnshaw's vague statement "there is a direct relation between the various blocks of elements in the periodic table and the electronic configuration of the atoms it contains; the s block is 2 elements wide, the p block 6 elements wide, the d block 10, and the f block 14, i.e. 2(2l + l), the factor 2 appearing because of the spins", without actually defining what the blocks are because nobody seems to agree on that. Yes, it kind of sucks, but policy is an important concern. If the literature needs to buckle up and define all this properly, that's not something we can do for them. ^_^
- I agree that what is really needed first is some background on atomic structure. And yes, don't worry, I know what I've written is just a plain first draft. It can change a lot; I just thought getting something out would be better than just discussing in circles with nothing getting done. I will work on a draft of the Overview + Background more or less following your ideas. ^_^
- The La vs Lu issue is mostly covered in Group 3 element; I think that's an OK place for it because you can't avoid it there. With regard to the textbook thing, this is quite split and La no longer has a majority. (Current split of textbooks in 2010s according to IUPAC survey is 48% La, 18% Lu, 33% compromise form with all lanthanoids under Y.) And I am not sure how many of the textbooks actually explain themselves here or focus on the issue or even talk a lot about the lanthanoids at all. So I still think we should in fact be looking at the articles specifically arguing about it. Double sharp (talk) 09:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
OR, SYNTH and DUE
@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:
- "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles…".
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
- I would like to clarify the part in which I am mentioned. What I said about the reactive nonmetal division was said three years ago, and I have not renewed my opinion on it since then. It could be that my opinion would be the same today and it could be that it would not if I were to look into it anew.
- The more I think about the proposed division that's on the table right now, moderately active nonmetals+halogen nonmetals, the less appealing I find it. The most serious problem with it that I found is that "halogen nonmetals" can be confusing, especially in the way legend is construed now; it's not even clear that we're talking about halogen nonmetals, it seems we're talking about halogens, all of which fit into the set of nonmetals. That is confusing, and I've been thinking about it like that more and more; the final snap for me was the comment made by DePiep above, in which they ask when we agreed that astatine was not a halogen anymore. The present legend seems to imply precisely that. We didn't really agree on anything of the sort, and the legend doesn't want to imply that, but if DePiep, who's been watching this discussion since the very beginning, missed this point (DePiep is not to blame on this: it really is confusing), then what should we expect of a common reader who has not watched this discussion? I wouldn't expect anything other than thinking that astatine is not a halogen, period. Or maybe DePiep didn't actually miss anything and I am the one who missed something? One way or another, the proposed legend raises too many questions.
- To wrap it up, I'm not sure if I think reactive nonmetals should be split (maybe so and maybe not), and I definitely don't think that the moderately active nonmetals+halogen nonmetals will work fine.--R8R (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@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:
- 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."
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)
- @Sandbh: And where are the indications that these are anything other than adverbs and adjectives modifying a noun? Are "moderately active nonmetals" in the indexes of these texts, if they have them? And where are the clearly stated definitions that these refer to {H, C, N, O, P, S, Se} only? And supposing that it is terminology, exactly how widespread it is in textbooks?
- It's not about "avoiding or ignoring literature". It's simply a question: how major is this POV? What is the WP:DUE weight that should be accorded to it? Is this a major thing that most chemists would understand, or is it closer to the kind of support I can produce for putting helium over beryllium in the periodic table: a handful of journal articles that so far almost nobody listens to? What is the prevalence of this term in the literature? Out of a general sample of sources, how many of them use and define this term as a term? And how does that percentage compare with the percentage of sources drawing the periodic table as Sc-Y-Lu? Double sharp (talk) 09:18, 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)
- Since the term moderately active nonmetals was suggested to me by a chemist, in preference to light nonmetals, I'd expect most chemists would understand it. Consider how the halogens are referred to in the literature:
- "Young (1976) : …the strongest nonmetals, as we have seen, are the halogens."
- Dorin (1982): "Because of relatively high nuclear charges and small atomic sizes, members of the halogen family, Group 7A, are the most active nonmetals."
- Cotton & Wilkinson (1999): "With the exception of the Li–Cs group there are closer similarities within the [halogen] group than in any other in the Periodic Table."
- Jaffe (2012) :"The extremely active non-metals, fluorine, chlorine, bromine and iodine, all appeared in the seventh group."
- Powell (2013): "Chlorine, bromine, and iodine are far less reactive than fluorine but are still very active chemicals."
- What about the metalloids?
- It has been known for over 120 years that metalloids have a predominately nonmetallic chemistry (Newth 1894; Friend 1914).
- "When atoms have their outer shells just over half filled, they are thought of as nonmetals, but they are so near the border line that they are weak nonmetals." (Eby et al. 1943, p. 404)
- "The elements near the dividing line are only weakly metallic or nonmetallic." (McCue 1963, p. 264)
- Brinkley (1945, p. 378) writes that boron has weakly nonmetallic properties.
- "With weakly electronegative elements like boron and silicon…" (Hurd 1952, p. 62)
- "…while the oxides of the metalloids will tend to be amphoteric or weakly acidic" (Swift 1957)
- Glinka (1965, p. 88) describes silicon as a weak nonmetal.
- Rochow (1966, p. 4) noted metalloid compounds are always less acidic than the corresponding compounds of the nonmetals.
- Vernon (2020; that's me): "Setting aside the confusion surrounding the metalloids, they are here treated as chemically weak nonmetals, consistent with Hawley’s Condensed Chemical Dictionary (Larrañaga et al. 2016, p. 988); see also Dingle (2017) for a refreshing interpretation of the status of metalloids, as ‘poor non-metals’."
- And what about still more on the strong-moderate-weak-moderate-strong progression across the periodic table(?);
- Emerson (1944): "The table shows the continuous variation of properties from active metals to active nonmetals as electrons are added to the outer shell of the atoms "
- Gregg (1961): The electropositive elements are on the left side of the chart and the electronegative elements on the right. In any given horizontal row of representative elements, the alkali metal element is the most electropositive element, and the halogen the most electronegative. Elements midway between these two extremes are relatively weakly electropositive and relatively weakly electronegative."
- Beiser (1968): "Across each period is a more or less steady transition from an active metal through less active metals and weakly active non-metals to highly active nonmetals and finally to an inert gas."
- Booth & Bloom (1972): "A period represents a stepwise change from elements strongly metallic to weakly metallic to weakly nonmetallic to strongly nonmetallic, and then, at the end, to an abrupt cessation of almost all chemical properties."
- Etkin (2019): "This corresponds to the experience according to which in each period there is a transition from active metals to less active, and then from active non-metals to very active non-metals. Moreover, at the end of each period (with the transition to inert gases)…"
- Like the lanthanides, actinides, transition metals, and metalloids there is no clear, universal definition of the nonmetals involved. There is however a default defintion: They are the nonmetals left over when the noble gases, halogens, and elements most commonly recognised as metalloids are set aside.
- Same goes for the fuzzy PTM, they are the metals leftover after the AM, AEM, Ln and An (however defined), and transition metals (however defined, noting e.g. Rayner-Canham only counts groups 4 to 11, as such) are set aside.
- In the literature, the PTM have 17 alternate names that I'm aware of. The nonmetals lying between the metalloids and the halogens have at least seven names by which they've been referred to and this number will soon go up to 12+. Possibly the most encompassing term, which has fuzzy boundaries, is life elements:
- "The third lecture can be a breath of fresh air or a shaking of foundations for the biochemist, as Steiner discusses the life elements, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen and sulphur in Nature's household." (Storl 1979)
- "Life elements | Most matter in living cells is four of the lightest, simplest elements. In organisms, 95% of the atoms are, in order of amount: hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen. These four organic elements are most of life's physical substance. (Goreau et al. 2014).
- "Unlike other essential life elements H, C, N, O, no appreciable amounts of gaseous phosphorus compounds are… (Corbridge 2016).
- "Major forms of life elements For all organisms, the major chemical elements are H, C, N, O, P and S, forming the majority of the organic components in living organisms." (Zhu 2020).
- Same goes for the "building blocks of life":
- "…of carbon and on the interaction of macromolecules made of six biogenic elements (H, C, N, O, S, P ) which together…Great progress has been made in demonstrating that the building blocks of life can be synthesised in the laboratory. (British Interplanetary Society 1985)
- "More than 90% of the known universe is made up of hydrogen, whereas the other four major molecular building blocks of life, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus…" (Piantadosi 2003)
- "Building blocks of life | Life is based on complex chemistry yet only a few of all the available elements participate in most life-supporting reactions on Earth: carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, phosphorous, and sulfur." (Schulze-Makuc 2006)
- "Carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) are the building blocks of life on earth." (Neider 2008)
- " …possibly including the first chemical building blocks of life, exist in comets and may have been carried by them, like the wind ... One element of the six, crucial for the origins of life (H, C, N, O, S, and P), phosphorus (or a phosphor-containing…" (Thomas et al. 2013)
- As noted many times, H, C, N, O, P, S, and Se are the only elements (on WP) each having their own biogeochemical cycle article.
- Probably, I haven't looked too closely at this, references to these seven nonmetals, by way of their numerous collective terms are at least as popular as "alkaline earth metals".
- I surmise the reason why there is no one standout collective name for them is that their properties of interest fall across so many disciplines, including general chemistry, biochemistry, metallurgy, cage compounds, crystallography, energetic, geochemistry, organic chemistry, hydrogen storage, materials science, mineralogy, nano-chemistry, spectroscopy, and X-ray imaging.
- Meanwhile, here we are knocking ourselves out in a WP:POLICY cite festival; striving to attain unattainable consistency and terminology standards which just don't exist in chemistry; and doing everything possible to avoid building a goddamn better encyclopaedia, never mind all the information is out there, anchored in the literature!
- I'll include a little more about this, later on. Sandbh (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sandbh, could you maybe stop attributing motives to other editors in a content discussion? Above you said to User:R8R
The lengths you will go to in avoiding or ignoring literature, even if it is ugly, are extraordinary
. After that User:EdChem talked to us about this when it happened between us, but now immediately above you saidwe are...doing everything possible to avoid building a goddamn better encyclopaedia
. If you have behavioural grievances with me, or with R8R, then can we please follow EdChem's advice and bring it to an appropriate venue for that sort of thing, instead of mixing it in the middle of a content thread? Double sharp (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)- Double sharp Thanks for asking. I'll probably decline your request although I'll keep it in mind. I say this in the context of DePiep's benchmark contribution to WP:ANI, no less, i.e. "You damned fucking STARTED this fucking ANI thread R8R." In that context, what I say is a whimper.
- Sandbh, could you maybe stop attributing motives to other editors in a content discussion? Above you said to User:R8R
- The issues I perceive and raise are pertinent to our content contributions, as a project team, so I'll continue to post that kind of thing whenever or where ever I deem it appropriate. Yes, as I've posted before, all of this is about content, based on the goddamn science, never mind whether or not we like the outcomes of that science, according to out personal preferences, which rarely have any relevance here, but people keep hiding behind them. Another pet peeve is invoking a prefernce for symmetry, which is culturally-biased phenomenon, rather than having a basis in science, to guide one's decisions here. I'll keep calling out that one, whenever I see it.
- As far as R8R is concerned, getting him to move an inch is like asking him to move a mile. For that matter, I can't recall R8R *ever* supporting a proposal for change raised within our project. If I'm wrong, I'll take it back. That's how it feels like to me, is all I'm saying.
- I am calling out these behaviours since nothing else seems to work. I know what this is about. It's like overcoming the perceptual filtering of e.g. rusted-on Trump supporters (no offence intended). It's a waste of time, since they ignore, filter out, or twist anything at odds with their values-beliefs-rules framework, which is on autopilot. Essentially, I can only appeal to the middle ground, and hope there are enough "votes" to swing the balance. Sandbh (talk) 06:26, 22 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)
- Thanks for pinging me. Sandbh, there is a difference you do not seem to get: the purpose of WP:ANI is to address behavioural issues, including pointing out self-serving hypocrisy. Talkpages OTOH, like article ones and this one are explicitly not open for behavioural problematic edits. Instead, they are for content-related discussions. And that is what POLICIES you are invited to follow, aim at. -DePiep (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: A few things that may need clarification:
- I clarified my position on what I treat the common reader like not too long ago, but I may need to clarify it further to reflect my thoughts more accurately. In contexts that I believe to be interesting for people without any chemical knowledge (our most popular articles like iron or aluminium), I assume no knowledge on the part of a reader. In contexts that are plainly dull for such people (group 3 element being one obvious example), I assume some knowledge because I don't believe that those people who could read it will not know it. Generally, I assume as little knowledge as I believe a person who could read this article or part of an article could have. The part about classification of the elements obviously requires some basic knowledge of what elements are. Perhaps a few months into the school chemistry course is enough.
- Here's a quote I just found online:
- Ndlovu, Simate, Matinde (2017) "From the chemistry point of view, copper is a moderately active metal" -- why are we ignoring this category and not including "moderately active metals" into our fold? Let's say the concept of transition metals were not a factor, should we rely on quotes like this to include this name? My answer would be no, because this is not meant as a single term, but rather a term with a qualification. I view "moderately active nonmetals" similarly. In any event, it's not this part that is the problem, after all, "reactive nonmetals" does precisely the same. The confusing part about halogens, that's what's confusing here. I said it clearly already, but I hope it's clear now.
- Another point that may need clarification is this: I am trying to build a better encyclopedia, and I'm sure Double sharp is, too. My (and Double sharp's) understanding of what helps achievement of this goal may differ from yours. That's fine, that's what discussions are for. In this beautiful language that you speak and I attempt to speak, there's the magnificent concept of "contest of ideas," something that does not have nearly as much currency as in my own mother tongue. I suggest embracing that. For that matter, that's how I view our discussions. I never expect anyone to move simply because I know better. I'm not entitled to that and neither is anybody else, but I could try to convince them with what wit I can master. It's either consciously trying to build a better encyclopedia or giving way to something you don't believe to fulfill this goal. Often, there can only be one, and in such cases, I pick the former (and I expect anyone else to do the same). For a while, I've been pondering whether it doesn't matter (in which case I wouldn't care much) or that it does because the halogen bit is confusing, and I've settled on the latter.
- For that matter, during the last group 3 discussion I chose the version that I thought was better for the encyclopedia, even though I went against my personal preference. (The point about me not supporting a change is rather strange -- I've supported -Lu-Lr almost since the day I came to this project, even though it was -*-** (-La-Ac in our PTQ, which was an image back then) back then, and I was the one to propose "reactive nonmetals." I get it it may feel like it but that's why one normally need hard evidence to back up whatever you feel to ensure their feelings are justified; "selective perception" is an interesting phrase you brought up.)
- I hope we can wrap it up at this point and get back to discussion on encyclopedic topics at hand.--R8R (talk) 13:10, 25 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
- Sandbh, IAR is both a valuable and a dangerous policy. As an example that applies to none of us, suppose editor X is topic banned from area Y... X is convinced that they are better at writing content in topic area Y and so ignore the topic ban and continue editing, invoking IAR as justification. How well do you think X's argument would stand up when it got to ANI? I would say the time taken for a block to be imposed would be measured in minutes, and not very many of them. Editors who try to use IAR to get around policy can run into trouble similarly quickly. Arguing to IAR-override DUE, for example, because one paper says A while every textbook says B is unlikely to fly, even if B is true and corrects a long-standing incorrect belief in A. Encyclopaedias are not supposed to be at the cutting edge of knowledge, they lag behind waiting for debates to resolve. You state that
Principles, spirit, and knowledge gathering and summarising are what count, rather than quoting WP policy
, but when IAR speaks of principles and spirit it means those that live in policy. Knowledge gathering and summarising are good, so long as they don't move into SYNTHesising conclusions not previously made or offering a summary that goes beyond extant knowledge into OR. The spirit and principles of those policies is about encyclopaedias summarising what is known and not including what is new, so IAR will not support going beyond that which is published in RS. I'm all for IAR to facilitate editing in line with spirit of policy, but not for avoiding policy. EdChem (talk) 10:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- EdChem I basically agree, with some observations. I don't regard IAR as dangerous. You do, that's fine. There is no rule or law that says, "Encyclopaedias are not supposed to be at the cutting edge of knowledge" although if that's a belief that works for you, that's fine too. As a living encyclopedia I see WP having the potential to be at the cutting edge of knowledge, where such knowledge refers to what is known, with a reasonable, plausible, context relevant, interesting, or potentially interesting degree of reliability. Anything short of that is un-encyclopedia, in the broadest sense of the meaning of encyclopedic, in my view. Too, policy is only ever supposed to be a guide to subjective decision-making, having regard to applicable circumstances, and higher contextual values, (the five pillars in the case of WP) rather than a set of rules, although many people interpret and apply policy as a set of rules. Sandbh (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Double sharp
- I've shifted my support to blocks alone, actually. Double sharp (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sandbh It is not about hiding knowledge. It is about policy. We are supposed to be following the literature. Not leading in it. If the literature is fuzzy, then we should say that it is fuzzy and not try to make it look less fuzzy than it is. If there is no standard term for something, then the right option for WP is not to pick out the one that looks nicest, it's admitting that there is no standard term. As WP:UNDUE puts it paraphrasing Jimbo:
“ |
|
” |
- 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". Double sharp (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
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)
- I have attempted to compliment the effort by reducing the part on the group 3 dispute to the size that subsection should have always featured. Everybody is welcome to check after me and see if I removed something of tremendous importance. I have removed the bifurcation option as it's not common yet; we can discuss it in group 3 element.--R8R (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- That looks not bad as an overview to me, R8R. Although maybe we should have just one extra sentence about approximately how long this has been going on? Double sharp (talk) 10:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Double sharp: maybe, but the way you're putting this question, I don't know the answer to it myself. If this has been going on for XX years, what event did it start with exactly? I suspect it hasn't really been going on all these years, so I'm not sure. But maybe you have a sentence in mind?--R8R (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- @R8R: I wrote in what I had in mind; what do you think? I based it on what the IUPAC project says about it, with just a vague "decades" combined with a citation to Hamilton 1965 (it talks about the issue, argues in favour of one side, and it's from 1965, so that probably proves it's been going on for decades ^_^). Double sharp (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Fix ping: R8R Double sharp (talk) 11:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Double sharp: I think the debating part is fine, I think it's good to stay. However, I have removed the mention of the first measurement of the 1st IE of Lr because it is an extremely marginal thing to mention.--R8R (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- @R8R: I wanted to include it because the IUPAC project mentions it as having provided the impetus for making the thing big again. But since it is indeed a minor part of the entire story, I think your approach also works. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Double sharp: I think the debating part is fine, I think it's good to stay. However, I have removed the mention of the first measurement of the 1st IE of Lr because it is an extremely marginal thing to mention.--R8R (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Double sharp: maybe, but the way you're putting this question, I don't know the answer to it myself. If this has been going on for XX years, what event did it start with exactly? I suspect it hasn't really been going on all these years, so I'm not sure. But maybe you have a sentence in mind?--R8R (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- That looks not bad as an overview to me, R8R. Although maybe we should have just one extra sentence about approximately how long this has been going on? Double sharp (talk) 10:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
In the spirit of R8R's bold actions; maybe we should cut the section on period 1 similarly? I have not done so yet, but have copied the current content over to period 1 element as a preparation. Double sharp (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- I suggest we do just that, yes.--R8R (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- @R8R: Done And maybe we should link the two somehow by mentioning that somehow this seems to be a conflict between exactly what decides placement of elements on the PT. Double sharp (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Double sharp: great. I don't think that's needed, that's not too hard to figure out, though if you think otherwise, I won't object, either. Another thing that appears overly inflated to me right now is Periodic_table#Categories; maybe I'll get to it tonight.--R8R (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- @R8R: Looking forward to seeing what you do with it. If you ask me, the thing about sets of elements needs to be worked on to make it more clear that it's about the PT. As of now it maybe reads too much like an article about chemical elements. I think this is the material that EdChem's draft covers better, if you ask me.
- Regarding categories, I also think that the group 12 in transition metals thing is not a periodic table controversy, despite where it is placed. The periodic table looks the same regardless of whether you think they are or not. I rather think it is something that should be mentioned in the overview when categories are briefly discussed as an example of how their boundaries are fuzzy, saying that while in basic literature they are often included, a significant portion (but not all) of the advanced literature excludes them based on them having different properties. Then maybe say that in general, the categories in use will depend on the situation, and we simply show a scheme that is generally close to most sources. I think that's all we really need to say about it there, with an aim to say much more about categories at chemical element whenever that article gets developed better. But we can think about it. Double sharp (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Double sharp: this edit represents what I had in mind. I have established the relevance to the topic of the article and stayed loyal to the idea of having to write an overview article. The section is underreferenced now to say the least (something we should fix), but the idea behind the edit should be clear.--R8R (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- @R8R: I like what you did and edited it a bit (some parts shrank, other parts grew, but mostly stayed the same size). I tried to stick to the idea of just giving a few examples.
- Do you think, metals/metalloids/nonmetals should just be considered under this section as well rather than having its own? Because (1) many category schemes seem to be not too fussed about whether they are metallicity or group-based schemes (witness how At, Ts, Og got treated by LANL/RSC/ACS/Britannica/IUPAC etc.), and they are equally supercategories. I understand that currently we have the idea that we have subcategories of these three supercategories, but most people in the literature seem not too fussed about that. Double sharp (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- P.S. I am starting to think that the organisation is problematic enough that we should rewrite the entire first two sections starting with EdChem's proposal as a base. For one thing, since so many categories match groups, and the group structure "comes first" in the sense that a PT is still a PT no matter how you categorise it (even if you randomly assign things, in which case it's silly but still a PT), but one can ask questions about which elements "belong" in which groups and just randomly placing anything anywhere will not give you a PT anymore, I feel that the whole business typical general chemistry textbooks go into about how the PT comes from electronic configurations and the Aufbau principle should come first. I don't know if I have time to do it today, but my feeling is that it should be done. Double sharp (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Double sharp: I like your edit very much.
- Come to think of it, you're right; the discussion about metals and nonmetals we have now is more fit for chemical element than it is for periodic table.
- I haven't been thinking of what I'm doing so far as of a part of the effort to rewrite the article, merely as a preparation for that. I find it important to lose the irrelevant bits first (this will help the readers who are going to read the article in the next few days before we finish our rewriting, and it will help the editors who will take part in this rewriting to remember what not to include), and then, a rewriting will follow.--R8R (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yay! ^_^
- I agree with you, the discussion about metals and nonmetals belongs mostly in chemical elements. OTOH, the transition from metals to nonmetals is itself also a trend on the PT. So I guess it deserves a mention, just not a big one. In fact, the greatest difficulty I have had in thinking about how to even start writing the whole section is how to strike a balance between talking about chemical elements (a cool topic and all, but not the one of this article) and the periodic table. And in doing the latter you need to be careful about how much you devote to the periodic law (the statement about the chemical elements, saying the properties of the elements and the compounds they form are a periodic function of their atomic number) and the periodic table (which is a tool to organise the elements). So I feel like I have to go back to the really basic textbooks to see how they do it. Because the problem is that I have known this stuff for so long that I've forgotten how it was explained in the first place.
- There is one other thing I have thought about that I feel I should run by you first. I am not really comfortable with the section on TMs and unknown chemical properties in the section on controversies. This is really a categorisation issue, we have already discussed it. Why single out TMs and superheavies when there are so many other disputes (e.g. which elements are metalloids?). I feel like we have already addressed this simply and should not do it again. I am also unsure about how the rest of this section should go actually, but at the very least I also get the feeling that we talk way too much about the extension. So I have made some drastic shortenings and removals over there, asking myself "have we already said this, and even if we haven't, is this something we need to tell the beginners?". Hope to hear your opinion. Double sharp (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Double sharp: this edit represents what I had in mind. I have established the relevance to the topic of the article and stayed loyal to the idea of having to write an overview article. The section is underreferenced now to say the least (something we should fix), but the idea behind the edit should be clear.--R8R (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Double sharp: great. I don't think that's needed, that's not too hard to figure out, though if you think otherwise, I won't object, either. Another thing that appears overly inflated to me right now is Periodic_table#Categories; maybe I'll get to it tonight.--R8R (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- @R8R: Done And maybe we should link the two somehow by mentioning that somehow this seems to be a conflict between exactly what decides placement of elements on the PT. Double sharp (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
P.S. Since IUPAC mentions both 18 vs 32 column on their homepage, since some 32 column tables appear even before the matter is discussed, and because explaining the 32 column form is literally a matter of explaining the asterisks like we will have to do anyway, I feel like we should not actually have a section about 18 vs 32. They are, after all, supposed to be the same, just whether or not the asterisk is in there or not. Rather I feel we should simply explain it in the overview: say that to fit on the page, the f block elements are usually cut out and placed at the bottom, though this practice is not universal. Honestly, as far as which tables get a section there, I feel like the Russian-style 8 column table has far more of a claim there than the 32 column one: it is unarguably different. 18 vs 32 is, rather, a question of whether to cut out Alaska and Hawaii from a map of the USA so that the map does not include a ton of ocean in between. But I haven't changed anything on that front yet. Double sharp (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
And the more I look at this article: the more I think we have been somewhat remiss in overusing primary sources. I think that we should really be following what is given mostly in textbooks and/or popular-science treatments, so I currently am iffy about sections like Periodic_table#Linking_or_bridging_groups and whether they should really be there or not. I advance this with hesitation because use-of-sources issues are what caused the latest flare-up, but to reach a shared vision of improving the article, it must be raised. I add that my section on Periodic table#Kainosymmetry has a similar problem, and the only reason I have not removed it yet is because IIRC the double-periodicity result is mentioned in Scerri's The Periodic Table: Its Story and Its Significance. So, that seems to qualify for listing as one of the trends as that's a rather popular popular-science treatment, although the basis of it probably should be axed from this beginning article. (Besides, now I'd probably treat it in one sentence, something like "There are also other intragroup trends on the periodic table, such as the double periodicity in which certain properties tend to alternate between even and odd periods." I think that's more or less the level the beginner really needs anyway.) Double sharp (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@Sandbh: I feel that you should be aware that, in the spirit of being WP:BOLD and trying to adhere to Jehochman's statement at User talk:YBG Imagine you are explaining chemistry to a first year high school student. What do they need to know? Any extra complexity an be explained in the article text (who say this alternative, who says that alternative), or footnotes
, we have deleted some of the content that I remember you previously added. This includes some text supported by citations on the grounds that either of us feels that it does not adhere to Jehochman's statement that we find reasonable. I have also deleted some of my own old text, which should clarify that this is not and was not intended as a personal matter. If you object to any of the removals, then please feel free to revert and discuss. Double sharp (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- Double sharp, All good. Being bold is what I intended. I'll catch up with it eventually. Sandbh (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
Archive?
- Shall we Archive this thread? -DePiep (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not sure what the answer should be, but here is my idea of how to reach the answer: Look through the suggestions here and if all have been either actually implemented or implicitly rejected in the periodic table improvement project, then hit the archive button post haste. YBG (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I can't recall collapsing this thread. I collapse them when I think they've largely become inactive, along YBG's line. I don't archive them at that time because I feel it's nice for somebody visiting our talk page to get a feel for what we're been recently talking about. Sandbh (talk) 00:05, 9 December 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)
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)
@Sandbh: If I may ask: was an approximate timeframe for the appearance of this article given? (Totally fine if it wasn't, just curious.) Double sharp (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: No. I’ll ask Eric how he’s going. I could understand his reluctance to be pinned down to a specific time, however. Sandbh (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: I'd definitely understand it too; I'm just curious. Double sharp (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
A nice pair
Noble metals | Noble gases |
---|---|
--- Sandbh (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
RFC register
Current
Proposal | Sponsor | Notes |
---|---|---|
Sandbh | Here | |
Should the lede PT graphic include a notation noting the fuzziness of its categories? | Sandbh | |
DS | Here |
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
General
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)
ACS/LANL/2010 categorisation scheme
Intersting. I'll post some comments. Sandbh (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- @YBG, Sandbh, Double sharp, and R8R:: Shall we archive this thread? -DePiep (talk) 23:07, 5 December 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)
- @R8R:. I have come to the conclusion that I will not fulfil your request. The core reason is that when I wrote "I think I can sign up for this" I did not add reservations. The statement by Double sharp includes the topic of "problematic behaviours": "end ... and not to restart". I am very well aware that this is part of the proposal, and that the "self reflection" is included. However, it is not required or proposed to do so publicly — on the contrary: it says not to "squabble about who was 'right'". I read this to mean: be open to (self-)criticism into improvement, and that is what I can sign up to.
- There is an other reason. Your question raises the possibility that this thread too becomes a sort of ANI complaint-solving (or, more likely, -not-solving). That would take out all effectivity of the proposal, because that route is what has failed. And anyway, issues you mention already have been brought to ANI, and obviously no trespassing was concluded; it was even allowed to be brought to ANI again (I am still wondering how that was allowed but alas), and again no consequences were concluded. So I say no to a third time. Maybe you could consider to drop the stick of ANI-style questioning (here and on other talkpages), following the spirit expressed by Double sharp.
- And, a third and final thought. Please keep in mind that WP:ELEMENTS has left the ani-level of dispute resolution; as EdChem described the Project now is in more serious danger wrt (our) future editing options. This proposal requires a change of attitude of us all, and will take lots of energy, aimed upward, to make it work. -DePiep (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- As for myself, in the spirit of my OP, I am happy enough with this statement by DePiep. If asking for public statements runs the risk of jeopardising this quick resolution, then I feel we should not insist on it. Hopefully, after a couple of weeks of no problems, we will not need them for any proof anyway. It is up to R8R of course on whether he's fine with it or not. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Will reply, but not by first primitive
- Waiting for Sandbh to reply here. This is serious, I'd strongly ask you to consider this proposal. -DePiep (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
@DePiep, Double sharp, and R8R:
- Faced with a choice of affirming R8R or DePeip, I affirm R8R.
- Faced with a choice of ArbCom or sorting out things here, I'd choose the latter.
- DePiep, you bring gifts to our project as well as aspects I find unwelcome, as reflected in your lengthy block record.
- With such a block record, including the prospect of an indefinite ban for another occurrence of misconduct, I'd expect to be walking on egg shells, yet you go about things, as I see it, as if nothing happened.
- For example, you reverted me here,[5] and provided no other comment than "No", in breach of WP:BRD.
- You reverted me at WP:ANI no less,[6] along with the comment: "rv for now. a clerck etc may deem this allowable and so confirm/reinstate (very inconveniant to me)".
- You have previously reverted me on the grounds of no consensus having being established, when no such consensus was required.
- After several years of inaction on our colouring the PT proposal you undertake to do something about it within a week and then advise our project that you were not able to do so "due to distractions".[7]
- Softlavender mentioned you at WP:ANI saying, "(I think at this point, DePiep is going to end up at ArbCom and/or or long-term blocked if he continues in the behavior patterns he has demonstrated all over Wikipedia". 07:18, 10 October 2020
- Four other editors at ARBCOM have mentioned you; one asked: "Is User:DePiep a net negative to the encyclopedia?".[8][9]. See also this essay on users with long block logs.
- My impression is that you are involved in so many aspects of WP that you are unable to keep track of things within our project and consequently ask for summaries or complain about e.g. unfocused threads etc., for example this edit [10] in which your edit summary is "basically senseless".
- My impression of your general role is that of a "blocker." For example, there is this post[11] in which you write: "I feel the need for a freeze of those wide-ranging and TL;DR discussions currently at hand." And you felt the need to add, that I am "still editing wide and rough" [12]even though, as DS posted,[13] I explained the my rationale for so doing [14].
- Here is another example of your combative attitude: "I consider all edits in this WP contested. For lack of discussion and lack of consensus. -DePiep (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC) [15]
- I have previously posted about some of these concerns wrt to your conduct; nothing changes.
- As I see it, your attitude needs to change, permanently.
- I support Double sharp in his preference for a quick resolution.
DePiep, you have ignored multiple, repeated warnings, over several years. You have shown no interest in changing.
You now find yourself, through your own actions and inaction, at ten seconds to midnight.
I ask you to reflect on the above, and consider the way forward.
You may decline to do so, of course. Sandbh (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep, Sandbh, Double sharp, EdChem, and YBG: My objective has been making sure that the behavior DePiep has demonstrated is not repeated. This goal is hardly unreasonable or undesirable. I directly asked for such a commitment---hardly an unreasonable request---and my request was declined. Since DePiep does not acknowledge their behavior as inappropriate and does not commit to not repeating it, there is nothing stopping DePiep from doing this again.
- I don’t see what part DePiep intends to play in that change of attitude they’re citing if they’re not recognizing any of their past behavior as bad and are not committing to not repeating it as bad behavior.
- If I’ve been too inquisitive, the whole reason of it was so that I don’t mistakenly assume the worst of you when you didn’t mean it, in the spirit of WP:GF. The inquisition is over now; there is no room for misinterpretation. I asked for a commitment and the response was, “I will not fulfil your request.”
- I will be bringing this over to ArbCom. I did not initiate it, and I thought the mere possibility of an ArbCom action should have had an effect to do as little as recognition of old bad actions and a commitment not to repeat this ever again. This would’ve been enough. It wasn’t done. I have heeded to EdChem’s warning that this could backfire horribly. I still think that accepting that this behavior has not been even admitted, let alone been promised to not occur again, is the worse option. I’m sorry this didn’t end well if though it was looking like it could.
- DePiep, I want to be absolutely clear. I don’t identify you as a problem, despite you suggesting that previously. I identify your behavior as a problem. I am still open to admission that your behavior was wrong and a commitment you wouldn’t repeat this kind of behavior; if I get it, I’ll strike my ArbCom post and consider the matter solved if the case hasn’t been taken by then.
- I’ll leave a near-exhaustive list of your misdeeds over the last couple of months here for future reference. To the best of my knowledge, not a single one in the list has been admitted as such.
- I have been told to grow up. (WT:ELEM/Archive 50, DePiep, 2020-09-27) My edits have been reverted in what is strongly suggesting, and has been called out by other editors, to be ownership edits. (WT:ELEM/Archive 50#Alkali metal color; Talk:TFA 2020-09-09; ANI #2, EdChem, 2020-10-06) I have had a plain disparaging on a TFA talk page. (Talk:TFA 2020-09-09/R8R) I have had a baseless accusation that I had responded to good faith edits by personal attacks. (ANI #1, DePiep, 2020-09-27) I have been accused of a personal attack (ANI #2, DePiep, 2020-10-04) following my explanation (WT:ELEM/Archive 50, R8R, 2020-10-03) that you, by your own admission, hadn’t even processed (WT:ELEM/Archive 50, DePiep, 2020-10-04) by the time of the accusation. DePiep has demanded other editors seek approval for their edits in this free encyclopedia. (ANI #2, Sandbh, 2020-10-03) DePiep demonstratively refused to acknowledge my motivation to perform an edit (ANI #2, R8R, 2020-10-06), following which I had another baseless personal accusation (ANI #2, DePiep, 2020-10-06).
- Following the end of that ANI, there was yet another baseless accusation (T:R8R, DePiep, 2020-11-01).
- In the end, when I asked DePiep to admit their behavior was not appropriate and to commit not to do this again, and make it the end of the story, my request was turned down (WT:ELEM#Deciding between ourselves, DePiep, 2020-11-15).
- (A baseless accusation is, by definition, a personal attack. That was the thing DePiep has done a number of times (see diffs above, each of which features either the described action or a reference to it) but never recognized it, not to say make up for it somehow; however, that was a thing they kept insisting I was doing to them, something for which you never provided any serious proof even though I asked you to do so a couple of times.)--R8R (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- R8R
You are treating the ArbCom case as another ANI report. Even worse, this is another repetition of earlier ANI reports. I can inform you: the ANI threads were closed, and you are invited to read and accept their conclusions. That an ANI (twice) does not return the result you want is saying something. Nowthis is about a WP:ARC, EdChem has described its setup which is different. Double sharp has made an initiative to respond to the Case. A pity you cannot agree with that. -DePiep (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- R8R
I just posted a statement at Arbcom:
START OF QUOTE
Statement by Guy Macon
R8R's statement concerns me:
- "I asked DePiep to acknowledge past misdeeds and commit not to repeat them. This request was declined. The list of DePiep's misdeeds over the last couple of months alone is extensive, and DePiep refuses to even acknowledge them as such. This means there's nothing stopping them from happening again."
We have no requirement that anyone admit guilt. In fact, doing something that is unambiguously not allowed, followed by "I never did that" or "doing that was allowed", followed by them never doing it again is a perfectly acceptable result.
At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements#Deciding between ourselves Double sharp proposed " 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."
Double sharp, DePiep and YBG all agreed to this, and as far as I can tell have stuck to it. Alas, R8R and Sandbh did not agree and instead have continued posting complaints about past behavior. So I think Arbcom should accept this case. If Double sharp, DePiep and YBG continue to put aside all existing differences they should be marked as "resolved: no arbcom action needed" and Arbcom should examine the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior of R8R and Sandbh. (248 words) --Guy Macon
END OF QUOTE
I have some advice:
Double sharp, DePiep and YBG, I advise that you completely stop responding to any comments about anyone's behavior. Lots of eyes are on this, and what is happening is blindingly obvious without any of you commenting on it. I realize that this will be really hard to do, so if you slip just strike your response and go back to disengaging with no further comments.
R8R and Sandbh, I advise that you stop this behavior immediately. Don't even reply to this post. Just stop. If I see that you have stopped I will says so in my arbcom statement and advise that the arbs drop the case.
I have been watching arbcom for over ten years. They love it when everyone disengages and put aside the past. Burt if they see WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior after a case is requested, they tend to start blocking the editors who are still fighting from the entire encyclopedia in cases where ANI would have blocked the editor from certain pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
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 [16], 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 [17].
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)
- Keep in mind that any model is inevitably a simplification of reality that spares the reader overwhelming complexity. A central question for each article using the PT is "Who is the audience for this article?" What we often miss at Wikipedia is that for every editor there are hundreds of silent readers. We need to think about what will serve the reader best. Sometimes less complexity is more valuable. We can have daughter articles that go into greater depth. We can provide links to deeper treatments of the topic. Jehochman Talk 05:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- The overall readership for periodic table is millions per editor. The pattern of readership is cyclical – a peak in September and a steady decline to August. As this aligns with the academic year, this indicates that the readership is mainly schoolchildren and students rather than professional chemists. Understanding of the periodic table is commonly tested in chemistry exams – see this syllabus, for example. This should inform our coverage of the topic. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Group 12, on the basis of what Andrew D. said above about our audience
There may be some grounds for returning group 12 to the transition metals in the colouring like we had until 2017. In fact, here are all ten of them that I see, going from simplest to most complicated.
- We are writing for beginning students, and they don't really need the detail. Anecdotal evidence: in my first year in school chemistry, Zn, Cd, and Hg were called transition metals as they are part of the d block. Only in later years were they excluded on the grounds that they don't really have the transition metal properties. More on that point at #8.
- Group 12 is included in transition metals by Britannica, ptable.com, LANL, ACS, and RSC (the five sources Sandbh mentioned when justifying categories' inclusion above). I think this supports point #1 that it is generally felt that beginners don't need the detail. Rather strongly in my opinion because while they disagree on some details, this is one thing that they are all in unison about, and we can't say some of these aren't authoritative.
- Regarding the big three inorganic textbooks that Sandbh mentions often: Cotton & Wilkinson exclude the Zn group from transition metals, but Greenwood & Earnshaw (p. 905) as well as Holleman & Wiberg include it. So that's 2/3.
- According to W. B. Jensen, writing in 2003, "virtually every recent general chemistry text" (p. 952) he examined included the Zn group in transition metals. While he did mention that many inorganic texts that do this later contradict themselves, he also mentioned that most general chemistry texts simply did not even cover the chemistries of these elements in enough details for any real problems to arise. (Regarding whether or not there really are big problems coming from it, see #8, #9, and #10 if you are up for more chemistry as described in RS.) The 50-50 divide he referred to was about "advanced monographs on coordination chemistry and organometallic chemistry". (Note that Jensen opposes the inclusion of the Zn group in the transition metals and considers it wrong, but these are the results he admitted he got while surveying the literature. Regarding his argument, see #10.) I think this substantiates my point that beginners are usually taught that the Zn group is a transition group, and if it is excluded (which is not universal), then that is only done at a later and more advanced stage. So the 50-50 argument doesn't seem to hold that well in hindsight given the level we should be writing for. Besides, if something is universal at the basic level, and even at the advanced level half of all authors agree, then should we really be taking the view of the dissenters?
- Since this is basic, we should not just look at textbooks, but also at even more basic things like periodic table posters. It seems to me that in that sort of sphere, including the Zn group into the transition metals is absolutely the dominating option judging by Google Images results.
- We had it this way from 2002 to 2017 and no one complained that much.
- That's the definition IUPAC gives first in the Red Book: "For example, the elements of groups 3–12 are the d-block elements. These elements are also commonly referred to as the transition elements, though the elements of group 12 are not always included". And that seems to be their primary one, since on p. 228 onwards when they talk about naming organometallic compounds of main group elements, group 12 is not included as a main group (implying it has been shunted off to the transition groups).
The last three arguments involve some serious chemistry and are therefore collapsed to not scare everybody away
|
---|
|
The impression I get from #8 and #9 is that excluding group 12 is based on higher-level considerations from those our likely audience should concern themselves with. It opens up a can of hard-to-answer yet unproductive questions that are really not on the radar of that target audience (chemistry of elements that don't even last an hour, MO theory, weirdo compounds of mercury at cryogenic temperatures), and also has part of its basis on a definition that is not even taken at its word because it produces strange results like Th and U as transition metals. Moreover, the arguments often seem fairly qualitative and debatable (#8), since already group 11 (and especially Ag) are starting to be quite weak in showing some of the characteristic transition metal properties too but are rarely excluded anymore, and the clearest argument produced for the exclusion of the Zn group (#10) is based on what is apparently a false premise (as it's refuted elsewhere in the literature). On pragmatic grounds, group 12 in transition metals appears to be simpler and avoids such murky waters. This is substantiated by the fact that the exclusion of the Zn group is generally a phenomenon encountered at or close to the university level, is not even universal there (arguments #3, #4), and that basic things for beginners generally include it (#1, #2, #5). The fact that this was uncontroversial for an amazing fifteen years (#6) on the project, and that IUPAC seems to include the Zn group in the Red Book after paying a little bit of lip service to those who exclude it (#7), suggests to me that we should have left well enough alone. Which is a sentiment expressed by our founder mav way back in 2008 when the group 12 thing was first discussed; since it seems to me that the situation had not changed much in the literature since then, it strikes me that that should perhaps have been the end of it.
And remember, this is just for the beginning periodic table article. We do not need to follow it all the time if we are writing about a topic where the other definition makes things easier: after all, context matters for categorisation. Probably, however, that will be an advanced topic if the literature distribution found by Jensen is anything to go by. I submit that in the beginners' context, including the Zn group as a transition group seems to be the standard way to go. By excluding it three years ago we have opened up a complicated university-level can of worms into an article on a topic often taught to schoolchildren, when the issue at university level is not even fully agreed, and I think that we may have thus done our readers a disservice by introducing that instead of an absolutely standard simplification.
TL;DR summary. Excluding the group 12 elements from transition metals is based on advanced information that I do not think the reader actually needs to know, that this advanced information is not even actually agreed on the advanced sources, and that in general basic-level sources for beginners stick to calling it transition metals as we did from 2002–17. Considering that an average general chemistry book will discuss the different parts of the PT including transition vs main-group elements, I feel that we should follow what even Jensen admits to be a universal in that context.
As Jehochman noted: Keep in mind that any model is inevitably a simplification of reality that spares the reader overwhelming complexity. A central question for each article using the PT is "Who is the audience for this article?" What we often miss at Wikipedia is that for every editor there are hundreds of silent readers. We need to think about what will serve the reader best. Sometimes less complexity is more valuable. We can have daughter articles that go into greater depth. We can provide links to deeper treatments of the topic.
I submit that the place to go into this at greater depth is at the main articles on transition metal, post-transition metal, and group 12 element, and not periodic table.
Double sharp (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Sandbh, R8R, YBG, DePiep, EdChem, and Andrew Davidson: Double sharp (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Compromise 1: other nonmetals + halogen nonmetals
Nonmetal categories
(The anchor for the old thread name, so it still works. Double sharp (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)) Similarly, there may be some grounds for just deciding on other nonmetals and halogen nonmetals and calling it a day there.
- We had other nonmetals from 2002 to 2013, and no one complained too much.
- That's what Britannica does at least for other nonmetals. LANL and ACS are naughty and say "nonmetals" without "other", but an "other" makes that simple and accurate (since halogens and noble gases are nonmetals).
- Britannica, LANL, ACS, and RSC all call out "halogens". I think that strongly suggests that including halogens as a category is the common thing to do and that we should do it somehow. The only difficulty is astatine because it is ambiguous: does being a metal (agreed by RS focusing on it) exclude it from being a halogen? Some think yes, some think no, so "halogen nonmetals" solves the issue. If you think yes, it's pleonastic but not wrong, and if you think no, it becomes actually needed for it to be right. (Besides, when most people think about halogens, eight-hour-half-life astatine is not really on the radar, is it? So if only F-Cl-Br-I are mentioned, perhaps it isn't so bad.)
- Since it appears that most sources for beginners aren't bothering with a special name for H-C-N-O-P-S-Se, perhaps we should not try either. It appears that people generally feel it's too much for beginners. Remember, we're not looking for a perfect category scheme that somehow avoids "other" categories (I have doubts you could make one in the first place although I'm ready to be convinced), but something that is more or less near the centre of what beginners' RS do considering our likely audience, and manages to stay at least not obviously self-contradictory while doing so. [Added later: besides, if you think both that 3 categories are better than 2 and that something should replace other nonmetals, then maybe it is easier to switch them one at a time.]
In the past, judging from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 15#Polonium – metalloid or post-transition metal?, the way we solved these issues was just to post at the talk page, see how the response was, and if no strong objections were raised just carry out and do it without needing to RFC anything. That seems in keeping with how we treat the entire rest of the article: anyone can improve it, there's no need for anyone's changes to go through an RFC if it's not generally felt that they'd be controversial. So I try doing it this way to avoid (1) a bureaucratic logjam and (2) extending the issue when there's the whole rest of the article to work on. If people feel generally OK with it, that's good; if not, then that's also good.
@Sandbh, R8R, YBG, DePiep, EdChem, and Andrew Davidson: Double sharp (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Double sharp: I am rather opposed to the idea. I'm not particularly clinging onto having "reactive nonmetals," and I could live with "other nonmetals." However, I am worried about "halogen nonmetals." As far as I know, it is common to consider halogens either as group 17: fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine (nobody cares about astatine one way or another), or as group 17: fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, and astatine (and maybe even tennessine). Specifically excluding astatine from the set of halogens, when the element is explicitly mentioned, is not common; at least I don't expect those readers before whom we'll be wearing our educator's hats to be familiar with it. Talking about "halogens" is common; talking about "halogen nonmetals" (as opposed to merely "halogens," because we would otherwise use the shorter name) isn't.
- We could do it, and it wouldn't be the end of the world: astatine is a relatively marginal element, and we can talk ourselves into thinking it's okay. But I'd prefer we didn't create such ambiguous categorizations when there is an option not to.--R8R (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- @R8R: Thanks for your comment. Well, I also don't particularly cling to "reactive nonmetals" (I want to ask: reactive relative to what?), and could live with "other nonmetals", so I see we are halfway in agreement. ^_^
- As for the halogens problem: I think the issue is just what you say, that nobody cares about astatine. Indeed the only reason we are in such a bind is that the latest research suggests that At is a metal. If not for that, I think having At under "halogens" alone would satisfy everybody. So I'd ask: even if specifically excluding At is not always a thing, is it not the case that it's practically excluded just because the only halogens anyone gets to play with to a first approximation are the first four? For example Greenwood and Earnshaw spends its halogens chapter almost totally on F, Cl, Br, and I and only covers At in a brief section at the end. And when halogens were covered to me in school, while there were some of the usual questions about predicting properties of At, it really wasn't covered in any detail at all unlike the first four. Finally: it seems common to mark out the halogens in some form, and it's only At not being a nonmetal that makes this difficult. Then I would like to ask: if we agree that astatine is peripheral, then is it really the right order to have problems with At block the reintroduction of halogens? I feel that the commonness of halogens as a category for beginners means that it should come back in some form: if I understand correctly, Sandbh may feel similarly. But if we are going to have halogens back, then there seem to be only two options for At: either it goes under halogens (undermining detailed reports that it is a metal), or it goes under metals and generally doesn't make things too bad because At often gets informally excluded from halogen discussion for beginners anyway. So that's my argument: both treatments have problems, but maybe this has fewer problems.
- I think that suggests that things may not be so bad, and I guess that when you say that we could do it and it wouldn't be the end of the world it means you're willing to talk. But if you're not convinced, it's totally fine. I'd also like to hear from the rest. Double sharp (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- I see. Your logic seemed somewhat strange to me at first, but I think I got it. It appears to me there is a difference in what we seek to prioritize: you seem the want to prioritize categorization of "big" elements first, whereas I'm looking for a self-consistent scheme first. That's why I am trying to get rid of inconsistencies first, and you seek to clarify which elements are big first when there is a potential inconsistency. Both of these approaches are valid, I'm just glad to have figured it out. (IIRC you displayed similar logic when it came to coloring of copernicium.) With this clarification, I believe my position is clear, and I have nothing of substance to add. I'm interested to hear what other editors think on this topic.--R8R (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- @R8R: Yes, your position is clear and you've understood my approach here. (That's generally my approach just for categorisation because I think of that as just a human-made give and take; for the record, I feel differently about layout questions, but you already know that and those issues are frozen.) We can wait and hear from the others indeed. One question, though, is raised by what you've written. You mention getting rid of inconsistencies: do you think that our current scheme with reactive nonmetals, or my proposed one with other and halogen nonmetals, has an inconsistency? And if so, could you briefly explain what inconsistency/ies you see? (Because I'm personally not seeing them.) Double sharp (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- As you know in the past, I have argued vociferously though not effectively against the trifurcation of the nonmetals, but I have now come to believe that the time and energy I spent on that was a total waste. I have a limited amount of time to spend on WP and on ELEM, and I should spend it on things most helpful to readers, and I rather think that article improvement trumps element categorization by orders of magnitude.
- This brings to mind film colorization with Peter Jackson and They Shall Not Grow Old on the one hand – and Ted Turner, Orson Wells, and Citizen Kane on the other. Which should be our model as we take our digital paintbrushes to Dmitri's black-and-white masterpiece? Let us not go the way of acrimony, but rather devote our energy on things of greatest benefit to our readers. YBG (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- @YBG: So...is that a "go ahead", "don't do it", "please please please stop talking about this so we can work on the article", or something else? (Just as not-too-serious characterisations in an attempt to lighten the mood.)
- I only suggested this because both Sandbh and I seemed to be in favour of trifurcating the nonmetals. And since this is one of the issues where we fought the most, I thought that since we both agreed on it we could just do it, really call it a day without people having "and then we're going to change this!!" at the back of our minds, and really focus on the article itself. That was really my worry, that if we stop talking about this one people will still have it in their back of their heads and won't focus effectively on the article like we should, so I wanted to take a leaf from that 2012 thread on polonium and try to resolve it very quickly in a few days and put a result into action and then agree not to talk about it again without any feelings of "the discussion wasn't finished!". If you think we shouldn't be talking about it at all now, that's perfectly fine too; it's just that I don't understand what you're saying. T_T Double sharp (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- I am saying that I have no objection to change or non-change. My preference is to spend the least amount of time at the crossroads and start forthwith down one path or another, provided, of course, that we don't have to retrace our steps in the near future. YBG (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- @YBG: Right, thanks for the clarification. I also want to spend the least amount of time on this as possible, which is why I'm trying to mimic the old Po thread in 2012 that managed to amazingly enough wrap itself up in exactly one week (26 June – 2 July 2012). ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- YBG and Double sharp, remember that the outcome doesn't have to be dichotomous. Yes, we can only represent one way on the PT shown, but that does not preclude a section later showing a different perspective linking to a more detailed discussion in a different article. There is no reason that the halogen article has to start with halogen = group 17 and not address / recognise that more limited sub-sets are used by the terms in certain situations and further down in the article. A general rule need not apply at all times. EdChem (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- @EdChem: Yup, it doesn't have to be. I was speaking only for the "general" situation we're dealing with at the periodic table article and for stuff like infobox templates. Specialised articles need not by any means do the same thing of course, they will do and discuss whatever is more relevant for their contexts. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- YBG and Double sharp, remember that the outcome doesn't have to be dichotomous. Yes, we can only represent one way on the PT shown, but that does not preclude a section later showing a different perspective linking to a more detailed discussion in a different article. There is no reason that the halogen article has to start with halogen = group 17 and not address / recognise that more limited sub-sets are used by the terms in certain situations and further down in the article. A general rule need not apply at all times. EdChem (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- @YBG: Right, thanks for the clarification. I also want to spend the least amount of time on this as possible, which is why I'm trying to mimic the old Po thread in 2012 that managed to amazingly enough wrap itself up in exactly one week (26 June – 2 July 2012). ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- I am saying that I have no objection to change or non-change. My preference is to spend the least amount of time at the crossroads and start forthwith down one path or another, provided, of course, that we don't have to retrace our steps in the near future. YBG (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- @R8R: Yes, your position is clear and you've understood my approach here. (That's generally my approach just for categorisation because I think of that as just a human-made give and take; for the record, I feel differently about layout questions, but you already know that and those issues are frozen.) We can wait and hear from the others indeed. One question, though, is raised by what you've written. You mention getting rid of inconsistencies: do you think that our current scheme with reactive nonmetals, or my proposed one with other and halogen nonmetals, has an inconsistency? And if so, could you briefly explain what inconsistency/ies you see? (Because I'm personally not seeing them.) Double sharp (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- I see. Your logic seemed somewhat strange to me at first, but I think I got it. It appears to me there is a difference in what we seek to prioritize: you seem the want to prioritize categorization of "big" elements first, whereas I'm looking for a self-consistent scheme first. That's why I am trying to get rid of inconsistencies first, and you seek to clarify which elements are big first when there is a potential inconsistency. Both of these approaches are valid, I'm just glad to have figured it out. (IIRC you displayed similar logic when it came to coloring of copernicium.) With this clarification, I believe my position is clear, and I have nothing of substance to add. I'm interested to hear what other editors think on this topic.--R8R (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
@EdChem: Just asking you since you are a chemist: exactly how is astatine's status as a halogen treated in your experience by your colleagues? Is there any difference between views of organic and inorganic chemists? Does anybody really care much (outside I guess the few who work with it, since they probably care)? Have you ever actually gotten to work with astatine or know someone who has? Is it well-known that recent results (both theoretical and empirical) are leaning towards astatine behaving more like a metal than not? And if it is, does anyone think that that has anything to do with whether At is a halogen or not? Thanks for your answers if you decide to give them (since your statement about the group 3 thing at ArbCom was useful). I understand you would prefer to let us decide this among ourselves, but in this case I think any information you would give on this would be useful to let us do that. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Double sharp, I wasn't particularly aware that astatine was coming to be seen more as a metal than a metalloid. I've never worked with it and don't know anyone who has. My guess is that most would view At as a halogen just from being in group 17, but that more as a default that a considered analysis of the term "halogen"... though organic chemists do often limit the term halogen to those typically used. I do know some with strong views on La / Lu, though, but that tends to be inorganic / organometallic chemists who work with lanthanoids. EdChem (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- @EdChem: Ah, so it is my suspicion then: nobody cares much about any of this except those who work with the elements involved. ^_^ Thank you, this helps a lot! Double sharp (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Conclusions
For those who are overwhelmed by the threads.
- Interpersonal conflict DS vs Sandbh is totally resolved and over.[18] Not sure about the other one, but seems to be developing promisingly.
- Argument over La vs Lu placed on freezer until IUPAC says something. DS is happy to have it at La for now, recognising he has made an attempt to change it already and that it has not resulted in a consensus in favour of his preferred Lu. He plans to revisit the situation when IUPAC says something (which based on info from Sandbh will probably start soon, albeit coming in various stages until the final IUPAC decision or lack thereof is made clear), as that will impact the source situation in a way that nothing else probably will . So that argument is settled.
- Remaining categorisation questions raised civilly here and seem very close to being resolved.
- Everyone is working together fine with no need to pass everything to external parties, although occasional questions where outside expertise might be helpful are of course still being brought up.
- Plans have already been set in motion to improve periodic table the article, with EdChem's excellent proposals being kept in mind as a guide.
Hopefully to be updated happily as news to ArbCom members that everything is settled without need for their involvement. Double sharp (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Compromise idea 2: other nonmetals and halogens with At as a halogen?
Here's another possibility: why don't we simply colour astatine as a halogen, with no quibbles about whether or not it is a metal? That agrees with IUPAC, first of all. It also happens to agree with Britannica, LANL, ACS, and RSC.
This is, indeed a more group-like definition of what a halogen is. But it's consistent with what pretty much everybody else is doing, including with tennessine. That makes me think that actually nobody seems to be thinking that the metallic properties in any way block At from also being a halogen, particularly when it does sometimes act like a halogen.
As R8R correctly notes, it is not common to specifically exclude astatine from the halogens. Indeed, as EdChem seems to be suggesting, the majority view among chemists is that astatine is a halogen almost as a default, and that its informal exclusion is not so much due to people having analysed At chemistry and what "halogen" means but more due to people just not caring about it. Perhaps we should follow suit if that is how the literature seems to be, rather than trying to be better than them for an element with a still relatively undeveloped chemistry.
There is a con: doing this means we have to stop with the explicit "umbrella" categories of metals and metalloids and nonmetals. That's because "halogen" no longer implies "nonmetal" (not that it seems to have universally done so in the literature in the first place; maybe for some, by no means for all). So, instead of the legend looking like this:
Metal | Metalloid | Nonmetal | |||||||
Alkali metal | Alkaline earth metal | Lanthanide | Actinide | Transition metal | Post-transition metal | Other nonmetal | Halogen | Noble gas |
it would always look like this:
I think though that this is not a big deal, because the majority of categories still retain "metal" / "metalloid" / "nonmetal" in the name, and because this kind of compact navbox without the umbrella categories is already present in {{Periodic table (navbox)}}
right now. Besides, this reflects actual usage: there is a certain ambivalence about whether "halogen" and "noble gas" imply the whole group or go along with the baggage of nonmetallicity as well, and not a consensus in the literature, so it seems correct to be ambiguous about it when everybody does that. It should be noted after all that Britannica, LANL, ACS, and RSC all call tennessine a halogen too – but (1) we can appeal to IUPAC's written word, and (2) most importantly we have given ourselves an out by having an "unknown chemical properties" category, which no one can deny Ts truly belongs to at the moment even if some definitions might also give it a pass as a halogen! That neatly solves how to deal also with questions about category overlaps: although most sources don't stripe, the result should be OK as long as the element in question is shown in one of the two categories it really fits in.
We thus end up with a totally consistent set of categories: IUPAC is used for the common categories (AM, AEM, Ln, An, TM, halogens, noble gases), with "does it appear in Britannica, RSC, ACS, and LANL" as a hopefully unassailable benchmark for "common" when it comes to beginners' literature. (Admittedly this does mean that group 12 could go either way. I have a thread about that, it is a separate issue.) Then for the region in between; the metalloids are charted by Sandbh's amazing work at lists of metalloids as just the common six, and then the ones to the right are called nonmetals and the ones to the left post-transition metals, which is also common. So everything is well-informed by reliable sources.
So that should reflect the literature situation, in which At is considered a halogen nearly universally, but its status as a metal or a nonmetal is up for debate with most basic treatments thinking of it as a nonmetal like its lighter congeners and most more advanced treatments saying "um, that might not quite be the case for all of its behaviour". Faced with the situation of a poorly understood chemistry and reliable sources still not quite agreeing about whether astatine is a nonmetal, a metalloid, or a metal, the "halogen" category therefore neatly sweeps under the rug the problem of just what happens here, when it is not something the average layman should be too interested in.
As YBG has already made statements about being neutral about whether or not to change, this is mostly meant for consideration by R8R and Sandbh. DePiep may be interested as well.
Illustration:
H | He | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | |||||||||||
Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Nh | Fl | Mc | Lv | Ts | Og | |||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(Avoiding the plurals is also me playing with semantics to be technically correct while being simple. Because if I see a legend saying "halogens", I get the impression that "oh, these are all the halogens". Whereas if it says "halogen", then one can argue "yes, it says these five are halogens, but it doesn't say that these are all of them". Or maybe this is getting a bit too desperately twisty. ^_^)
As a final reiteration of the salient point: this table makes no claim at all about whether astatine is a metal, a metalloid, or a nonmetal. All of that can be discussed in the text where the appropriate context is listed. All this table says about astatine is the incontrovertible fact that it is a halogen. If readers focusing on astatine do not want to read the detailed text about it and assume what is not said here to classify it, then we cannot really stop them from not reading the fine print when the issue is a fine-print one. Double sharp (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- @R8R, Sandbh, and EdChem: Comments requested. Double sharp (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Sandbh
Thank you for your very gracious reference to the lists of metalloids as being amazing.
Considerations
Proposed nonmetal RFC
- I have a good option in the form of the proposed RFC, and I'd be interested to learn of the community's view, including from our colleagues at WP:CHEM.
Metallicity trends
- Having a legend in which the top half shows metal-metalloid-nonmetal is consistent with the L-R progression in metallic character.
- To the extent that we try and follow the literature, I'm uncomfortable with the observation that, according to my (as yet unpublished) COPTIC database, 85% of 62 tables surveyed showed sundry categories (50%) or metals-metalloids-nonmetals (35%).
- In the p-block we can see the progression in nonmetallic to metallic character going down the groups. This progression wholly or partly follows a nonmetal→metalloid→metal trend.
- We know iodine has a metallic appearance under white light; that its crystalline structure resembles that of gallium; that it's a semiconductor (band gap ~1.3 eV); that it's electrical conductivity is better than that of selenium[!]; and that its bonding has some delocalized character. So, it's not surprising astatine has been predicted to be an fcc metal, with the team making this call including the recipient of the 1981 Nobel prize in chemistry. The third author, Ashcroft is a solid state physicist; his textbook on solid-state physics, written with N. David Mermin, is a standard text in the field. We know their Sep 2013 paper has been cited 35 times without dissent.
- For Ts, we note that, "GSI (14 December 2015). "Research Program – Highlights". superheavies.de. GSI. Retrieved 9 November 2016. If this trend were followed, element 117 would likely be a rather volatile metal. Fully relativistic calculations agree with this expectation, however, they are in need of experimental confirmation." Although we have not called Ts yet, and that's fair.
- We can see the same thing happening in the noble gases, with some cationic behaviour by Rn. For Og the speculation is that, unlike the insulating noble gases, it is likely to be a reactive semiconducting metallic-looking solid, with a band gap of 1.5±0.6 eV cf radon 7.1±0.5 eV, and +2 and +4 as its most stable oxidation states.
- To some extent, I think that using "halogen" as a colour-category in a metallicity-based scheme is telling lies to children, so to speak. As opposed to halogen nonmetals which seems like it is plain as day. What is happening in group 17 is not so hard for the general reader (our primary audience) that it needs to be abstracted out of the way. It works OK with using AM and AEM since all the elements involved are metals. It runs into problems in the p-block, with the diagonal appearance of the nonmetal to metal transition. Which does continue into the halogens and the noble gases + Og (solid, reactive).
- The WP table is a metallicity table rather than a groupic table.
ACS, EB, LANL etc tables
- The ACS, EB, LANL, and RSC tables show that categorisation schemes vary, although the broad contours tend to converge, even if they are fuzzy at the boundaries. So there will always be a TM category, even though the L and R boundaries may vary.
- The RSC table is groupic, rather than metallic-nonmetallic progression based. The colour-category scheme of the EB table predates our own WP PT from 2003, and has not been updated in that regard since J J Lagowski (decreased 2014) drew it. The ACS table is more like our table and they show At and Ts as halogens. They also make dubious calls on the status of Cn to Og: they colour Cn as a TM[!] when Cn is more likely to be an insulating nonmetal, and they colour categorise Og as a noble gas! The LANL colour categories have never been updated, since they were first posted prior to the WP PT. For ptable.com it shows astatine as metalloid.
Astatine's category history
- When we changed At from nonmetal to metalloid, there were no complaints. Ditto changing At from metalloid to metal. That's presumably consistent with most chemists not caring since so few would ever get to experiment with At.
- Regardless, astatine will remain, of course, a halogen.
"Textbook errors"
- Astatine raises a question on the reliability of RS. I presume we are all familiar with the idea of textbook errors, which arise from the authors not doing their research. JChemEd ran an extensive series on these for more than ten [!] years.
- Nearly all RS have no idea about At. They copy whatever the other RS say, parrot-like, due to "publish or be damned" and figuring it is not worth the effort to do more research. They ignore relativistic effects, which explain why At is a metal rather than a semi-conducting metalloid, and e.g. the colour of gold, and why Hg is a liquid.
- We do however have the 35 more credible RS who have cited Hermann, Hoffmann, and Ashcroft on At being a metal, once relativistic effects are taken into account.
- That At is expected to be a metal has been around since it was discovered in 1940.
- Siekierski and Burgess (2002) in their short 195 pp book, Concise Chemistry of the Elements, refer to astatine as a metal; Turova (2011), in her 157 pp. book, Inorganic Chemistry in Tables, appears to refer to astatine as a metal (hers is an English translation from Russian, so that's why I say "appears").
Philsophy?
- Perfect is the enemy of good. I feel the general reader could understand the difference between halogen nonmetals and halogen metals, just as there are nonmetals, metalloids, and metals among the pnictogens and chalcogens.
- Oxygen is universally regarded as a chalcogen, as is sulfur. We do not have a chalcogen colour category since that (by itself) is not a metallicity category.
- The astatine gordian knot is not worth the bother.
- I feel At as a halogen does not represents a better solution.
In light of the above considerations I prefer to ascertain the communities' position via the proposed RFC. Sandbh (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your sourced opinion, Sandbh. Personally, I do not agree with your view of the source situation for At as a metal, but I feel that this case is better made at an RFC which I now agree is the better path forward.
- I would nonetheless like to coordinate my proposal of this with yours in some way. To that end, I would like to first hear from R8R what he thinks of this proposal with At as a halogen, since his previous objection was to "halogen nonmetals".
- My current proposals and thoughts are evolving slightly as we discuss these matters, so I would like to request some time before any RFC's launch, and some discussion of exactly how the nonmetal one will go forward. Depending on response from R8R and further discussion with Sandbh regarding how similar our proposals really are, we may have two separate RFC's instead of one. Double sharp (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@Double sharp: I tend to think the non-metal RFC should go ahead. You could vote to keep two categories, and in the discussion section explain your reasoning for doing so, i.e. that you have a separate RFC that you will put, following the nonmetal RFC, should consensus not be established for three categories. That may the easiest way going forward, but let me think about it some more, including your comments and request at my talk page. Sandbh (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response, Sandbh. Now I'll let you think. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@Double sharp: I think the nonmetal RFC should go ahead. Whatever happens, it could be followed at any time by an RFC focusing on the status At. That seems to me to be the cleanest way to proceed.
I support our historical decision to categorise At as a PTM. I haven’t read anything since then that merits revisiting this decision. The formation of a monocation in aqueous solution, without any inordinate difficulty, is a hallmark. Equally, At shows some non-metallic behaviour as could be expected from a PTM.
Astatine could equally have been expected to be a metalloid (i.e. a semiconductor) but for relativistic effects.
Upon reflection, our decision to go two nonmetal categories was less than optimal. I think WP:ELEM members recognised that. But nobody had a better option/s at the time. Now we do, IMHO. --- Sandbh (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: Well, it's not seeming that clean to me anymore, unfortunately. T_T The problem is that the status of astatine impacts exactly what the category is going to be called: "halogen" vs "halogen nonmetals". And that was why R8R opposed Compromise 1, so it is important. As it stands, my proposals are getting further and further away from what you want, unfortunately. That's why I feel like I should try to get mine over with first, because mine is general for a large swath of the PT, and yours is about just the nonmetals; and because mine offers an alternative that is quite different from all of yours for the particular region your proposal is about. So I continue to feel like trying to lump mine and yours together in the same RFC does a disservice to both your proposal and my proposal. But maybe I will ask for some advice.
- P.S. There is indeed strong evidence that some sort of cationic aquated At+ species exists, but its structure is not clear. The two alternatives listed seem to be [At(H2O)]+ (only one solvating water molecule!) and [At(H2O)2]+; if it is the former then there is a real question about whether this should really be considered an "astatine aqua cation" or rather "protonated hypoastatous acid" (which is analogous to what iodine can do!) It also seems that in both cases according to my source the water has the partial positive charge and the astatine has the partial negative charge, thus raising serious questions about whether or not this is truly quite like a "metal" cation. Since the paper on condensed-phase At is only theoretical, I would say that I am not convinced that astatine should really be reported this authoritatively to be a metal. And I say this while continuing to believe in metallic astatine as a hypothesis! Double sharp (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@Double sharp: If consensus is not achieved with the nonmetal rfc, you can follow with an rfc proposing the reintroduction of the halogen category including At. If consensus is achieved with the nonmetal rfc you can follow up with an RFC proposing the reintroduction of the halogen category. I don't expect their would be any drama trimming the "nonmetals" from halogen nonmetals. The nonmetal rfc has sufficient merit by itself. Other rfc(s) of course can be put forward; my feeling is that each deserves their time in the sun, preferably not at the same time.
I'm happy to agree to disagree with you on the status of astatine an fcc metal. Sandbh (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: Well, that's kind of precisely the thing. My RFC is not going to be just about astatine anymore. It is currently planned to be about changing in entirety to the ACS/LANL/2010 scheme (see the bottom of this page), which impacts not just At, but also group 12, Po, and the superheavies. So the issue is separate but overlaps, which is what makes it difficult. That's why I've been asking if you would object strongly if mine comes first, because:
- if yours runs first, and it gains consensus, then mine is left in an awkward position because the issue is separate but overlapping: my proposal is related to the corner you're concerned with but impacts some of the rest of the table as well. So we are left without a clear consensus on the other issues. This becomes difficult unless I offer my scheme as a side one in yours, but then that drags it off your desired topic, also not good.
- if mine runs first, and it gains consensus, then it decides the whole thing, and then there's no such problem: your section (nonmetals) would also have been decided. (If that is not an outcome you like, note that you are perfectly free to oppose my proposal when it runs to preserve the status quo or even support your own split instead; if enough people are convinced to your side that I get no consensus, then you can open your own, and everything works well; and if enough people are convinced to mine that I get consensus, then it basically acts as though I oppose all your options in yours and ask for At in halogens, and enough people are convinced by that.)
- if either of us runs first and don't gain consensus, then of course there is no prejudice against the other running his.
- Because of recent tensions I have been worried about how it would look to do that. However I feel that for this reason it might be simpler if I ran mine first. You are of course perfectly free to oppose mine when it runs, if it runs before yours. ^_^ I would like to ask that we consider it just as a matter of how each one can get its deserved time in the sun most effectively without overlaps. Double sharp (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Double sharp: ack and will take on per your reconsider request. Sandbh (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
R8R
I have to think about it some more, and I'm not ready to give an answer right now. I suspect, however, that even if we remove the metal/nonmetal distinction from the PT, it will still be thought to be somewhere there. It will still look like the categories to the left are metals and to the right are nonmetals, and astatine will still be thought of as a metal. Besides, is removing those two categories, metal and nonmetal, a good thing or is this loss at least outweighed in terms of encyclopedic value by having a new halogen category? I doubt it.
On the other hand, even if it's unprecedented for us to have a category that has both nonmetals and a metal, that's still an interesting category name, and a popular one, too. I need to think whether I can justify having it in our new element system and whether I'll be able to call that scheme consistent. I'm currently leaning no, but your blocks-only proposal also seemed too much to me at first, but I grew to it over time and even wanted to support it had you ended up having an RfC on the matter.--R8R (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- @R8R: Thanks for your opinion, looking forward to your answer. I've been discussing these things somewhat and thinking of them on the grounds of what others here (Andrew D., EdChem, Jehochman, Softlavender) have said, so a compromise 3 should also come shortly. Double sharp (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@R8R: Please take this as superseded by #Compromise idea 3: ACS/LANL/2010. Double sharp (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Untangling element articles
I came upon Wikiproject elements after doing some cleanup on the lithium page, and being struck by the combination of two topics in one. It seems this is quite general to many articles, at least according to a quick scan of the first three rows of the PT.
I recommend that each article be divided into two.
1. New articles entitled, say, Elemental XXX. This article will be in exactly the same form as that recommended for all other chemical compounds in the Manual of Style/Chemistry. After all, elemental forms are only unique chemical compounds in that they only contain one element. No need to treat them differently IMHO.
2. The existing article will have information specific to the chemistry of the elemental form migrated out except where it illustrates the general chemistry of the element.
Looking forward to your reaction to the concept. Please don't bother wordsmithing the two sections below, they serve only to illustrate the principle.
Sections to be migrated out of the article "Lithium"
Infobox lithium:
- Move from Infobox 'Physical Properties' and 'Other Properties'
- Copy from 'History' In 1855, larger quantities of lithium were produced through the electrolysis of lithium chloride by Robert Bunsen and Augustus Matthiessen.[58][72] The discovery of this procedure led to commercial production of lithium in 1923 by the German company Metallgesellschaft AG, which performed an electrolysis of a liquid mixture of lithium chloride and potassium chloride.[58][73][74] to History
- Copy from Chemistry Lithium reacts with water easily, but with noticeably less vigor than other alkali metals. The reaction forms hydrogen gas and lithium hydroxide in aqueous solution.[4] Because of its reactivity with water, lithium is usually stored in a hydrocarbon sealant, often petroleum jelly. Though the heavier alkali metals can be stored in denser substances such as mineral oil, lithium is not dense enough to fully submerge itself in these liquids.[17] In moist air, lithium rapidly tarnishes to form a black coating of lithium hydroxide (LiOH and LiOH·H2O), lithium nitride (Li3N) and lithium carbonate (Li2CO3, the result of a secondary reaction between LiOH and CO2).[40]
When the metal burns strongly, the flame becomes a brilliant silver. Lithium will ignite and burn in oxygen when exposed to water or water vapors.[83] Lithium is flammable, and it is potentially explosive when exposed to air and especially to water, though less so than the other alkali metals. The lithium-water reaction at normal temperatures is brisk but nonviolent because the hydrogen produced does not ignite on its own. As with all alkali metals, lithium fires are difficult to extinguish, requiring dry powder fire extinguishers (Class D type). Lithium is one of the few metals that react with nitrogen under normal conditions.[84][85]
Copy from Military applications Metallic lithium and its complex hydrides, such as Li[AlH4], are used as high-energy additives to rocket propellants.[17]
Move section 'Precautions'
Example New article ("Elemental Lithium")
New article
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ElementalLithium is a metal with the formula Li. It is a soft, silvery-white alkali metal. Under standard conditions, it is the lightest metal and the lightest solid element. Like all alkali metals, lithium is highly reactive and flammable, and must be stored in mineral oil. When cut, it exhibits a metallic luster, but moist air corrodes it quickly to a dull silvery gray, then black tarnish. ProductionLithium metal is produced by electrolytic reduction of lithium chloride ApplicationsElemental lithium has no known industrial uses but it is used a precursor in academic synthetic chemistry. It can appear as an unwanted layer in lithium batteries, and there is much research to develop solid state batteries which could use lithium as cathode. References
External links |
- (end of new article)
--Oldboltonian (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Oldboltonian: Although I have some sympathy to the idea, I am eventually against it. First of all, most general inorganic texts cover the elemental form's properties within the context of a general discussion of the compounds and chemistry (Greenwood & Earnshaw, Holleman & Wiberg), so this would go against a conflation that is perfectly standard in the literature. Second of all, following on from that point, the distinction between an element and a simple substance seems rather better-known in other languages than it really is in English. Third of all, articles on compounds usually discuss their chemical reactions and the results thereof (e.g. sulfuric acid which of course mentions inevitably the sulfate anions), so we can hardly get a clean cut between the simple substance and the element anyway. Last of all the fact that we have been doing things this way since 2002 when the project was founded, combined with the difficulties that I have just described, tells me we should probably leave what has worked well enough for almost two decades alone. But it would be interesting to hear the views of others. Double sharp (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- P.S. The project is also having a few tough times with conflicts. That doesn't mean you can't suggest something now, but I do recommend we all tread a little bit carefully to not ruin a peace that has just been starting to form a few days ago. My sincerest apologies that you had to encounter us at such a terrible time, and my welcome to the project in case you want to stick around. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Article distinction
- What, you think, is the essential separation ground (say, the test question: why does subtopic X belong in article Li/1 or Li/2?). Following, could the titles be like, disambiguated: [Lithium (elemental)], [Lithium (chemistry)], [Lithium in real life], [Lithium (element concept)], [Lithium]. -DePiep (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- pending any other responses as requested by Double sharp, @DePiep: How about: information specific to the elemental form(s) of the element, in particular history, properties, uses (primarily industrial, secondarily academic), and above all hazard data. Otherwise, into the main article as it exists today. Not sure I follow your second question. There would be a lithium article, therein a section 'Compounds and Chemistry', therein a succinct description of the chemistry of its compounds including theelemental form, and a link to main article 'Elemental Lithium'? --Oldboltonian (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- With the reader in mind, I ask the question: what is the separation ground? If you have property X of Li, which check do you perform to decide: should go in article Li-such or in Li-so? Then my 2nd question is: This same separation ground should be understandable from the title (to me, "elemental" is not). In short: If you have two lithium articles, what's their difference? -DePiep (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Good question. For elements that are metals or gases one could add the word 'metal' (I note that you already gave your opinion on the use of the word 'metal' to indicate 'elemental' or 'gas'. For the common allotropes of C and O, these articles aleady exist. But I take your points, DePiep and double sharp, let's let nature take its course here, and where there is enough meat (like the C&O allotropes) there will be a separate article). Still I'd like to see the content around the chemistry and properties of the elemental state grouped together within the articles--Oldboltonian (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- With the reader in mind, I ask the question: what is the separation ground? If you have property X of Li, which check do you perform to decide: should go in article Li-such or in Li-so? Then my 2nd question is: This same separation ground should be understandable from the title (to me, "elemental" is not). In short: If you have two lithium articles, what's their difference? -DePiep (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- pending any other responses as requested by Double sharp, @DePiep: How about: information specific to the elemental form(s) of the element, in particular history, properties, uses (primarily industrial, secondarily academic), and above all hazard data. Otherwise, into the main article as it exists today. Not sure I follow your second question. There would be a lithium article, therein a section 'Compounds and Chemistry', therein a succinct description of the chemistry of its compounds including theelemental form, and a link to main article 'Elemental Lithium'? --Oldboltonian (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Compromise idea 3: ACS/LANL/2010
Idea planned for DS RFC
- NB: Actual RFC draft is at User:Double sharp/Category RFC. The below was just sounding the idea out with R8R first and will not be the actual RFC text! Double sharp (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
(I add this to preserve the previous anchor and to make it clear where this is planned to go.) Double sharp (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC) Here's a third compromise idea (and probably the one I will end up proposing at an RFC): follow the tables of the ACS and LANL in their category boundaries are exactly the same there. In the cases of disagreement of category names (next to the metalloids), simply be neutral and use "other metals" and "other nonmetals" to create a complete return to the version of 2010, before any of us three still discussing this (me, R8R, Sandbh) had ever touched the template.
(Well not quite, because at that point the discovery of Ts had not yet been announced. But I guess that is a side issue.)
H | He | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
K | Ca | Sc | Ti | V | Cr | Mn | Fe | Co | Ni | Cu | Zn | Ga | Ge | As | Se | Br | Kr | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rb | Sr | Y | Zr | Nb | Mo | Tc | Ru | Rh | Pd | Ag | Cd | In | Sn | Sb | Te | I | Xe | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cs | Ba | La | Ce | Pr | Nd | Pm | Sm | Eu | Gd | Tb | Dy | Ho | Er | Tm | Yb | Lu | Hf | Ta | W | Re | Os | Ir | Pt | Au | Hg | Tl | Pb | Bi | Po | At | Rn | ||||||||||
Fr | Ra | Ac | Th | Pa | U | Np | Pu | Am | Cm | Bk | Cf | Es | Fm | Md | No | Lr | Rf | Db | Sg | Bh | Hs | Mt | Ds | Rg | Cn | Nh | Fl | Mc | Lv | Ts | Og | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is also almost exactly the ACS table (except we have "other nonmetal" instead of "nonmetal"; I feel this is justified since noble gases are generally regarded as nonmetals). It is also almost exactly the LANL table (except it has also "post-transition metals" – but there are multiple names for those metals as detailed at Post-transition_metal#Related_groupings, and "post-transition metals" raises unproductive questions about aluminium, so I feel we'd better leave well enough alone). Anyway, the category boundaries are exactly the same there.
I recognise that this is not quite the current table. Scientifically speaking, if we look at the specialised sources, it is true that some elements could be treated better. One can make arguments about polonium and astatine, and also argue about the colouring of the superheavy elements. But:
- The perfect is the enemy of the good, following Andrew D. The proposed version is evidently thought good enough by serious English-language secondary sources (American Chemical Society, Los Alamos National Laboratory)
- The changes from this to the current table seem to have generally been because of elements like astatine where the situation is not well-known, and it seems to me that caring too much about this is not an ideal situation for the readers. That's based on things Jehochman has mentioned on YBG's talk page:
Another way to think of this is that any diagram or table will oversimplify whatever it is representing. Some oversimplify one way, some another. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Imagine you are explaining chemistry to a first year high school student. What do they need to know? Any extra complexity an be explained in the article text (who say this alternative, who says that alternative), or footnotes.
- Jehochman suggested the LANL table as a compromise on the ArbCom request page:
PERIODIC TABLE OF ELEMENTS: LANL - the closest thing to a standard that I can find. This is "A Resource for Elementary, Middle School, and High School Students", which means it should be suitable for a general audience such as Wikipedia readers. If anybody is an advanced chemistry student, they will know where else to look to find more advanced information. ArbCom can't impose a standard, of course. This is a suggestion that might help us all find a path forward from this dispute.
- No one at the basic level we're writing for, apparently, cares that the chemical properties of the heaviest elements are unknown when it comes to colouring them in anyway. According to the 2016 IUPAC recommendations on naming new elements, Ts and Og are in fact new elements of the halogen and noble gas groups. So we already have an official precedent for doing what ACS and LANL do and calling Ts a halogen and Og a noble gas even if their chemistry probably does not match. Do I think this is not a good idea scientifically? Yes, I am quite against it as a matter of opinion, and find it silly to call an element that probably behaves like tin a noble gas. I also find it awkward to colour elements when their chemistry has not yet been investigated. But if the sources do it, I feel that is far more important.
- The group 12 issue is not really a matter of 50-50. Jensen, the source for this assertion in post-transition metals, wrote that it is 50-50 only in "advanced monographs on coordination chemistry and organometallic chemistry". Later he discusses the situation in "general chemistry and lower-level inorganic texts". Then he writes when describing periodic tables with transition and main-group elements distinguished "In all cases, the Zn group was incorrectly labeled as being a member of the d block or transition block". So, although he doesn't like it, it seems that group 12 as transition metals simply overwhelms in basic sources. The exclusion is based on advanced considerations about bonding that don't need to be gone into at this level, and anyway opens some cans of worms with mercury.
- Post-transition metals are explained above. The term isn't IUPAC-approved, there are multiple terms for this part of the periodic table (post-transition metals, poor metals, chemically weak metals, semi-metals, B subgroup metals), and therefore I feel that if "other metals" is good enough for the ACS, it ought to be good enough for us. Anyway it gets rid of tiresome questions about how aluminium can be post-transition when there are literally no transition metals before it.
- This is what we had in 2010 before any of us touched anything, which may be welcome given some statements of Softlavender at the ArbCom case. We had this scheme from 2002 in fact. Presumably, all of us feel that it is not perfect, but there is no consensus in sight for how to improve it. Since we changed it, we've been changing things back and forth every few years, but this remained stable for literally eight years. If you don't count the "uncolouring" of the heaviest elements, then literally ten years. That tells me that this is good enough and therefore I suggest that we stick to it. And since this predates any of us changing things around, I believe this sends a powerful signal that we are willing to drop the matter and stop the arguing, that has been productive at nothing except getting the community annoyed at us.
- To me, all ideas of philosophical consistency pale before (1) following the sources because they don't seem to care about it and (2) ending the issue using extremely common category names.
- Yes, even if we don't say it, it will still look like we have a division into metals-metalloids-nonmetals, and it was still look ike At, Ts, and Og are nonmetals. However, given that experimental results for At are still unclear (At displays both halogenic and metallic properties in experiments), experimental results for Ts and Og are still nonexistent, and the predicted metallicity of these three elements is an entirely theoretical matter at this point, I feel that it is not our place to intervene at this moment, and that the reader will not, in fact, be ill-served. On the contrary, the reader might actually be served well by it, because it will become clear when s/he reads the specific articles that there is some difference between sources in how they use the terms "halogen" and "noble gas" and whether or not they imply an element is a nonmetal. Remember, this is only for a general thing, and in specific cases we do not have to follow it 100%. Just when there are no pressing arguments for a different scheme, as EdChem said above when discussing Compromise 1:
YBG and Double sharp, remember that the outcome doesn't have to be dichotomous. Yes, we can only represent one way on the PT shown, but that does not preclude a section later showing a different perspective linking to a more detailed discussion in a different article. There is no reason that the halogen article has to start with halogen = group 17 and not address / recognise that more limited sub-sets are used by the terms in certain situations and further down in the article. A general rule need not apply at all times.
Given his reaction to colouring At as a halogen above as Compromise 2, I think Sandbh is likely to be against this, but it would be nice to have a confirmation. That being said, this is most likely what I will put forward as an RFC anyway. Obviously, my RFC statement will not be this long, and will simply neutrally suggest this form. So I am mostly looking for R8R's opinion here before I go ahead with an RFC. I would like to ask him to take his time and consider.
Oh, and just to clarify: I still scientifically don't like this scheme very much in how it treats those problematic radioactives near the bottom, and I still think it's not perfect. But I also think that if we don't give way on some things, we will never get any compromise out. If everyone goes for "my way or the highway", this will never end. But hopefully, the gravitas of appealing to ACS and LANL (since IUPAC doesn't, unfortunately for us, have a coloured PT) will mean that the result will be accepted as a permanent status quo. And we may apply this principle to future elements too: follow the sources, and if they want to apply categories by group, we'll do that. 119 will be an alkali metal, 120 will be an alkaline earth metal, 121+ will be superactinides for a while, and hopefully by the time that immensely long series is finally left there will be some consensus on how the periodic table looks like beyond there. I think ACS/LANL can have a chance at stopping the debate, and to support it I have put thoughts of "but this is scientifically wrong, I have specialised sources!" and trying to win aside. It all depends though on the opinions of others here and that of the community when I put this up for RFC. Double sharp (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Aside from the group 12 question, I see three questions here:
- 1) polonium is now a metalloid,
- 2) unknown chemical properties are gone, and
- 3) a new halogen category.
- Here's what I think:
- 1) Why is polonium a metalloid? Is metallicity of polonium being put into question? Or is it an accidental mistake?
- 2) I'm inclined to say we should not recolor those elements whose chemical properties remain unknown; it's not right for us as an encyclopedia (supposedly a collection of firm knowledge) to do so. Saying that flerovium is a metal seems a speculation at this point. While from the educational point of view it doesn't really matter, we're an encyclopedia first and foremost; I'm all for accessibility and education, but they shouldn't compromise our encyclopedic goals.
- 3) If you follow my logic with predicted metallicity, then here's a question. Let's say we color elements 113-116 back to light gray. What do we do with Ts and Og then? If they are also gray, then we have pretty much returned to the previous proposal. If not, this will likely raise questions. Neither solution seems good to me.--R8R (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@Double sharp:--R8R (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- @R8R: It's not a mistake, it's deliberate. Reason being that both LANL and ACS colour polonium as a metalloid, and it can be chemically justified.
- I actually agree with you that it's naughty to colour some of the elements beyond 108. It's speculation indeed. The problem is that nobody seems to care. ACS does it, LANL does it, Britannica does it, RSC does it, PubChem does it (actually uses exactly this scheme). And moreover: is it really accurate to say chemical properties of flerovium are unknown? They are not wholly unknown, some experiments have been done. Only their interpretation is not sure. So "unknown chemical properties" also seem problematic for me for Cn, Nh, and Fl. So either way we have to lie a bit. Either we say Cn is "unknown chemical properties", which doesn't match most general RS, and then walk it back and say "oh, it's not unknown after all"; or we say Cn is a transition metal sort of by fiat, which matches most general RS, and then say that combined results of theory and experiment make it seem possible that actually something different happens. But the latter is cutting-edge stuff (paper published literally last year) and I don't think it should be the first thing we're telling the beginners when that's not the first thing anyone else who hasn't been influenced by us seems to be telling the beginners. We're a collection of knowledge sure, but knowledge in the sense of what RS say. It's WP:VNT after all. If most basic sources say something, even if we know it's simply not true, who are we to go beyond them for a standard simplification, especially when the correct thing is much harder to say?
- Anyway, that's just my view, you can disagree. Thanks for sharing your view, it is as always thought-provoking, but I think this means neither you nor Sandbh are going to convince me otherwise for this one, so I'll start the RFC following advice from Jehochman in probably a few hours (to take my mind off it and then come back for any last-minute things that may become apparent). Double sharp (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think you've got a solid case on your hands. I still think that the present scheme is, in fact, the scheme that does the job and it has the benefit of not raising those little questions (which I consider the most important), go no further. However, there is, without a doubt, good merit in yours, and it's likely to obtain at least some (or quite possibly, a lot of) support. I won't be too disappointed if it is chosen by the community.--R8R (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Right, R8R, thank you so much for your really kind words. I appreciate them a lot. ^_^
- I have consulted Jehochman and EdChem on Jehochman's talk page. The former has already looked at it; the latter plans to. If all goes well, I should be following their advice for RFC drafting, and we should be able to launch soon enough. Like you, I won't be too disappointed if it is not chosen, as I'm not trying to "win" anymore. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- I would also like to ask Sandbh if he is OK with such an RFC (yes or no, supporting or opposing this option) starting within a day or two probably. Double sharp (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think you've got a solid case on your hands. I still think that the present scheme is, in fact, the scheme that does the job and it has the benefit of not raising those little questions (which I consider the most important), go no further. However, there is, without a doubt, good merit in yours, and it's likely to obtain at least some (or quite possibly, a lot of) support. I won't be too disappointed if it is chosen by the community.--R8R (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Double sharp and R8R: In principle, I'm OK with such an RFC, as I am with any RFC. My only request is to proceed with our RFC's in an orderly and cooperative manner. The nonmetal rfc was proposed on 29 Oct. It is now 19 Nov, three weeks later, and has not yet launched.
The nonmetal rfc proposal prompted mention of another five RFCs. That's OK but I do not think proposing an RFC in response to an RFC and asking for the second RFC to then go before the first RFC is a "proper(?)" way to air of treat the merits of the first RFC, unless the proposer of the first RFC agrees, which I don't. So, I politely oppose starting this option before the nonmetal rfc. Sandbh (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your polite opposition, Sandbh. Could I politely ask you to reconsider? I feel that the problem here is that this RFC is about a much more general issue than the first one: for example, yours seems to take trifurcation as implying "halogen nonmetals" gets included, but as can be seen from R8R and I there isn't a consensus for that. At least I would favour trifurcation without "halogen nonmetals", but it is very difficult for me to !vote for that without dragging your RFC off topic into other issues, because it is not one of your options. If you do not wish to reconsider, then the best !vote I can think of that I could put on your RFC that really reflects my position would be along the lines of "oppose all options, as none of the Britannica, RSC, ACS, and LANL uses either 'reactive nonmetal' or 'halogen nonmetal', yet all options presume one of them is included. I intend an RFC on whether to institute the ACS/LANL scheme". But even that seems fairly confrontational in a way that I don't want (because it basically smacks of saying "I don't like this RFC and I'm going to start mine"), and it also drags things off topic because instituting the ACS/LANL scheme as I would really support means revisiting many issues outside the nonmetals.
- Therefore, for the purpose of discussion flow, could I please ask you to reconsider so that we can go from global issues to local issues and avoid this problem? Because if my RFC proceeds first and is rejected, then I no longer have any of this problem because it would mean my preferred option was truly off the table, and I could shift my support to one of your options without any difficulty.
- I would like to ask EdChem and Jehochman for their considerations as well as to the best way to proceed. Double sharp (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@Double sharp: I'll reconsider as per your request. I have a few RL obligations today and cannot predict when I'll be able to get back to you (hopefully later today). Sandbh (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, Sandbh. I've left a note at Jehochman's talk page noting that the discussion is ongoing here firstly. Please take your time. I agree that all of our proposed RFC's have merit; I am simply making my request out of a desire that they proceed in a way that allows the discussion to flow more easily and in a focused manner, making sure any RFC reflects the current variation of options that have reasonable support. I have no strong feelings that my proposed order is the best way to do it; I just feel that such a procedure, no matter how it is attained, would be beneficial, and ask that we work together to find one first of all. Double sharp (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Double sharp: Something you wrote about the silliness of our "unknown chemical properties" category got me thinking. If we changed this to "category unconfirmed" that would address your concern. Astatine could also be shown this way since its fcc metal structure only has the status of a calculated theoretical prediction, albeit with 35 citations. F–I could then be colour-categorised as halogens.
- My only reservation is that a +1 monocation of astatine does exist in aqueous solution in the 1−2 pH range.[19], 55 citations. OTOH nobody seems fussed by the reported cationic behaviour of radon.
- Subject to your thoughts, I doubt this would necessitate an rfc. That is, we could change unknown chemical properties to category unknown; change At to cat. unk.; and F,Br,Cl,I to halogens. And, I suppose, the SeSPONCH nonmetals to other nonmetals, followed by the one voter, many votes rfc to change other nonmetals to one of the 22 other possibilities, of which I guess only a half-dozen or so are prospects.
- --- Sandbh (talk) 11:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: (edit conflict) I've considered what you're saying. It is a good idea, and I would definitely move my support to it provided my current idea doesn't get support. (And if so group 12 would probably be brought up later and afterwards separately.) After all, there are some discussions about At along the lines of "is it more like a halogen or more like a metal", so we're technically not wrong there either.
- But, my main concern with the "unknown chemical properties" thing is not so much what you've mentioned: that was a secondary thing. It is rather that the big names (LANL, RSC, ACS, Britannica, PubChem) don't seem terribly fussed about the lack of chemical studies and colour things in anyway, and that even IUPAC seems to be referring to Ts and Og as members of the halogen and noble gas groups even though their chemistry is probably not going to be anything like that of a normal halogen and noble gas. And that to me is a somewhat convincing argument. You don't have to be convinced by it yourself, but if R8R also thinks the idea has merit and there's a solid case while disagreeing, then it seems to me that I should bring it up for community consensus. We all seem to think each other have plausible cases, arguing won't move anyone, but trying to get a community consensus will let the community decide. But, for the above reasons, I think this is more difficult if the RFC for this scheme doesn't go first. It's not important to me if it gets up or if it crashes and burns; what's important to me is that this idea and the short argument for it be considered by the community.
- Therefore, I apologise, but I still have to reiterate my earlier request for an RFC for this one to go first. If it doesn't pass, then I'll indeed have no problems supporting "category unknown" with astatine also included, F-Cl-Br-I "halogens", H-C-N-O-P-S-Se "other nonmetals". Double sharp (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Double sharp: I'll sleep on it. Sandbh (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: No problem. Have a good night! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Double sharp: I'll sleep on it. Sandbh (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Update: no, I can't currently bring myself to support At outside halogens if halogens is a category. That's just because almost all authors who use halogens as a category include it. If my proposal fails, then yes, I will think about it. Double sharp (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
An attempt to clarify
The following is addressed to Sandbh in a spirit of trying to resolve this issue agreeably. Double sharp (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't feel that this compromise is dragging multiple issues into one. On the contrary, I see it as a single issue on how policy is interpreted to apply to this case. To that end I will therefore first explain slightly more briefly why I am supporting the ACS/LANL/2010 option. Basically: there are lots of categories – but when it comes to colouring the PT, quite a few things seem to be generally agreed, such as AM/AEM/Ln/An/TM/halogens/noble gases with what happens in the middle iffy. In particular, it seems nearly universal for beginning texts to take group 12 as part of TM and to have halogens as a category with astatine (and probably now even tennessine) as a part of them. When there is disagreement like in the region between TMs and halogens + H: it may be due to textbook errors, or it may be due to different contexts. But then I feel like while following one source is OK (since the others are usually very close), weighing up the sources ourselves for iffy elements and producing something that none of a whole bunch of common sources do (including an "unknown" category or either removing halogens or removing At and Ts from them) just trips my OR/SYNTH meter.
So it's not about dragging three issues (group 12, Po/At/superheavies, category names) into one. Rather it is about one issue: does the community agree with my interpretation of how policy applies to this issue, or not. It's very possible that my interpretation is not the community-supported one, in which case I will of course change it to conform to the community's. However, that will remain to be seen by the community. Considering the nature of this rationale, I feel that if your RFC starts first, I don't have a good option on how to !vote. If I honestly state my preference, I drag the scope beyond nonmetals alone and into the whole table, precisely because the nature of my argumentation for supporting this makes it an "all or nothing". If you are OK with such a !vote appearing on your RFC, despite it dragging the topic open that way, then there is no problem. (When I say OK with it, I mean obviously whether you think it conforms to the process to !vote that way; obviously, as is your right, you would probably not support it, but that's not the point.) But if you are not OK with such a thing, but you still go first, then I feel we end up at an impasse where I cannot honestly !vote for my preference. Forcing group 12, polonium, and the superheavies outside the scope of an RFC means that I cannot !vote honestly for my preference, because my argument simply doesn't work for changing just the nonmetals only. It's about following categorisation boundaries wholesale and so it only works if you change everything at once. Which is why I feel we need an RFC to see if there is consensus on those issues one way or the other first. If there is in favour of the logic that leads to ACS/LANL/2010; then we're done. If there isn't; then I see consensus is not for that logic, so I change my policy interpretation in accordance with it and seek something else, in which case I can quite likely !vote for one of the options on your RFC. But not yet, which is the problem.
If a way can be found in which I can make an honest !vote given my current justification, then all my objections evaporate, of course. But I can't think of a way of doing it without either not being honest about what my argument leads to or going off-topic. Whereas you could easily respond to my RFC proposing anything you want, because mine is about colouring the whole table and therefore none of what you're suggesting would ever go off-topic. You could write in any option you want, really. You could for example !vote for one of your preferred trifurcation options, maybe with your preferred option replacing "other nonmetals", or maybe with "other nonmetals" first with an eye to another RFC to see if it should be changed. All that seems to work and I would not consider it off-topic at all.
I hope we can resolve this amicably between ourselves. I note that you said at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#Discussion_4 the following text: That said, anyone can put an RFC at any time.
(13 Nov) That makes me encouraged that we can agree on something, although I have no intention to start an RFC unilaterally if you don't agree. So: given that my previous RFC didn't even last 24 hours (started 20 Jul, withdrawn by myself 21 Jul even if it wasn't formally closed till 6 Aug, so I've barely used any RFC air time in the first place; you won't find any comments there after 21 Jul apart from the closer), and given the asymmetrical nature of the problem (I can't seem to !vote honestly on your RFC without going off-topic, but you can do so on mine), could I please ask for your agreement to allow mine to go first? If you say no this time, I'll accept it and try to somehow find another way, but for now my request stands.
(And to make it clear by repetition: if you don't agree, I have no intention to start mine unilaterally. I would want to consult EdChem for advice, but I do not wish to do anything to jeopardise the current peace.)
P.S. I agree that the way the ACS/LANL/2010 scheme colours the heaviest elements sucks scientifically, that it is stuck in a weird limbo between being a metallicity and a groupic table, and that polonium is better regarded as a metal without any qualification, so I would like to ask in good spirit that people do not try to convince me of what I am convinced by already. ^_^ I am supporting it for other reasons, which is that the tables of PubChem/ACS/LANL all seem to care about none of those issues and therefore that I am not convinced we should either. Please understand that my support of something for WP does not imply my personal support of it. For another example, I know R8R and I support Lu personally if you asked us what we thought was the better form, but I know he thinks and he has convinced me that for now WP should show La pending the outcome of the IUPAC project. But, again, that doesn't mean either of us personally support it and would show it if we were writing about periodicity outside WP: we wouldn't. Double sharp (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Double sharp: I'll reply at my talk page, with a ping of course, Sandbh (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Double sharp and Sandbh:, this thread for archive? -DePiep (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Book chapter: Why don’t we really teach about the periodic table?
- Rayner-Canham G 2020, Advances in teaching inorganic chemistry, vol. 2: Laboratory enrichment and faculty community, Chapter 6, pp 69–77, ACS Symposium Series, vol. 1371 doi:10.1021/bk-2020-1371.ch006
From the intro:
- "We lie to students. Such lies are often justified by saying that we are “simplifying” the topic. But in the process of simplifying, are we hiding the fascinating “messiness” of the periodic table? In this chapter, I focus on two facets of the periodic table. First, that richness, complexities, and controversies, should be highlighted in our teaching. Second, that terminology, sometimes used inconsistently or ambiguously, needs unambiguous definitions to give to our students. In the first half of this discourse, four of the many issues will be addressed; others are addressed elsewhere [20], particularly the very divisive issue of the lower members of Group 3 [21]."
Rayner-Canham covers the placement of H; do we overdo group trends; do we underdo other trends; and where do the early actinoids belong? --- Sandbh (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sandbh I read some of it, it was fascinating. I have to admit however that I do not think his proposed solution to group 3 (sometimes Lu, sometimes a gap before Lu, sometimes a gap) will actually stop the issue from being divisive, on the grounds that the current compromise IUPAC table with a gap below Y has been around for decades and if anything the debate actually got more divisive since it came out. So I will continue to wait for IUPAC. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 12:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Double sharp: R-C does not discuss a proposed solution to group 3 in this chapter, aside from citing my FoC article. Are you referring to something else? Sandbh (talk) 09:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: Yes, your second link [22]. Sorry for not making it clear that I meant that one when I said I'd read it. I haven't been able to read this first one yet. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Double sharp, in this context, is the German periodic table p-block worth revisiting? Their colour category treatment of Ge, Sb, Se, Po, and At is interesting. They are for sure not telling lies to children. Sandbh (talk) 11:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Sandbh:, my concern is not about telling lies to children, but rather about following the sources. I don't see any significant sources in English doing this sort of striping, so I do not feel we should do it. The source situation may be different between English and German: I have not checked because I'm not an active editor on German Wikipedia and therefore I'm not involved in checking if their content is supported by their literature situation.
Again, please understand that when I support ACS/LANL/2010 for WP, I mean that I think it best reflects the coloured-tables literature to do so, not that I think the colouring is all that great personally. There are a number of things like that on WP, where I currently support the WP table showing He in group 18 and La in group 3 on the grounds of most of the literature saying that, even though if you asked me personally my viewpoint is that both are serious mistakes. And that's why my current opinion for WP is that group 3 should not be revisited until we hear from IUPAC, not because I feel that would impact the scientific situation (it might if new arguments are presented, but that's not my main point) but because I feel that would impact the source situation that matters for WP. About the same thing goes for calling Ts a halogen and Og a noble gas from my perspective: I don't like it, if I was writing outside WP I'd probably call it a serious mistake as well, but I feel it's not WP's place to say it if most sources are doing it anyway. Similarly I think of the whole metalloid-line problem as an issue of an "original sin" of not clearly stating definitions, and would favour giving the children the physical-based definition "a metallic element has to have a Fermi surface in all stable or metastable allotropes at standard conditions" which mostly matches the chemistry (and then the metal-nonmetal dividing line runs between Be and B, between Al and Si, between Ga and Ge, between Sb and Te, probably between At and Rn, and in the 7th period everything is a metal but Cn and Og probably). I feel it makes sense because "metal" seems to have started as a physical term according to Origin and use of the term metalloid which you wrote, most people are more familiar with the physical idea of a metal than the chemical one (K is by far a stronger metal chemically than Au, yet the latter is for everyone the king of metals, and the former was found so weird it was sometimes called a "metalloid"!) and the chemistry just mostly correlates because the same thing of easily mobile electrons is behind both (though the correlation is not perfect). And I'd do that if I were writing some sort of text on periodicity. But again, to a first approximation people don't do that, there's no clear consensus definition in the literature, and so I feel my personal preference here means nothing for WP no matter how persuasive I find my own argument. So, I've listed three issues, containing a mixture of agreement and disagreement with your view, where I have a personal view and don't advocate it for WP because I don't feel the current source situation supports it. The fact that you probably have a different preference for some of this is for me further proof that trying to analyse the sources ourselves for some sort of scientific correctness is not the way to go; because of differing philosophies, some arguments of mine won't be found convincing by you, the same goes the other way, and nothing can get done that way for an encyclopaedia. There we have to present the views in the literature given their weight there; each following our own philosophy is something that only works if we write a separate monograph each, which isn't what we're doing here. That's why I feel that this sort of thing should be left to monographs and papers, leaving encyclopaedias to just describe the majority situation first even if we both agree that it sucks and there's some minority situation around that is better; I feel that's consistent with WP:DUE anyway. In other words: if most of the sources are lying to children, then I feel it is our duty to be following that even if mentally I cannot help but protest. You don't have to agree, but I'd ask that you understand where I'm coming from. And please don't try to convince me that the lying to children is bad; you'd first of all be trying to convince me of something I'm already convinced by, and second of all not be addressing my actual argument and therefore probably not manage to change my mind. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- P.S. A table drawn according to how I would prefer if I was writing outside WP can be found at User:Double sharp/Template Periodic table. I hope its drastic difference from everything I am proposing for WP makes my view above clear. I wish to also make clear that while I personally, speaking with the scientist/educator's hat on, think this is the best way to go; putting my encyclopaedist's hat on, I have precisely zero intention of proposing that as a general WP table; and if it appears somewhere, it will only be in something off-WP which I, or perhaps I and somebody else, write in the future. And even then I would not propose it for the WP general table, despite my personal belief in its superiority, unless most people adopt it – which, even if it does happen, will probably take a long while. I hope that clarifies what I've said above. Though maybe it would be a good and fun exercise for everyone here to draw the PT to personal inclinations once, just to see how great the differences are and why I feel that the best way forward is to unquestioningly adopt something common in the literature rather than seeking to create something better by analysing it ourselves. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Double sharp, A picture is just a form of words. No doubt you'd've heard the expression, "A picture is worth a thousand words?" The p-block in the German PT picture is probably the most representative of the entire English RS literature. How do you see this now?
- On lies to children I suggest this is a question of the quality of RS. Very crudely, there are: 3. less RS; 2. RS; and 1. "top-tier" RS, with reputation. Lies to children (ltc) RS fall between tiers 3 and 2. There's no need to necessarily rely on ltc-RS, since plenty of RS and top-tier RS are available. Indeed. a theme of distinguishing RS based on e.g. publisher reputation, author reputation, age of publication, etc pervades WP:RS.
- Sandbh (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well, Sandbh, I understand that there may be a difficulty when it comes to the difference between what exactly is the best that can be shown from sources (e.g. for the superheavies), and what individual sources say, and I confess I am not sure what I believe in here anymore. I am also unsure if I really feel strongly for any of the schemes in particular in the first place as opposed to others at the moment. For the time being, I'd say you can go ahead with your RFC, because I feel like I have to think about this and what I feel should be there in WP. To edit effectively, I think I do need to to some extent believe that what I'm doing is the best path for creating an encyclopaedia, and frankly I'm not sure exactly what is at the moment. So I'm also not sure if I should set something before the community to pass judgement on if I only half-heartedly believe in it myself. I will have to think about it. Maybe go on semi-wikibreak mode to do so, hopefully with no hard feelings attached since we resolved all mutual issues.
- (That being said: if your RFC is planned to be as at User:Sandbh/Nonmetal rfc, then I suggest you consider removing the "Aim" section. Reason being that it makes the thing look not quite neutral by arguing against "reactive nonmetals". Feel free to take or ignore this advice as you see fit, of course. ^_^) Double sharp (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
- Double sharp, righto. No hard feelings whatsoever. The discussion has been engrossing. I'll have a look at the aim section. Maybe rewrite it into a context section. Not sure yet. Sandbh (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for emailing me the article, Sandbh. Since a significant part of this seems to be about what is over- or under-emphasised in the literature, I guess I will not comment about it much for WP coverage of the periodic table in that overview article, but it is interesting and could maybe be used to cite a couple of warning examples that the typical trends are not as straight as the ones typically chosen (maybe good for a footnote there). I also like his classification of Sb as a metal rather than a metalloid, but only personally, since most people still include it. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Uniform structure of articles
In spite of there being a recommended structure for articles on the project page, adherence to the proposed structure is quite patchy (see table below, analysis just the first 3 rows of the PT. Any energy for editing towards some uniformity?
' | ' | ' | 1 | ' | 2 | ' | 3 | ' | 4 | ' | 5 | ' | 6 | ' | 7 | ' | 8 | ' | 9 | ' | 10 | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' | ' |
H | He | Li | Be | B | C | N | O | F | Ne | Na | Mg | Al | Si | P | S | Cl | Ar | ||||||||||||||||||||
pageviews 30 days to 16nov20 (k) | 100 | 57 | 64 | 33 | 41 | 80 | 67 | 92 | 37 | 34 | 68 | 76 | 98 | 61 | 57 | 68 | 57 | 57 | |||||||||||||||||||
cpd article | cat | Helium compounds | no | no | cat | Compounds of carbon | no | Compounds of oxygen | Compounds of fluorine | Neon compounds | cat | no | no | no | cat (and cat for minerals) | cat | no | Argon compounds | |||||||||||||||||||
recommended section number | actual section number | This article is about structural chemistry of the compounds of fluorine. For applications and other aspects, see Fluorine. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | Characteristics | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.1 | Physical | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.2 | Chemical | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.3 | Isotopes | 1.6 | 2.4 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 3.3 | 1.3 | 2.2 | 2.4 | 1.4 | 2 | 1.2 | 2.3 | 1.1 | 2.2 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 2.1 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||
1.4 | Occurrence | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Production | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Compounds | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | History | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||
5 | Applications | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Biological role | 6 (reactions) | 7 | no | 6 | no (!) | no (?) | 3 | 8 | no | 7 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | no | |||||||||||||||||||
7 | Precautions | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | Notes | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | References | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | Bibliography | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | Reference data pages | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11.1 | Previous data sources | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | Color standards | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
13 | Category | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
13.1 | Usage | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
13.2 | Earlier category scheme | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
13.3 | Categories, reduced set | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14 | Blocks | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
15 | State of matter, Occurrence | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
16 | Locator map image | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
17 | Notes | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Actual TOCs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | Properties | 1 | History | 1 | Properties | 1 | Characteristics | 1 | History | 1 | Characteristics | 1 | History | 1 | History | 1 | Characteristics | 1 | History | 1 | Characteristics | 1 | Characteristics | 1 | Physical characteristics | 1 | History | 1 | Characteristics | 1 | Characteristics | 1 | History | 1 | Characteristics | ||
1.1 | Combustion | 1.1 | Scientific discoveries | 1.1 | Atomic and physical | 1.1 | Physical properties | 2 | Preparation of elemental boron in the laboratory | 1.1 | Allotropes | 2 | Properties | 1.1 | Early experiments | 1.1 | Electron configuration | 2 | Isotopes | 1.1 | Physical | 1.1 | Physical properties | 1.1 | Isotopes | 1.1 | Discovery | 1.1 | Allotropes | 1.1 | Physical properties | 2 | Properties | 2 | History | ||
01.01.01 | Flame | 1.2 | Extraction and use | 1.2 | Isotopes | 1.2 | Nuclear properties | 3 | Characteristics | 1.2 | Occurrence | 2.1 | Atomic | 1.2 | Phlogiston theory | 1.2 | Reactivity | 3 | Characteristics | 1.2 | Isotopes | 1.2 | Chemical properties | 1.2 | Electron shell | 1.2 | Silicon semiconductors | 1.2 | Chemiluminescence | 1.2 | Chemical properties | 2.1 | Isotopes | 3 | Occurrence | ||
01.01.02 | Reactants | 2 | Characteristics | 2 | Occurrence | 1.3 | Optical Properties | 3.1 | Allotropes | 1.3 | Isotopes | 2.2 | Isotopes | 1.3 | Discovery | 1.3 | Phases | 4 | Occurrence | 2 | Chemistry | 1.3 | Occurrence | 1.3 | Bulk | 1.3 | Silicon Age | 1.3 | Isotopes | 1.3 | Isotopes | 3 | Chemistry and compounds | 4 | Isotopes | ||
1.2 | Electron energy levels | 2.1 | The helium atom | 2.1 | Astronomical | 1.4 | Isotopes and nucleosynthesis | 3.2 | Chemistry of the element | 1.4 | Formation in stars | 3 | Chemistry and compounds | 1.4 | Lavoisier's contribution | 1.4 | Isotopes | 5 | Chemistry | 2.1 | Salts and oxides | 2 | Forms | 2 | Chemistry | 2 | Characteristics | 2 | Occurrence | 1.4 | Natural occurrence | 3.1 | Hydrogen chloride | 5 | Compounds | ||
1.3 | Elemental molecular forms | 02.01.01 | Helium in quantum mechanics | 2.2 | Terrestrial | 1.5 | Occurrence | 03.02.01 | Atomic structure | 1.5 | Carbon cycle | 3.1 | Allotropes | 1.5 | Later history | 2 | Occurrence | 6 | Applications | 2.2 | Aqueous solutions | 2.1 | Alloys | 2.1 | Inorganic compounds | 2.1 | Physical and atomic | 2.1 | Universe | 2 | Compounds | 3.2 | Other binary chlorides | 6 | Production | ||
1.4 | Phases | 02.01.02 | The related stability of the helium-4 nucleus and electron shell | 2.3 | Biological | 2 | Production | 03.02.02 | Chemical compounds | 2 | Compounds | 3.2 | Dinitrogen complexes | 2 | Characteristics | 2.1 | Universe | 7 | See also | 2.3 | Electrides and sodides | 2.2 | Compounds | 2.2 | Organoaluminium compounds and related hydrides | 02.01.01 | Electrical | 2.2 | Crust and organic sources | 2.1 | Allotropes | 3.3 | Polychlorine compounds | 6.1 | Industrial | ||
1.5 | Compounds | 2.2 | Gas and plasma phases | 3 | History | 3 | Chemical properties | 3.2.2.1 | Organoboron chemistry | 2.1 | Organic compounds | 3.3 | Nitrides, azides, and nitrido complexes | 2.1 | Properties and molecular structure | 2.2 | Earth | 8 | References | 2.4 | Organosodium compounds | 2.3 | Isotopes | 3 | Natural occurrence | 02.01.02 | Crystal structure | 3 | Compounds | 2.2 | Polycations and polyanions | 3.4 | Chlorine fluorides | 6.2 | In radioactive decays | ||
01.05.01 | Covalent and organic compounds | 2.3 | Liquid helium | 4 | Chemistry and compounds | 3.1 | Organic chemistry | 3.2.2.2 | Compounds of B(I) and B(II) | 2.2 | Inorganic compounds | 3.4 | Hydrides | 2.2 | Allotropes | 3 | History | 9 | External links | 2.5 | Intermetallic compounds | 3 | Production | 3.1 | In space | 2.2 | Isotopes | 3.1 | Phosphorus(V) | 2.3 | Sulfides | 3.5 | Chlorine oxides | 7 | Applications | ||
01.05.02 | Hydrides | 02.03.01 | Helium I | 4.1 | Organic chemistry | 4 | History | 3.3 | Isotopes | 2.3 | Organometallic compounds | 3.5 | Halides and oxohalides | 2.3 | Physical properties | 3.1 | Early discoveries | 3 | History | 4 | History | 3.2 | On Earth | 3 | Chemistry and compounds | 3.2 | Phosphorus(III) | 2.4 | Oxides, oxoacids, and oxoanions | 3.6 | Chlorine oxoacids and oxyanions | 7.1 | Industrial processes | ||||
01.05.03 | Protons and acids | 02.03.02 | Helium II | 5 | Production | 4.1 | Etymology | 03.03.01 | Commercial isotope enrichment | 3 | History and etymology | 3.6 | Oxides | 2.4 | Isotopes and stellar origin | 3.2 | Isolation | 4 | Occurrence | 5 | Uses as a metal | 4 | History | 3.1 | Silicides | 3.3 | Phosphorus(I) and phosphorus(II) | 2.5 | Halides and oxyhalides | 3.7 | Organochlorine compounds | 7.2 | Scientific research | ||||
01.05.04 | Atomic hydrogen | 2.4 | Isotopes | 5.1 | Reserves | 5 | Applications | 03.03.02 | Enriched boron (boron-10) | 4 | Production | 3.7 | Oxoacids, oxoanions, and oxoacid salts | 2.5 | Occurrence | 3.3 | Later uses | 4.1 | Astronomical observations | 5.1 | Aircraft | 5 | Etymology | 3.2 | Silanes | 3.4 | Phosphides and phosphines | 2.6 | Pnictides | 4 | Occurrence and production | 7.3 | Preservative | ||||
1.6 | Isotopes | 3 | Compounds | 5.2 | Pricing | 5.1 | Radiation windows | 03.03.03 | Depleted boron (boron-11) | 4.1 | Graphite | 3.8 | Organic nitrogen compounds | 2.6 | Analysis | 4 | Compounds | 5 | Commercial production | 5.2 | Automotive | 5.1 | Coinage | 3.3 | Halides | 3.5 | Oxoacids | 2.7 | Metal sulfides | 5 | Applications | 7.4 | Laboratory equipment | ||||
2 | History | 4 | Occurrence and production | 5.3 | Extraction | 5.2 | Mechanical applications | 3.3.3.1 | Radiation-hardened semiconductors | 4.2 | Diamond | 4 | Occurrence | 3 | Biological role of O2 | 4.1 | Metals | 6 | Uses | 5.3 | Electronics | 5.2 | Spelling | 3.4 | Silica | 3.6 | Nitrides | 2.8 | Organic compounds | 5.1 | Sanitation, disinfection, and antisepsis | 7.5 | Medical use | ||||
2.1 | Discovery and use | 4.1 | Natural abundance | 5.4 | Investment | 5.3 | Mirrors | 3.3.3.2 | Proton-boron fusion | 5 | Applications | 5 | Production | 3.1 | Photosynthesis and respiration | 4.2 | Hydrogen | 6.1 | Heat transfer | 5.4 | Other | 6 | Production and refinement | 3.5 | Silicic acids | 3.7 | Sulfides | 3 | History | 05.01.01 | Combating putrefaction | 7.6 | Lighting | ||||
2.2 | Role in quantum theory | 4.2 | Modern extraction and distribution | 6 | Applications | 5.4 | Magnetic applications | 03.03.04 | NMR spectroscopy | 5.1 | Diamonds | 6 | Applications | 3.2 | Living organisms | 4.3 | Other reactive nonmetals | 7 | Biological role | 5.5 | Safety precautions | 6.1 | Bayer process | 3.6 | Silicate minerals | 3.8 | Organophosphorus compounds | 3.1 | Antiquity | 05.01.02 | Disinfection | 7.7 | Miscellaneous uses | ||||
3 | Cosmic prevalence and distribution | 4.3 | Conservation advocates | 6.1 | Ceramics and glass | 5.5 | Nuclear applications | 3.4 | Occurrence | 6 | Precautions | 6.1 | Gas | 3.3 | Build-up in the atmosphere | 4.4 | Noble gases | 7.1 | Biological role in humans | 6 | Useful compounds | 6.2 | Hall–Héroult process | 3.7 | Other inorganic compounds | 4 | History | 3.2 | Modern times | 05.01.03 | Semmelweis and experiments with antisepsis | 8 | Safety | ||||
3.1 | States | 5 | Applications | 6.2 | Electrical and electronics | 5.6 | Acoustics | 4 | Production | 7 | See also | 6.2 | Liquid | 4 | Industrial production | 4.5 | Organic compounds | 07.01.01 | Nutrition | 7 | Biological roles | 6.3 | Recycling | 3.8 | Organosilicon compounds | 4.1 | Etymology | 3.3 | Spelling and etymology | 05.01.04 | Public sanitation | 9 | See also | ||||
4 | Production | 5.1 | Controlled atmospheres | 6.3 | Lubricating greases | 5.7 | Electronic | 4.1 | Market trend | 8 | References | 7 | Safety | 5 | Storage | 5 | Production | 7.1.1.1 | Diet | 7.1 | Mechanism of action | 7 | Applications | 3.9 | Silicone polymers | 4.2 | Discovery | 4 | Production | 5.2 | Use as a weapon | 10 | References | ||||
4.1 | Electrolysis of water | 5.2 | Gas tungsten arc welding | 6.4 | Metallurgy | 5.8 | Healthcare | 5 | Applications | 9 | Bibliography | 7.1 | Gas | 6 | Applications | 5.1 | Industrial routes to F2 | 7.1.1.2 | Dietary recommendations | 7.2 | Nutrition | 7.1 | Metal | 4 | Occurrence | 4.3 | Bone ash and guano | 5 | Applications | 05.02.01 | World War I | 11 | Further reading | ||||
4.2 | Steam reforming (industrial method) | 5.3 | Minor uses | 6.5 | Silicon nano-welding | 6 | Occupational safety and health | 5.1 | Elemental boron fiber | 10 | External links | 7.2 | Liquid | 6.1 | Medical | 5.2 | Laboratory routes | 07.01.02 | Health | 7.3 | Metabolism | 7.2 | Compounds | 5 | Production | 4.4 | Phosphate rock | 5.1 | Sulfuric acid | 05.02.02 | Iraq | 12 | External links | ||||
4.3 | Methane pyrolysis (industrial method) | 05.03.01 | Industrial leak detection | 6.6 | Other chemical and industrial uses | 7 | Precautions | 5.2 | Boronated fiberglass | 7.3 | Oxygen Deficiency Monitors | 6.2 | Life support and recreational use | 6 | Industrial applications | 7.2 | Biological role in plants | 7.4 | Detection in serum and plasma | 8 | Biology | 6 | Applications | 4.5 | Incendiaries | 5.2 | Other important sulfur chemistry | 05.02.03 | Syria | ||||||||
4.4 | Metal-acid | 05.03.02 | Flight | 6.7 | Nuclear | 8 | References | 5.3 | Borosilicate glass | 8 | See also | 6.3 | Industrial | 6.1 | Inorganic fluorides | 8 | Safety and precautions | 7.5 | Deficiency | 8.1 | Toxicity | 6.1 | Compounds | 5 | Production | 5.3 | Fertilizer | 6 | Biological role | ||||||||
4.5 | Thermochemical | 05.03.03 | Minor commercial and recreational uses | 6.8 | Medicine | 9 | Cited sources | 5.4 | Boron carbide ceramic | 9 | References | 7 | Compounds | 6.2 | Organic fluorides | 9 | See also | 7.6 | Therapy | 8.2 | Effects | 6.2 | Alloys | 5.1 | Peak phosphorus | 5.4 | Fine chemicals | 7 | Hazards | ||||||||
4.6 | Serpentinization reaction | 05.03.04 | Scientific uses | 7 | Biological role | 10 | Further reading | 5.5 | High-hardness and abrasive compounds | 10 | Bibliography | 7.1 | Oxides and other inorganic compounds | 7 | Medicinal applications | 10 | References | 7.7 | Overdose | 8.3 | Exposure routes | 6.3 | Electronics | 5.2 | Elemental phosphorus | 5.5 | Fungicide and pesticide | 7.1 | Chlorine-induced cracking in structural materials | ||||||||
5 | Applications | 05.03.05 | Medical uses | 8 | Precautions | 11 | External links | 5.6 | Metallurgy | 11 | External links | 7.2 | Organic compounds | 7.1 | Dental care | 11 | Bibliography | 7.8 | Function in plants | 8.4 | Treatment | 6.4 | Quantum dots | 6 | Applications | 5.6 | Bactericide in winemaking and food preservation | 7.2 | Chlorine-iron fire | ||||||||
5.1 | Petrochemical industry | 6 | As a contaminant | 9 | See also | 5.7 | Detergent formulations and bleaching agents | 8 | Safety and precautions | 7.2 | Pharmaceuticals | 12 | External links | 8 | See also | 9 | Environmental effects | 7 | Biological role | 6.1 | Fertiliser | 5.7 | Pharmaceuticals | 8 | See also | ||||||||||||
5.2 | Hydrogenation | 7 | Inhalation and safety | 10 | Notes | 5.8 | Insecticides | 8.1 | Toxicity | 7.3 | PET scanning | 9 | References | 10 | See also | 7.1 | Human nutrition | 6.2 | Organophosphorus | 5.8 | Furniture | 9 | References | ||||||||||||||
5.3 | Coolant | 7.1 | Effects | 11 | References | 5.9 | Semiconductors | 8.2 | Combustion and other hazards | 7.4 | Oxygen carriers | 10 | Cited sources | 11 | Notes | 8 | Safety | 6.3 | Metallurgical aspects | 6 | Biological role | 10 | Notes | ||||||||||||||
5.4 | Energy carrier | 7.2 | Hazards | 12 | External links | 5.1 | Magnets | 9 | See also | 8 | Biological role | 11 | External links | 12 | References | 9 | See also | 6.4 | Matches | 6.1 | Protein and organic cofactors | 11 | Bibliography | ||||||||||||||
5.5 | Semiconductor industry | 8 | See also | 5.11 | Shielding and neutron absorber in nuclear reactors | 10 | Notes | 9 | Toxicity | 13 | Bibliography | 10 | References | 6.5 | Water softening | 6.2 | Metalloproteins and inorganic cofactors | 12 | External links | ||||||||||||||||||
5.6 | Niche and evolving uses | 9 | Notes | 5.12 | Other nonmedical uses | 11 | References | 9.1 | Hydrofluoric acid | 14 | Further reading | 11 | Bibliography | 6.6 | Miscellaneous | 6.3 | Sulfur metabolism and the sulfur cycle | ||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Biological reactions | 10 | References | 5.13 | Pharmaceutical and biological applications | 11.1 | General references | 9.2 | Fluoride ion | 15 | External links | 12 | External links | 7 | Biological role | 7 | Precautions | ||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Safety and precautions | 11 | Bibliography | 5.14 | Research areas | 12 | External links | 10 | Environmental concerns | 7.1 | Bone and teeth enamel | 8 | See also | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | Notes | 6 | Biological role | 10.1 | Atmosphere | 7.2 | Phosphorus deficiency | 9 | References | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | See also | 6.1 | Analytical quantification | 10.2 | Biopersistence | 7.3 | Nutrition | 10 | Further reading | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | References | 6.2 | Health issues and toxicity | 11 | See also | 07.03.01 | Dietary recommendations | 11 | External links | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | Further reading | 7 | See also | 12 | Notes | 07.03.02 | Food sources | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | External links | 8 | References | 13 | Sources | 8 | Precautions | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | External links | 13.1 | Citations | 8.1 | US DEA List I status | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
13.2 | Indexed references | 9 | In popular culture | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14 | External links | 10 | Notes | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | References | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | Bibliography |
--Oldboltonian (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Oldboltonian: The guidelines are mostly historical and nobody really seems to be taking them very seriously. They were probably good for a phase-I standardisation, but at some point we moved into a more of a phase-II article improvement of getting as many to GA and FA as we could, and then the structures naturally diverge per element. So I'd say there's not so much reason to change. Double sharp (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- If they are merely historical artifacts, perhaps we should note that? YBG (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds cool to me, YBG. I've marked it as historical and taken it off the tabs list. That being said, I do think an updated version of these guidelines just for a "standard WP layout decision + colouring style" might be a good idea if/when one is decided on via RFC. (Former is frozen till we hear from IUPAC, latter is to come.) Or maybe that is better for the MOS like WP:ALUM. Anyway, we have time before we'll have such a thing. Double sharp (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- If they are merely historical artifacts, perhaps we should note that? YBG (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Isotope page improvements
I propose 3 changes to isotope pages: First, the Isotopes of dysprosium page says 164
Dy
is the heaviest theoretically stable nuclide. It is actually 92
Zr
because the stable nuclides in between are either theorized to decay or spontaneous fission. Second, mark the remaining observationally stable nuclides to observationally stable (191
Ir
to 205
Tl
). Third, adding navigation links to nearby element isotopes pages, sort of like on the element pages. -322UbnBr2 (Talk | Contributions | Actions) 04:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- About the navigation you mention: what do you have in mind? With elements, it is simply four (N-E-S-W in the periodic table). Would it involve decay chains?
- FYI, a complete navigation table, isotope pages by periodic table, is at the bottom, like at Isotopes of dysprosium#References. This navigation aid does not show in mobile view (being a navigation aid). OTOH, if you see a strong content-based relationship in 'nearby', that could be in body text and/or the isotopes infobox.
- I note that I am not happy with the N-E-S-W neighbors addition to the element infobox. For the same reason: it is more practical navigation, not a strong content relationship (many more such flaw relationships exist in the PT that do not deserve to be in an WP:infobox). -DePiep (talk) 10:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I mean N-E-S-W. The links will lead to the different elements' isotope pages. -322UbnBr2 (Talk | Contributions | Actions) 20:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- In the element infoboxes, the NESW links make sense because of the adjacent periodic table to provide context. Far more important to providing those links would be to display a periodic table with each cell linking to the Isotopes of X page. But the idea of showing the complete decay products for each isotope seems interesting to me. YBG (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- In general, I reject adding navigation aids to the infobox. Strongly related isotopes info (-pages, -series, -relations) may be added if there is good reason, when numbers are low. How many data points, say links, would that be? Keep in mind that the infobox should contain main article info only, not all info. -DePiep (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- For the element infoboxes, the N-S-E-W relationships make sense. E and W are next door in atomic number, and getting to the next or previous element makes some sense for navigation. N and S also make sense: they are in the same group and are hence homologous, so obviously also related. For the isotope infoboxes, E and W still make sense as they are the products of a single beta decay. However, N and S don't make any sense anymore because that second dimension of the PT is based on the electronic structure, not the nuclear one.
- That being said, I think a really better solution would be to make the PT bigger so that you actually had enough room to place the symbols and click on them. Yes, that would imply 18-column rather than 32-, but it really is the same thing anyway. Then we would not need any NESW links anymore because they would already be there in the PT.
- Showing complete decay products may be problematic due to branched decays. Double sharp (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- Another idea on my mind was linking the decay products to their respective isotope pages, but that would be too many links. -322UbnBr2 (Talk | Contributions | Actions) 06:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- In general, I reject adding navigation aids to the infobox. Strongly related isotopes info (-pages, -series, -relations) may be added if there is good reason, when numbers are low. How many data points, say links, would that be? Keep in mind that the infobox should contain main article info only, not all info. -DePiep (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- In the element infoboxes, the NESW links make sense because of the adjacent periodic table to provide context. Far more important to providing those links would be to display a periodic table with each cell linking to the Isotopes of X page. But the idea of showing the complete decay products for each isotope seems interesting to me. YBG (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I mean N-E-S-W. The links will lead to the different elements' isotope pages. -322UbnBr2 (Talk | Contributions | Actions) 20:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Water into peroxide, by itself
Stanford scientists find water can transform into hydrogen peroxide when condensing on cold surfaces. Sandbh (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Use of sources at WP:ELEM
I just finished reading WP:PSTS, which discusses WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY, and WP:TERTIARY sources. IMHO, I think understanding these policies and how they apply to our domain of knowledge would be of great benefit to our project. It would help us (a) create good content, (b) following WP policy, and (c) avoiding conflict. What our project needs is to interpret these rules and specify what are (1) primary WP:ELEM sources, secondary WP:ELEM sources, and tertiary WP:ELEM sources. I am not saying I have the answers here, just saying that we need to collaboratively reach a consensus on these three question. Thoughts? YBG (talk) 04:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- YBG,
- 1. Primary sources are those in the peer-reviewed academic literature reporting OR.
- 2. Secondary source are those primarily relying on secondary sources. Very crudely there are three tiers:
- C. less RS;
- CB. lies to children (ltc) RS
- B. RS; and
- A. "top-tier" RS, with reputation e.g. Wiberg; G&E; C&W; Oxford University Press, Pergamon Press
- Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources.
- 3. Tertiary sources are dictionaries, encyclopaedias and compendium. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some entries may be more reliable than others.
- Principles
- Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages.
- There's no need to necessarily rely on ltc RS, since plenty of RS and top-tier RS are available. Indeed, a theme of distinguishing RS based on e.g. publisher reputation, author reputation, age of publication, etc pervades WP:RS.
- Higher-level texts, for elements that are hard to study, will be more reliable.
- The age of a source does not necessarily reduce its reliability.
- Introductory undergraduate-level textbooks have a reputation for textbook errors, [23], [24], [25]
- —- Sandbh (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
FYI: Hydrous oxides, hydrated oxides, hydrous hydrated oxides, hydroxides, and hydrous hydroxide
Here’s an extract from Bray & Latimer 1949, A course in general chemistry, 3rd ed., Macmillan, New York, pp. 89–90. It’s the first time I’ve seen a concise explanation of these five terms, in one place.
- ”The oxides of Group I and of the heavier elements of Group II react readily with water to form hydroxides which are soluble strong bases; i.e., their solutlons contain hydroxide ion and the ions of the metals. The oxides of the nonmetallic elements are soluble in water, with but few exceptions, to form acid solutions. This difference in behaviour depends mainly upon the size and charge of the positive kernel or ion.
- The oxides of the remaining metals, in general, do not react with water; but compounds (hydrous oxides, hydrated oxides, or hydroxides) are usually formed when solutions of the positive ions are made alkaline. In a few cases the precipitate is the anhydrous oxide. When the precipitates consist of particles of the oxides with an indefinite amount of absorbed water they are called hydrous oxides, e.g., SnO2 • xH2O. If there is a definite number of water molecules combined with the oxide, the name hydrated oxide is applied, e. g., Al2O3 • H2O. However, the hydrated oxides may absorb an indefinite amount of water to form gelatinous precipitates or hydrous hydrated oxides. In some cases the precipitate has a definite hydroxide structure, especially with ions having a +2 charge, e. g., Fe(OH)2 and Mg(OH)2 and these may be correctly called hydroxides.
- If, as is often the case, additional absorbed water is present they may be referred to as hydrous hydroxides. The character of a hydrous precipitate varies with the method of preparation and changes upon ageing and drying. For the sake of simplicity, we shall often write the hydroxide formula without implying that this is correct.”
—- Sandbh (talk) 08:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: Yup, I like having the terms all defined together too.
- Of course, size and charge of the positive ion as Bray & Latimer state is exactly Fajans' rules. It's nice indeed to see an RS offering this up as the rationalisation. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Launch of revamped 2010 category scheme
Some discussion between Sandbh, YBG, and myself has been going on at my talk page. It seems that the three of us are all OK with the 2010 scheme if Po is changed to being showed as a metal. Furthermore, Sandbh does not seem to think an RFC is necessary, and R8R has said above that he wouldn't be too disappointed if this scheme is chosen.
Therefore, in the spirit of WP:BOLD, I have decided to launch the new colour scheme.
I understand that Sandbh would prefer for some articles to be updated first to match, such as our articles on post-transition metal and the nonmetals. However, I feel that if we ask for too many prerequisites, we are likely to never get anything done. The current articles seem more or less serviceable in a pinch (the PTM one will need a small update to not call them PTMs anymore, but that's all); new ones can come later. After all, when element 119 is discovered, we will not be completely correct either, and there's nothing saying we cannot update things slower rather than faster.
I also understand that Sandbh and I currently disagree on whether or not the status of At, Cn, Ts, and Og should be flagged out in the navboxes. But since this disagreement does not extend to the actual colouring, I do not think we should let it stand in the way of the recolouring either, since it can easily be discussed afterwards.
Everything I do can, as always, be reverted and discussed afterwards.
Double sharp (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Mostly done at this point (may have overlooked some), for templates. Images will have to wait. Double sharp (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Most obvious pictures on Periodic table done. That should be enough for now, also to make things easier if it turns out that people object to this and it needs to be reverted. Double sharp (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- May we expect an overview of the reasoning here? As in, arguments, lines of thinking, source handling? -DePiep (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- @DePiep: Yes, since you asked. Give me a moment to put it together, most of it is from where something almost like it was proposed above as Compromise 3. Double sharp (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- May we expect an overview of the reasoning here? As in, arguments, lines of thinking, source handling? -DePiep (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Most obvious pictures on Periodic table done. That should be enough for now, also to make things easier if it turns out that people object to this and it needs to be reverted. Double sharp (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@DePiep: I wrote it below. Sorry that it is not brief, but since pretty much every category from transition metals onwards in the legend was affected, it is probably unavoidable. I tried to keep each one to one paragraph, allowing myself a bit more for the halogen/noble gas one since that is basically about two categories at once. Double sharp (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- I support Double sharp’s bold edits. Sandbh (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment: I am glad to see progress happening and discussion between WT:ELEM participants. I am also grateful that Double sharp has provided a detailed rationale below, promptly responding to DePiep's request. I have been watching the user talk page discussion and wondering whether to comment, and I would like to make a procedural comment. I am all for collaboration and discussion but have been concerned that a user talk page discussion might result in a local consensus that might not reflect the consensus of this WikiProject or the WP community as a whole. It appears that this concern has not been borne out in this case, but I ask that all of us bear in mind that discussions that become likely to be implemented in article space be moved to an appropriate article or project talk page. Alternatively, bring the conclusion to a suitable page and seek broader input or endorsement. The final option (and the one I prefer least) is to make a BOLD implementation coupled with a talk page discussion, accompanied by a willingness to revert / step-back and discuss if anything proves controversial. Double sharp, I thank you for making clear that there was a user talk space discussion that led to your edit and for making clear your openness to further discussion should it prove necessary, which is very much in the spirit of BRD. DePiep, I thank you for asking politely for details and indicating a willingness to wait for a response rather than going straight to a reversion. Hopefully discussion will lead to a consensus that all support. Thank you also to Sandbh and YBG for working collaboratively on areas where agreement and productive incremental improvements to article space are possible. This implementation of BOLD appears to be working, which is great, but discussions leading to article space changes are best held or ultimately endorsed outside of user talk space, and I ask that this be borne in mind going forward. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Rationale
I will ignore the parts of the periodic table that were not changed.
Mostly, sources that present periodic table colourings are working more or less at an overview level, not delving deep into the chemistry of a single element. They also are usually meant as a didactic introduction to signal out groups of like elements, especially the easy-to-cover ones that will be introduced early in chemistry. Therefore, priority was given to such sources as ACS, LANL, RSC, and Britannica. Priority was also given to IUPAC (as the relevant authority) when it had something to say, which is unfortunately not always. Further down the list were textbooks and monographs (e.g. Greenwood & Earnshaw, Holleman & Wiberg as very common reputable textbooks), and finally individual research papers for the "difficult" superheavy elements that are not well-known.
Group 12 as transition metals. This is something that has been strongly argued against. However, even Jensen who was strongly against this in 2003 had to admit that nearly all introductory general chemistry textbooks were doing it, and that it was only the advanced monographs on specific topics that sometimes don't (but even there it was 50-50). So do all four of ACS, LANL, RSC, and Britannica. IUPAC presents the definition including them first in the Red Book 2005 (their latest word on the matter): For example, the elements of groups 3–12 are the d-block elements. These elements are also commonly referred to as the transition elements, though the elements of group 12 are not always included
. That is also evidently their primary definition, as when they discuss the organometallic nomenclature in pages 228 through 232, group 12 is not discussed with the main group elements. (For those who don't know: that means "the elements that are not transition elements.) Greenwood & Earnshaw as well as Holleman & Wiberg both consider group 12 as transition metals, though Cotton & Wilkinson don't. Therefore it seems more justifiable to follow the more general perspective. This also matches what we had in 2010.
Other metals rather than post-transition metals. Between ACS, LANL, and Britannica (RSC classes by group in this area, which is a rarer choice) there is not agreement on which to use: there are also a bunch of other names in the literature such as poor metals, chemically weak metals, p-block metals, B subgroup metals, and so on. As such it seems more prudent to not take a side and simply use other metals, which is indisputable as a catch-all qualifier. This also matches what we had in 2010.
Metalloids. There is not agreement between ACS, LANL, and Britannica about whether there should be a metalloid category. The first two have one as {B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te, Po}; Britannica lacks one, splitting {Ge, Sb, Po} to metals and {B, Si, As, Te} to nonmetals. Most English-language sources do have one, but are often a bit hazy about which elements are in there. The literature survey done by Sandbh whose results are at lists of metalloids was consulted: here {B, Si, Ge, As, Sb, Te} emerge as the most common six inclusions by far, with a huge drop to the next inclusions {Po, At} that have always had a certain amount of iffiness hanging around them due to their intense radioactivity. In general, it seems that most sources that focus on polonium do treat it as a metal: in this special case of a difficult-to-study but still fairly well-characterised element (unlike most radioactives, Po is not ignored or quarantined off into its own special section in Greenwood & Earnshaw), following them seems reasonable.
Other nonmetals. ACS, LANL, and Britannica are unanimous about splitting out the noble gases and the halogens from most of the nonmetals. Both are, after all, some of the first examples of group trends an average chemistry student encounters, and make sense to highlight at this overview level (that's not true for the pnictogens and chalcogens, say). There is not agreement as to whether these should just be called "nonmetals" or "other nonmetals" between them, but since "other nonmetals" is the only accurate one anyway (everybody agrees that chlorine and argon are nonmetals), we have used it. This also matches what we had in 2010.
Halogens, with reference to At and Ts. The problem is that there are two definitions of "halogen" running about, as there seems to be for a lot of these categories. In the literature focusing on the superheavy elements, there is some feeling I detect that you have no right to call an element a "halogen", a "transition metal", or a "noble gas" before you have actually characterised it chemically, and that if the properties are badly matching enough it's possible that Ts is not a halogen (e.g. here). So that's the specialised practice. However, outside the subset of chemists focused on these issues (which is very tiny given the short half-lives of the problematic elements At, Ts, and Og), nobody cares. ACS, LANL, Britannica, and RSC are unanimous about calling At and Ts halogens. Greenwood & Earnshaw and Holleman & Wiberg have no qualms about calling At a halogen (they were published before Ts was discovered). The 2005 IUPAC Red Book is absolutely clear that the halogens include At. It was published before Ts and Og were discovered, true, but IUPAC reports in 2016 made it clear that for them Ts and Og were in the halogen and noble gas groups. Indeed, that's the very reason why they are called tennessine and oganesson with the -ine and -on suffixes of their groups, and not -ium like for other elements. So clearly for them it means the whole group.
I feel that on the above grounds using the definition in which Ts is not automatically a halogen, and Og not automatically a noble gas, and using an "unknown chemical properties" category, is catering only to the superheavy-element community and not the rest of the chemical world that does not seem to care about such issues. I'm sad about that because I think the superheavy-element community has the right idea here, but they're not usually in the business of colouring periodic tables as an overview of the elements people actually care about.
Finally, I think it is simply premature to classify astatine as a metal, metalloid, or a nonmetal. As far as is experimentally known, it sometimes reacts characteristically like its lighter buddies in the halogen group which are all clearly nonmetals (fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine). But sometimes it reacts more like a metal instead. Experimental results on copernicium appeared to suggest metallicity – but later theoretical calculations pointed out that the result was also consistent with nonmetallicity. Therefore I feel that any metallicity category here is an overreach, and that it is a good thing that we have a group category to save the day. We only have predictions telling us that At is probably a metal, that Cn is probably a nonmetal (like a noble gas), that Ts is probably a metal, and that Og is probably a semiconductor (so maybe a metalloid like silicon?). We can hardly use these predictions without some element of original research for Og, and the predictions have changed before for elements like Cn, Fl, and Og: who's to say they may not change again?
This also matches what we had in 2010.
Noble gases, with reference to Og. All of the above on Ts applies here to Og. This also matches what we had in 2010.
Colouring Mt through Lv. I agree that somehow it looks problematic, colouring them with category names that include "metal" when it's not actually sure if these elements are metals. On the other hand, ACS, LANL, RSC (for Mt through Cn), and Britannica all do that anyway. Besides Cn, no one seriously expects anything different, and for Cn, predictions have changed back and forth and they may well do so again. I also feel that it is not a problem that the category names become "formal" and a bit divorced from the actual meaning when everybody is making them so anyway. No one asks how bismuth is "choking" when that's where "pnictogen" comes from (well, I suppose you could choke on a large piece); no one asks how polonium can be an "ore-former" when it's too unstable to form ores; no one wonders why Be and Mg are "alkaline earth metals" in English (I know they do in Russian and Japanese, but that's not exactly the practice the English Wikipedia should probably be prioritising); no one wonders why the rare earth elements are not rare. With all this behind us, what's wrong with Og as a "noble gas" that is neither noble nor a gas, if the literature's mostly happy with that? This also matches what we had in 2010.
Therefore this colour scheme seems to be one of the best solutions within the bounds of what can be justified from sources to the whole problem. It was worked out as a compromise in the first place, seeking to follow the sources but at the same time try to be as "correct" in a way that both of us could agree on (and you know we sometimes differ very strongly about what exactly is "correct"). It is not what I would like at all for an off-WP situation, but for a WP situation I don't think we have the right to do anything vastly different based on the source situation. Because of the support I got for it on my talk page, I have decided to launch it.
Note that subtleties regarding how the status of Mt is not actually experimentally known, as well as the problematic metallicity of At, Ts, and Og and possible lack thereof for Cn, are all discussed where appropriate in the infoboxes. See {{infobox meitnerium}}
, {{infobox astatine}}
, {{infobox tennessine}}
, {{infobox oganesson}}
, {{infobox copernicium}}
. For the everyday reader, I submit that what we show is enough as an overview, and that there is no need to footnote elements that to a first approximation no one cares about and that no one will get to see for a long while if ever.
Finally, we note for clarification that:
- So as to avoid having to rush a discussion at the last minute when elements 119 and 120 get discovered, we will add that unless sources do something massively different, element 119 will be coloured as an alkali metal (like Fr) when discovered, and element 120 as an alkaline earth metal (like Ra) too. Future elements may be in the g block already (I think they are, some people think they aren't, you can probably guess that this is a group 3 thing) and that will require some more far-reaching decisions based on what sources do. That is really unanswerable at present because until element 121 appears, nobody will have to make that decision. And it will be difficult for other reasons because IUPAC does not immediately put newly reported elements on its periodic table, but only does so once the IUPAC-IUPAP JWP evaluates the claims and deems it to fit the discovery criteria (so we won't have their guidance). Therefore any decision on them should probably be postponed till when the eighth period begins with elements 119 and 120.
- This scheme only decides the categories. In particular, it makes no decision about the precise colours used for the categories. Those may be discussed separately. It also makes no decision about the composition of group 3. That is a subject that will be returned to hopefully when Scerri's article appears in Chemistry International outlining what has gone on at IUPAC, as it is expected soon. AFAICS, there is no point in working with incomplete information when whatever this project concludes is going to be very important to the source situation and it seems that complete information is coming. We will see according to the situation.
Double sharp (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Discussion of changes
I have a couple of minor comments / suggestions:
- At the top, I would like to see some greater vertical separation between "Group" and "Period" – they look squashed together to me (this is a minor aesthetic point)
- This may have been discussed / resolved before, but I think having the atomic numbers and symbols the same size makes the symbols less prominent as Z increases. I wonder if a smaller size for the atomic number and a larger size for the symbol would look better. I also wonder about slightly larger squares, so that there is more space around the symbol – the boxes at the bottom look crowded.
- On the points about a colouring for 'properties unknown', I do take the point that many PTs do not have such a grouping, but it does make sense pedagogically to make the point that there are things that aren't known. It emphasises that the PT is continuing to evolve and that Chemistry is an experimental science where empirical evidence always takes precedence over theoretical expectations. I wonder if these cells might be divided diagonally and have two colours, or a footnote that the properties of recently discovered elements (XXX = symbols) need to be explored experimentally to see if they display properties in line with expectations. This idea may not find favour here at WT:ELEM, in which case of course I will respect consensus, and there may be better ways / ideas to address this point, but I do feel it is worth discussing.
- Can the colour for the alkali metals be darkened to increase the contrast to the transition metals? Perhaps consult one of the WikiProjects that deals with accessibility for readers for comment on the colour scheme on different platforms and for readers with other-than-typical vision?
- Would the asterisks between La and Hf and adjacent to Ce look better if vertically centred, like the period numbers and the double star for Ac / Rf / Th appear?
- Dear EdChem, thank you for your comments.
- Regarding 1, 2, and 5, I have no opinion on the PT image layout issues. I think your proposals are sound, but since I am not the best at svg editing, I will probably have to leave it to somebody else (figuring out how to change the colours by directly editing the svg in a text editor was interesting enough for me ^_^).
- Regarding 4, previously the alkali metal colour was indeed the darker
- Regarding 3 (sorry for the despairing wall of text XD) – frankly I sympathise. But the trouble is that tension between two definitions of "halogen". If "halogen" means not only "in group 17", but also that the element has to act like {F, Cl, Br, I}: then you're right, because we don't know how Ts behaves, and theoretical calculations say it's really not much like a halogen at all, we don't have the right to say it's a halogen in that case. And that's how most sources focusing on superheavy elements indeed see it. But it seems that a lot of sources, including IUPAC, seems to see "halogen" as a synonym for "in group 17". In which case the category is formal, and Ts is automatically a halogen regardless of whether it acts like {F, Cl, Br, I} or not. We can argue maybe about periodic table placement demanding the electron configuration is known – but theoretical predictions say Ts is s2p5 anyway, so that won't change things. Pedagogically, I think this is clearly stupid when apparently the closest match to known elements among Ts is Ga (yeah, personal communication from computational chemist User:Droog Andrey, but the interpretation matches the sourced predictions): a category purporting to put gallium and chlorine together as similar elements is quite clearly chemically deranged, so I'm sure that one putting together chlorine and tennessine likewise is. But I can't see a way out of it even though I'd dearly like one.
- I think we may be in the same situation as astatine: even from its discovery, its discoverers were already noting it had significant metallic character, today we know it chemically seems to at least be a funny mix between halogen and metal properties, and chemists seriously working with it explicitly question whether it is more like a halogen or more like a metal (implying that it being a metal, which is getting some serious theoretical and experimental support but is not really sure yet, would rule it out from being a halogen). Eighty years on: nobody cares, IUPAC explicitly calls At a halogen, Greenwood & Earnshaw and Holleman & Wiberg explicitly call At a halogen, everyone calls At a halogen, and questions keep getting set on high-school exams asking to predict the properties of At (now also Ts) based on the lighter halogens (and therefore basically ask you to pick the wrong answer, amusingly). Anyone who actually cares about these elements knows that they behave quite differently (At seems mixed between halogen and metal properties chemically, Ts is probably like Ga), but (correct me if I am wrong, as I would love to be wrong) I cannot imagine that the proportion of chemists whose work significantly involves astatine is in any way significant among all chemists. Well: astatine has been known for eighty years, it's been on the periodic table for much longer than tennessine has. If that wasn't enough to make people care with an eight-hour half-life, then are people going to care about tennessine with a half-life under a minute? The end result is likely going to be the stupidity of calling Ts a halogen when calculations say it acts like Ga, and calling Og a noble gas when calculations say it acts like Sn (so if you thought gallium and chlorine in the same basket is chemically deranged, we now have basically tin and argon in the same basket, which is even more chemically deranged. ^_^). But there are worse already: if the rare earth metals are not rare, and beryllium is an alkaline earth metal despite being more amphoteric than alkaline, then I don't think most chemists are going to bat an eye about oganesson being likely neither noble nor a gas. Particularly when the most stable isotope of Og has a half-life of under a millisecond and probably its greatest relevance for the average chemist is completing the seventh row and making the periodic table look nice and complete, rather than anyone actually being able to use it for anything. And especially when IUPAC changed its naming rules in 2016 to make sure they'd be tennessine and oganesson with the matching suffixes; previously they'd have ended in -ium by the old naming rules! (The article that suggested this in Nature compounded the problem by implying that halogens and noble gases cannot also be metals – but when we get to At, Ts, and Og that may stop being true.)
- In the end, I think what I would like putting on the educator's hat (halogens ending at iodine with astatine ambiguous; noble gases ending at radon) is just not easy to defend on WP, because it is hard to say "properties might not match" just because not everyone agrees that properties should define what a halogen or a noble gas is. And once you've done that and coloured Ts and Og, we can hardly not colour Mt through Lv when actually more is known experimentally about the chemistry of Cn than that of Og! (Not that Cn is conclusively characterised by any means: experimental results are rather underwhelmingly consistent with both Cn the eka-Hg and Cn the noble eka-Rn. I just mean that there actually have been experiments done on Cn and that has not happened for Og yet.) I cannot currently find a way out of this, which is why I put forward this scheme as something that might be a workable compromise. To my pleasant surprise it turned out to be one. If you can come up with a good argument why we could in this case follow the specialists' definition of halogens and noble gases – I will be most happy to uncolour At (as ambiguous) as well as Mt through Og. My worry is just that doing so will just make us inconsistent with what the general reader will see everywhere else and with what most people are defining halogens and noble gases are: pedagogically I agree with you and if I could find a way to justify it to myself would do it in a heartbeat. I have tried to address this point in some text at Periodic table#Categories, also at Periodic table#Further periodic table extensions, and in templates like
{{infobox tennessine}}
and{{infobox oganesson}}
. Double sharp (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)- re #4, color for alkali metals: the dark color has issues too - also with accessability. (font contrast). So it's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. For stability, there is no gain in flip-flopping (reverted). Improvement can be easily achieved with some considerations. -DePiep (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
PT image in lede
I've updated the image to bring it into line with recently agreed changes. I haven't read EdChem's comments yet. I've flagged Cn, At, Ts, and Og, via underlining their symbols and adding a note about what this means. Since M used the PT to make predictions, and since we mention the predictive capacity of the PT about ten times in our article, I presume these flags and its accompany note are OK. Sandbh (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: Looks OK to me. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@EdChem and Double sharp: I've 1. added group and period labels, and 2. reduced the size of the atomic numbers by ½ a point. I suspect the footnote addresses #3. For #4, I can easily change the the colour of the AM back to the darker red. On #5 I believe the image addresses this. I'll experiment some more, later. I'll see if the group names could be added to the white space between the s- and p-blocks. I'll post a prototype here.
I'd also like to lighten the shade for the other metals. Sandbh (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- I like most of the changes – the labelling of groups and periods is better, as are the font sizes of atomic numbers – though maybe another 0.5 point? I do notice that:
- There appears to be a white line at the bottom of each period 2 element.
- I wonder if stars would be better than daggers to point to notes.
- I think some copyediting might be helpful. For example:
- Single Star (or a [1] or [a] or [I]) on Group 3, Lanthanides, and Actinides: * The placement and display of lanthanides and actinides is not the same on all periodic tables due to differing scientific views on the composition of Group 3.
- Double Star (or [2] or [b] or [II]) on Transition Metals and Group 12: **Elements Zn, Cd, and Hg are sometimes considered as "other metals" rather than "transition metals"; Element Cn displays some properties consistent with being a non-metallic noble liquid
- Placing a triple star symbol (or [3] or [c] or [III]) on the halogen and noble gas categories, note *** The "Halogen" and "Noble Gas" descriptors are commonly applied to all members of their respective groups. There is theoretical and some experimental evidence that elements At, Ts, and Og display properties inconsistent with being nonmetals.
- Maybe a [4] or [d] or [IV] (rather than quad star) on other metals noting ****Little is known of the chemical properties of Nh, Fl, Mc, and Lv, but they are predicted to be metallic elements.
- I don't think mention of band gaps or Og's claimed appearance are needed as the former is not information a generalist will comprehend and no one has made enough Og to actually see its appearance.
- I don't think the meaning of the underline is sufficiently clear – perhaps clarify or remove. Maybe also should be underlining La and Ac as the note at present implies they are transition metals?
- On colours, maybe we seek outside ideas – DePiep is correct that accessibility is an important consideration.
- Just my thoughts / ideas, open to comments, alternatives, criticisms, ... EdChem (talk) 06:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@EdChem and Double sharp: I reduced Z by another half-point. Removing the white line will take me more work than I have time for just now. I experimented with multiple asterisks; they take up more room. I've changed the footnote markers to be consistent with sequence suggested by the Australian Government Publishing Service Style Manual, since I have that one at hand. I have changed the footnote explanations along the lines you suggested, with some rationalisation to reduce duplication. The underlining connection is more visible know. I haven't said anything about Nh, Fl, Mc, and Lv, since we have no reason to expect that they will be anything other than metals. This is case for the elements from 99 onwards, none of which have been produced in bulk. OTOH, for Cn, At, Ts, and Og, theory suggests they will be something else than their lighter congeners. Sandbh (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: 114 (Fl) may have issues, see Flerovium#Experimental chemistry. Double sharp (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Too Bold
I wish to note that this revamp appears to be way too much using "Bold", without searching for consensus. There seems to have been some voting process on a userpage. There was no fleshed out proposal -- instead, a clarification was only provided after someone asked for it. Also, since the change involved dozens of mainspace edits which were bulldozed over us, this does not look like a true Wikipedia process. FWIW, any next time I meet this I might claim like "No Consensus". -DePiep (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Category colors
Here's a table comparing contrast ratios between the colors we've used, plus black:
C | Fr | Li | Be | Ln | An | M | Al | Si | P | X | Ng | Ubu | ? | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C | 1.000 | 7.344 | 10.562 | 16.304 | 14.148 | 10.680 | 13.553 | 13.077 | 12.665 | 17.306 | 20.016 | 18.989 | 15.498 | 17.139 |
wl | 1.000 | 2.983 | 4.289 | 6.621 | 5.746 | 4.337 | 5.504 | 5.310 | 5.143 | 7.028 | 8.129 | 7.712 | 6.294 | 6.960 |
Fr | 7.344 | 1.000 | 1.438 | 2.220 | 1.926 | 1.454 | 1.845 | 1.780 | 1.724 | 2.356 | 2.725 | 2.586 | 2.110 | 2.334 |
Li | 10.562 | 1.438 | 1.000 | 1.544 | 1.340 | 1.011 | 1.283 | 1.238 | 1.199 | 1.639 | 1.895 | 1.798 | 1.467 | 1.623 |
Be | 16.304 | 2.220 | 1.544 | 1.000 | 1.152 | 1.527 | 1.203 | 1.247 | 1.287 | 1.061 | 1.228 | 1.165 | 1.052 | 1.051 |
Ln | 14.148 | 1.926 | 1.340 | 1.152 | 1.000 | 1.325 | 1.044 | 1.082 | 1.117 | 1.223 | 1.415 | 1.342 | 1.095 | 1.211 |
An | 10.680 | 1.454 | 1.011 | 1.527 | 1.325 | 1.000 | 1.269 | 1.224 | 1.186 | 1.620 | 1.874 | 1.778 | 1.451 | 1.605 |
M | 13.553 | 1.845 | 1.283 | 1.203 | 1.044 | 1.269 | 1.000 | 1.036 | 1.070 | 1.277 | 1.477 | 1.401 | 1.143 | 1.265 |
Al | 13.077 | 1.780 | 1.238 | 1.247 | 1.082 | 1.224 | 1.036 | 1.000 | 1.033 | 1.323 | 1.531 | 1.452 | 1.185 | 1.311 |
Si | 12.665 | 1.724 | 1.199 | 1.287 | 1.117 | 1.186 | 1.070 | 1.033 | 1.000 | 1.367 | 1.580 | 1.499 | 1.224 | 1.353 |
P | 17.306 | 2.356 | 1.639 | 1.061 | 1.223 | 1.620 | 1.277 | 1.323 | 1.367 | 1.000 | 1.157 | 1.097 | 1.117 | 1.010 |
X | 20.016 | 2.725 | 1.895 | 1.228 | 1.415 | 1.874 | 1.477 | 1.531 | 1.580 | 1.157 | 1.000 | 1.054 | 1.292 | 1.168 |
Ng | 18.989 | 2.586 | 1.798 | 1.165 | 1.342 | 1.778 | 1.401 | 1.452 | 1.499 | 1.097 | 1.054 | 1.000 | 1.225 | 1.108 |
Ubu | 15.498 | 2.110 | 1.467 | 1.052 | 1.095 | 1.451 | 1.143 | 1.185 | 1.224 | 1.117 | 1.292 | 1.225 | 1.000 | 1.106 |
? | 17.139 | 2.334 | 1.623 | 1.051 | 1.211 | 1.605 | 1.265 | 1.311 | 1.353 | 1.010 | 1.168 | 1.108 | 1.106 | 1.000 |
- Legend
- C : Black (#000000)
- #0645AD : wikilink blue font (#0645AD)
- Fr : Alkali metals, dark version (#ff6666)
- Li : Alkali metals, light version (#ff9d9d)
- Be : Alkaline earth metals (#ffdead)
- Ln : Lanthanides (#ffbfff)
- An : Actinides (#ff99cc)
- M : Transition metals (#ffc0c0)
- Al : Other metals (#cccccc)
- Si : Metalloids (#cccc99)
- P : Other nonmetals (#a0ffa0)
- X : Halogens (#ffff99)
- Ng : Noble gases (#c0ffff)
- Ubu : Superactinides, as used in Extended periodic table (#d1ddff)
- ? : Unknown properties (#e8e8e8)
Symbols are readable against all the colors used, though the Fr-alkalis are markedly less so, but none of the colors are AA-compliant with each other. In particular, only 3 pairs exceed a contrast ratio of 2.000 (Fr-alkalis against nonmetals, halogens, or noble gases). The Li-alkali do not contrast as well as the Fr-alkalis against the other colors, especially for visually impaired readers, and are especially hard to distinguish from the actinides. Aditionally, the transitions contrast poorly against the lanthanides and the post-transitions; the post-transitions are very hard to distinguish from the metalloids; and the most similar pair was nonmetals vs. unknown. The most important colors to distinguish are the ones that appear adjacent on the periodic table, such as the transitions and the post-transitions; these pairs are bolded in the table above. The nonmetals could be darkened a bit, but we'll have to come up with a completely new color scheme for the metals. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- @LaundryPizza03: I agree. I understand R8R and DePiep have made some progress on this front (see e.g. User:R8R/PT search for colors). Double sharp (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- First quick remarks: the {{Color contrast ratio}} applies to fontcolor vs background color, not neighbouring bg colors. So the red bg's in the table are not that meaningfull. That said, there is an other reason to strive for between-categories-color-distinction: the Reader being able to recognise category bg color from PT-cell-to-legend ('which category is this cell?' and v.v. ('which cells are metalloids?'). With this, as a third distinction, backgrounds should not look alike (confusion as noted: 'is this AM or PTM?'). -DePiep (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have added row #2, "wl": the wikilink blue font color (as in Main page). Its contrast with background is meaningfull. Because: wl-blue is a fontcolor, replacing black fontcolor. -DePiep (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- @LaundryPizza03: Why checking black as a bg color, and white fontcolor? All your contrast checks are black-font on color-bg, right? (Is why I added wl-blue this way). -DePiep (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- LaundryPizza03, thanks for your contribution on colours that is looking from the perspective of accessibility / readability. I agree that this is an important consideration and is one that I feel needs advice from those with expertise in the area. I know that DePiep has been thinking about these issues as well.
I can only speak for myself (though I suspect I am not alone) in agreeing with the importance of making a choice of colouring scheme that supports visually-impaired readers in principle but having little knowledge of how this is evaluated in practice. Looking at the above table, for example, I get that larger contrast ratios are desirable for readability and I infer that a goal of greater than 2 is an appropriate guideline, but I don't know how DePiep's comments fit. Is this an area where those lacking expertise (like me) should just stand back, or is there some material that I can read to help make a useful contribution? Are there contributions that would be useful from a chemical perspective? For example, is it better for metal categories to be based in a related group of colours (say, shades from purple / pink / red / orange) and then different groups for non-metals (blue / green) and metalloids (yellow)? Or, is it better for the metal colours to be unconnected (say, green, yellow, red, brown) and then blue metalloids and pink and orange non-metals (just picking different colours, many alternatives possible)? Alternatively, is there a WikiProject or group that deals with accessibility / readability and colours that could offer help? EdChem (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- The table is not exactly to the point.. W3C contrast checks are about font-vs-background colors, not neighbouring bg colors. (There is no AEM-bg vs LN-bg check needed anywhere). The table should be removed. Except for row 1 and my wl-blue addition. -DePiep (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- @EdChem: in other words: the table does not address WP:ACCESSABILITY. I also wrote in my 1st reply above. -DePiep (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. H:Colorblind suggests using only 5 colours (including black and white) as backgrounds... would that approach work, picking a background (blue, say) for the non-metals and use stripes (horizontal, vertical, and none), then another color for metalloids, then two colours for metals with stripes (including diagonal if needed)? I imagine it would be messier than just with differing colours, but potentially more accessible – or even link to such a PT as an alternative for the colour one for those struggling with readability? EdChem (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- re, short: we must provide ten (10) category colors. Difficult, if even possible (too manymuch restrictions). Only good news: it is a PT-pattern, so a l-to-r flow. Also we can gain by dropping font-colors for phase (red H, green Hg).
- And: this table is not the optimal guide, as noted.. -DePiep (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- As for coloring the categories, EdChem, we are sailing between Scylla and Charybdis. Satisfying all contrast and CB (colorblind) needs, will give us bleak (not even pastel) colors. That are failing the "recognise a category" check.
- Some self-redactions into more helpful wording. -DePiep (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. H:Colorblind suggests using only 5 colours (including black and white) as backgrounds... would that approach work, picking a background (blue, say) for the non-metals and use stripes (horizontal, vertical, and none), then another color for metalloids, then two colours for metals with stripes (including diagonal if needed)? I imagine it would be messier than just with differing colours, but potentially more accessible – or even link to such a PT as an alternative for the colour one for those struggling with readability? EdChem (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- LaundryPizza03, thanks for your contribution on colours that is looking from the perspective of accessibility / readability. I agree that this is an important consideration and is one that I feel needs advice from those with expertise in the area. I know that DePiep has been thinking about these issues as well.
Splitting the p-block
Am I going mad?
For group 13 as the traditional B-Al-Ga-In-Tl, the trend line for the sum of the 1st three ionisation energies is disturbed by the appearance of the 3d10 shell in Ga. Thus, the trend line has a goodness of fit value (gf) of "only" 0.54
For group 3 as B-Al-Sc-Y-La, gf is 0.95; as B-Al-Sc-Y-Lu it's 0.94
This prompted me to check the gf values for other group 3 properties as either B-Al-Sc-Y-La or B-Al-Sc-Y-Lu.
The following table includes all the values involved, as well as the values for group 3 as Sc-Y-La-Ac and Sc-Y-Lu-Lr:
B-La B-Lu B-Tl | Sc-Ac Sc-Lr --------------------------------------------------- Density 0.98 0.94 0.98 | 0.99 0.99 1st IE 0.62 0.62 0.65 | 0.97 0.97 Ionic radius 0.98 0.61 0.84 | 0.99 0.61 3rd IE 0.96 0.95 0.42 | 0.98 0.83 Melting point 0.57 0.42 0.81 | 0.15 0.11 Electron affinity 0.62 0.10 0.08 | 0.85 0.99 Sum of 1st 3 IE 0.95 0.94 0.54 | 0.96 0.96 Electronegativity 0.96 0.94 0.47 | 0.58 0.99 --------------------------------------------------- Average 0.77 0.65 0.60 | 0.83 0.69
- The best one is obviously B-Tl with the smallest average. Droog Andrey (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Why? Sandbh (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Because of secondary periodicity (odd vs. even periods). Droog Andrey (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Secondary periodicity doesn't show in group 4: C−Pb = 0.69; C−Hf = 0.71. Chemically speaking, groups 1–3 are better shown as Li-Fr; Be-Ra; B-Ac. That's not going to happen; I expect group B-Al will remain over Ga. And He will stay over Ne. So an electronically consistent (EC) table is He over Be, and Lu in group 3. A chemically consistent (CC) table is He over Ne, and B-Al over Sc. Where one goes from there depends on the context. The EC table can make a concession to chemistry and move He over Ne. The CC table can make a concession to electronics and move B-Al- over Ga, in which case one has the popular form. Sandbh (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Why? Sandbh (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I'll let DA answer for himself. But since I agree with him, I'll give also my reason: because we expect a contraction to wreck a linear trend everywhere else in the table. Just look at the "kinked" p-block EN trends for example. Therefore a linear trend is "wrong" here and we should expect a kinked one: so a lower goodness-of-fit value means we are closer to what the trend should look like.
“ | We describe to students how the alkali metals form a nice sequential series. Likewise, we describe to students how the halogens form a nice sequential series. At this point, we have “proved” the validity of periodicity and move on to other topics. The students are happy. Better to avoid the complexities of the middle main groups which such questions as: why is nitrogen dimeric and unreactive, yet one common allotrope of phosphorus is tetrameric and very reactive. Yet, here is some of the richness. This is actually an example of the Uniqueness Principle of these mid-second period elements (8). ... And with the fourth period for the p-block elements, comes the Fourth Period Anomaly. Discussed in detail by Sanderson (9), it can be stated as, “the 4th Period Anomaly for the p-block elements is where the properties of the Group member of the 4th Period do not fit the trend for the other members of the Group.” As exemplars of the Fourth Period Anomaly, Sanderson cited the difficulty in preparing AsCl5 (yet PCl5 and SbCl5 are easily synthesized) and HBrO4 (yet HClO4 and H5IO6 are easily synthesized). Pekka Pyykkö has referred to the phenomenon as “secondary periodicity,” and he has explained it as a relativistic effect (10).
... Additionally, smooth trends down groups are more of a convenient fiction and that irregularities can be expected acccording to the Uniqueness Principle and the Fourth Period Anomaly. |
” |
— G. Rayner-Canham, Why Don’t We Really Teach about the Periodic Table? |
The "kinked" trend of Al-Ga-In is just like that for Si-Ge-Sn, P-As-Sb, S-Se-Te, Cl-Br-I. All is clear. Linear trends, as measured by best-fit lines, are a fiction that frankly only exist in groups 1 and 2 due to weird preemptive filling of s orbitals as explained by Ostrovsky. I think the more global understanding of the RS (e.g. Jensen) is better. Double sharp (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Question: Are these correlation coefficients of properties vs. period number? Double sharp, Sandbh, Droog Andrey? EdChem (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- @EdChem:, I think Sandbh is best placed to answer that question. I assumed it was either properties vs. period number or properties vs. atomic number, myself, as it'd have made sense that way. Double sharp (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@EdChem and Double sharp: They're properties v Z. Sandbh (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Physical evidence
I compared the trend lines for B-Al-Sc-Y-La; B-Al-Sc-Y-Lu; and B-Al-Ga-In-Tl, for the following properties: 1. density; 2. electrical resistivity; 3. enthalpy of atomisation; 4. enthalpy of fusion; 5. enthalpy of vaporisation; 6. standard molar entropy; 7. heat conductivity; 8. specific heat capacity; and 9. surface tension at the melting point. These properties were used by Horovitz and Sârbu C 2005, "Characterisation and classification of lanthanides by multivariate-analysis methods", Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 82 no. 3, pp. 473–483, doi:10.1021/ed082p473. They also used the Gibbs energy of formation of the chloride LnCl3 per mol of Cl, as a characteristic of chemical reactivity. I added this to my chemical property data set and removed density and MP, which explains the updated chemical values below.
The average goodness of fit values, alongside the chemical values were:
Physical Chemical B-La 0.65 0.77 B-Lu 0.52 0.67 B-Tl 0.79 0.53
Physically, it seems like the d electrons in Sc-Y-La etc exert sufficient influence, compared to the sp electrons in B-Al, to upset the smoothness of physical trends. So the B-Tl trend has a better fit.
Chemically, it seems like the consistency of the underling (sp)8 core in B-La makes for better trends lines, compared to the irregular underlying cores in Lu (spf)22 and Ga-Tl (spd)18 and (fspd)32 Sandbh (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: The reason this argument doesn't convince me is because most groups in the PT don't have consistent underlying cores. The 3d and 4f contractions are well-known effects in the literature (cf. Greenwood & Earnshaw), and the secondary-periodicity effects that DA mentions are well-known even if not under that name (why Br is so much harder to get in the +7 state than Cl or I, for example). When you proceed Si-Ge (p2), P-As (p3), S-Se (p4), Cl-Br (p5), Ar-Kr (p6), you always add an underlying d10 to the core, so it seems natural to ask that Al-Ga (p1) do the same. (Basically Jensen's argument applied to the p instead of the d block.) Therefore, just because B-La by itself gives a better trend line locally, does not clearly dictate that it should be the standard format, because B-Tl + Sc-Lu gives trend lines that are globally more consistent with other groups. And that is likely the reason why B-Tl is standard. Of course, to rigorise this argument requires clearly defining what exactly a block is, in order to make it clear why we should expect the p1 trend to follow the others. (Without defining what a block is, you cannot answer why they shouldn't be split.) But since most natural definitions that have been thrown around for blocks are based on physics and electronic structure rather than chemistry, they are surely not going to favour B-La. Double sharp (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
@Double sharp: Yes, B-Al over Sc is not going to happen. Neither can I see He over Be happening. I suppose the situation is at the broad contour level, where the broad contours are the four idealised blocks. Where you go from there depends on the context, and as long as that is explained, you'll be good. For example, moving He over Ne is one chemistry-based step. Moving La-Ac into group 3 is another. Moving B-Al over Sc, old school style, is another. The current popularity of the La form has many historical vectors. Will Lu topple La? I don't know. I tend to doubt it, unless IUPAC adopts this form. Sandbh (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
BTW check out this old version of our scandium article, position in periodic table section. Sandbh (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: I tend to think that Lu will eventually topple La, the reason being the quote from Jones you like to give.
“ | Scientists should not lose sleep over the hard cases. As long as a classification system is beneficial to economy of description, to structuring knowledge and to our understanding, and hard cases constitute a small minority, then keep it. If the system becomes less than useful, then scrap it and replace it with a system based on different shared characteristics. | ” |
- From the perspective of those primarily interested in classifying by the final chemistry observed, the Sc-Y-La system is not less than useful, so they won't bother with reexamining it. However, if Sc-Y-Lu had been standard already, it would also not be less than useful. All the elements here are fairly chemically similar, and Y-Lu is not chemically worse than Y-La. It just prioritises different chemical relationships. This rather neatly explains why the general feeling among chemists wrt this issue seems to be not so much supporting one side or the other but total indifference. So if Sc-Y-Lu become standard, chemists of this view would probably just shrug their shoulders and use it anyway, typical of the way in which Be-Mg-Ca and B-Al-Ga got acquiesced to. Because to them the issue is not of any importance.
- However, from the perspective of those primarily interested in going from physics, Sc-Y-La is quite definitely less than useful, and Sc-Y-Lu is needed for consistency. For them, Sc-Y-La must be scrapped and replaced by Sc-Y-Lu.
- So you have a situation where physicists and physically minded chemists will push for Lu endlessly, and less physically minded chemists won't care. Ergo, the push for will be greater than the push back, which suggests an eventual Lu victory. That seems borne out by the steady fall in the percentage of textbooks that show a La table. The fact that the IUPAC project got established after fifty years of the fight being around is, in my view, a manifestation of this: fifty years were not enough for Lu supporters to win, but they gave them enough representation and made the dispute visible to the public. It is easy to find different books and different posters with different representations of group 3. And since most people who care about this are going to be Lu supporters for the above reasons, plus Scerri's comments, I find it highly likely that Lu toppling La is something that will eventually happen, because more will be pushing that way than the other. Extrapolation of the figures in textbooks suggests that it should happen around midcentury: of course, if the IUPAC project comes to a Lu conclusion, then that would speed it up quite a bit. (The interesting question might be whether Lu topples La before element 121 is discovered. I suspect that might happen. If not, it would be interesting to see if anyone actually applies the block-start criterion for the La table that I see as flawed in order to delay the g block to start at element 125. I highly doubt it to be honest.)
- Once that happens, helium becomes the only exception from the four blocks that everyone starts from. (They are "idealised" only from a chemical perspective, I guess; from a physical perspective they are quite real.) So if we look forward in time to a period when He-Ne + Sc-Y-Lu is standard, I can actually see arguments for He-Be starting to become more mainstream. They are already appearing now in significant journals from noble gas chemists (Grochala, Grandinetti), which is already more recognition than the self-published book of Henry Bent. Extrapolation naturally suggests that, especially as helium chemistry takes off, suddenly He-Ne will seem more and more like an anomaly to more chemists. But that is a far more fraught extrapolation. Double sharp (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Conclusions
Based on these eight properties:
- Group 3 is best shown as B-Al-Sc-Y-La.
- If B-Al remain in group 13, then group 3 is more cohesive as Sc-Y-La-Ac.
- Seemingly the focus on lining up groups into pure blocks detracts from the regularity of periodic trends.
Pauling, in his book, General Chemistry (1988) has group 3 as B-Al-Sc-Y-La in his PT showing EN values (p. 182). Elsewhere he refers to the congeners of B as being Al-Sc-Y-La. He discusses Ga-In-Tl separately in his chapter on Cu, Zn, Ga and their congeners. He writes, "The metals Zn, Cd, and Hg (group IIb) are also much different from the AEM (group II), as are Ga and its congeners (group IIIb) from the elements of group III." (p. 697)
Goodness! Not only do we have a split s-block, and a split d-block, now we have a split p-block! --- Sandbh (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sandbh It's nice to see this being discussed. ^_^
- What you have shown is exactly why, as you know, I am so against La in the d block. Because as you have just demonstrated, the arguments that lead to cleaving group 3 away from group 4 also succeed marvellously at cleaving group 13 away from group 14. Of course I was also saying that in the previous discussion, so it pleases me to see that you're seeing this now. Indeed, see the quote you used at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 49#Split d-block from R. J. P. Williams:
“ | 2. THE CHEMICAL CLASSIFICATION OF ELEMENTS
"The classification of elements in the Periodic Table is now known to be a reflection of restrictions imposed by quantization of energy states of electrons in atoms. However, without recourse to other than empiricism in the study of chemistry the same classification had been observed for over 100 years. In fact it has long been a standard educational practice to separate elements into Groups IA, IIA, and IIIA; transition metals; Groups IB, IIB and IIIB; and the non-metals of Groups IVB to VIIB of the Periodic Table to simplify discussion of their chemistry. Although the distinctive properties in aqueous solution of each of the four classes does not provide sharp divisions it is very useful to treat separately three types of metal: Groups IA, IIA and IIIA metals are associated with equilibrium ionic-model chemistry; transition metals with one-electron redox chemistry and, across each such series, increasingly covalent chemistry concommitant with increasing Lewis-acid strengths of ions, usually at equilibrium with their surroundings; and Groups (IB), IIB and IIIB metal ions with a compromise ion chemistry involving strong Lewis-acid properties while maintaining fast equilibration but little redox activity…Finally, there is the further chemistry of non-metals…" |
” |
- So a split between groups 13 and 14 is just as present as one between groups 3 and 4. Behaviour of Al is also closer mostly to Sc than to Ga, according to Rayner-Canham. Metallicity drops clearly going Al to Si, Ga to Ge, even In to α-Sn. The +3 state of Al-Ga-In has significant ionic tendencies that are not present for the +4 state of Si-Ge-Sn. And in fact, because Cn-Nh-Fl breaks the 234 pattern in all likelihood, whereas Ra-Ac-Th does not, in fact the 234 pattern also points to B-Al-Sc-Y-La-Ac as group 3. Isodiagonality also works better with Al atop Sc, as shown in your own article on group 3.
- I also point out that at Names for sets of chemical elements there is "earth metals" that unites groups 3 and 13, and that preserves left-to-right order better with B-Al-Sc: B, Al, Sc and Ga, Y and In, etc. A +3 d-block contraction is highlighted better with B-Al-Sc, because Ti3+ is the first tripositive cation with a d electron and Ga3+ is the last. Shchukarev's imitator trend, if we believe in Sc-Y-La, looks more consistent with a Ti-Ga d block: then we start each half with +4 (Ti, [Co not so good]), dip down to +2 (Mn, Zn) before restoring +3 (Fe, Ga) at the last element; just like respectively Ce/Tb (and indeed again Tb is much less good at this than Ce!), Eu/Yb, Gd/Lu.
- I hope you can now see why I was always saying that Sc-Y-La alone, without something like B-Al-Sc, is a double standard. Maybe I would be less harsh about it now, but I'd still say you can't have one without the other: the same sort of arguments imply both. (I took some of your ten arguments above and applied them to B-Al-Sc!)
- Well, you seem to be seeing it as "since I believe Sc-Y-La, I have to believe B-Al-Sc". And that's consistent! Only, I think you'll find some more problems once you look at C-Si-Ti-Zr-Ce-Th. That trend is linear and obeys a 345 rule, whereas C-Si-Ge-Sn-Pb-Fl shows kinks at every block insertion and fails 345 at Nh-Fl-Mc (likely 3-2-3).
- But I see it a little bit differently. I say "I cannot believe B-Al-Sc". After all, the vast majority of chemists show B-Al-Ga. Contradiction. Therefore, the logic goes: "since Sc-Y-La implies B-Al-Sc, and that's wrong, Sc-Y-La must also be wrong". Because I have no confidence in an argument that fails to give the expected answer in the non-controversial cases. If it can fail for group 13, then why should I believe it will not fail for group 3 too? I am not so sure of my own chemical knowledge as to think I have the right answer here when almost no chemist sees group 13 as an unsettled question anymore. Does anyone think so other than Habashi, really? Granted, Sc-Y-La is the more common form there, so either way a significant number of chemists are wrong. But Sc-Y-Lu is gaining ground, it has already a significant minority: there's hardly any minority arguing for B-Al-Sc anymore. Even for He-Be there is at least a minority of multiple people, a significant number of whom are noble gas chemists. And I can far more readily believe that some but not all chemists are wrong for the not-so-common rare earth elements, than that practically all chemists are wrong for ultra-common aluminium; especially when a majority of chemists who closely examines the group 3 question comes out in favour of Lu.
- And then everything is clear: it's simply that after a contraction, things change. B and Al are normal; then Ga has a kink in the trend, because 3d10 has been inserted. We should not expect it to continue the trend. We know Ga comes after the 3d contraction, because it cannot use 3d anymore: Zn is the last element that can do that. That's exactly the same as the kink that happens going from C to Si to Ge; from N to P to As; and so on. In the exact same way: Sc and Y are normal; then Lu has a kink in the trend, because 4f14 has been inserted. We should not expect it to continue the trend. And we know Lu comes after the 4f contraction, because it cannot use 4f anymore: Yb is the last element that can do that. Just like the kink that happens going from Ti to Zr to Hf; from V to Nb to Ta; and so on. As Rayner-Canham noted in the article you emailed me, in fact the nice linear trends you see in the alkali and alkaline earth metals are not the norm at all in the periodic table. So we shouldn't ask for a goodness of fit to a linear trend, when we're not expecting a linear trend. It'd be like taking points perfectly spaced on the parabola y = x2, and saying that there's no relationship between the variables because you can't fit a line. Of course you can't, the trend is clearly quadratic in that case.
- If you look only at chemistry, you'll never decide between B-Al-Sc and B-Al-Ga; they both look plausible. If you like linear trends too much, you may even go for B-Al-Sc. It's just like Sc-Y-La vs Sc-Y-Lu. That's why chemistry alone is inconclusive and you have to drill down to the electronic structure. As Scerri noted, chemical and physical properties will never provide a decisive answer, and you've got to go for something more fundamental. And that is electronic structure which has the bonus of explaining chemical and physical properties. That's why I go for strict physics and strict blocks alone. And even in your article on group 3, you say that "From a Platonic symmetry perspective or perhaps that of physics ... it can be argued that lutetium is better placed under yttrium" in the conclusion (my emphasis). That should explain to you briefly why I am a strong partisan for the Lu side: I have rejected chemistry as a criterion as inconclusive and decided on physics, following the philosophy of Scerri: 'Scerri thinks a focus on chemical or physical properties is misguided. He compares it to early botanists’ classification of flowers by their color or petal number. “You’ve got to go for something fundamental,” Scerri says, like electronic configuration. “Just to amass properties is never going to give you a definitive answer.”' And that's why the table I am convinced is theoretically correct has not a single split block: even helium takes its place in the s block above beryllium. Of course, just because I'm convinced by it does not necessarily mean it's the right answer, just that I find it the most convincing. But we'll see what the IUPAC project says.
- It is alright if you are not convinced right now. After all, it would be very hypocritical of me to criticise you for not being immediately convinced, when I was vacillating about the group 3 issue for quite a while after DA talked to us in the middle of 2018, and only finally decisively rejected Sc-Y-La in late 2019 / early 2020 and never looked back. And of course there's no reason this should impact what we show on WP for now when we haven't heard from the IUPAC project yet. After all: I think He-Be is definitely the correct form, but I don't advocate it for the mainspace because it's so obviously not the majority view. So in this thread we're just having a friendly chat, bringing to the table interesting points. But it really pleases me to see that you're now applying your argument outside the bounds of group 3, both because it means I feel you're no longer artificially limiting your arguments, and also because it means you're now examining a case where the standard classification doesn't seem less than useful to any significant number of people rather than deciding it's not worth losing sleep about. That is exactly what took me on the first step to decisively rejecting Sc-Y-La: using B-Al-Sc as a test case. And the beauty of this is that this is science: if the right evidence comes in, I will reevaluate my stance. As you may know, if some evidence came in suggesting that actually Lu had some categorical 4f valence involvement and it wasn't just buried and giving incomplete shielding like it is for Hf, I'd certainly move to thinking that Sc-Y-La isn't that bad after all. It's a contest of ideas only, not personalities, and a nice diversion while we take a break from describing what is in the literature, and dream of what perhaps should be – and in my case, what I hope will soon be. Before returning to earth of course once we saunter out into the mainspace. ^_^
- I'll probably not have time to reply at this length after today, so I'll let you think about it. I also feel that this is the sort of thing that works better if you think about it by yourself for a while: that's how it worked for me. And so I think it's best if this is my only long reply about this topic to not let it get out of hand. However you choose to see it, it will for you hopefully be a journey of scientific inquiry and examination. And I feel it is always good to go down such a journey away from the WP mainspace sometimes. Whatever your conclusions are, I have no doubt they will be interesting, even if it's away from the WP mainspace. Double sharp (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Just to get it: what would the split be, like? -DePiep (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't recall having seen a split p-block in any of my studies or work in chemistry, so I would need a LOT of RS to be persuaded that any such split being shown widely on WP would be justifiable on DUE grounds. Given the reference to Pauling, there may be a place for a mention somewhere. Double sharp's comments on how the idea led to a firm view on La v. Lu etc, if they reflect discussion in RS, could be of relevance for main space somewhere as well. This thread includes much OR, it appears to me, but there are parts that could be article-space relevant if sufficient sources exist. EdChem (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- @EdChem: Yes, that's why I ended off by saying that it was interesting to talk about but not for the mainspace. Only source I'm aware of that mentions analogy of situations of B-Al-Sc-Y vs B-Al-Ga-In to Sc-Y-La-Ac vs Sc-Y-Lu-Lr and uses it to argue for the latter situation is a 2004 Russian article by Droog Andrey: I think it is cited under Periodic table#Primogenic symmetry for something else already. Might be worth a tiny mention, but not a do-or-die thing for me as it is a minor thing. Double sharp (talk) 08:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't recall having seen a split p-block in any of my studies or work in chemistry, so I would need a LOT of RS to be persuaded that any such split being shown widely on WP would be justifiable on DUE grounds. Given the reference to Pauling, there may be a place for a mention somewhere. Double sharp's comments on how the idea led to a firm view on La v. Lu etc, if they reflect discussion in RS, could be of relevance for main space somewhere as well. This thread includes much OR, it appears to me, but there are parts that could be article-space relevant if sufficient sources exist. EdChem (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Just to get it: what would the split be, like? -DePiep (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
What it looks like
There it is, a PT with split s-, p- and d-blocks.
I cottoned on to this as a result of reading Greenwood & Earnshaw's discussion of the chemistry of Al-Ga. I recall I was prompted to do so by something DS wrote, which I've now forgotten. Anyway, G&E have a graph (p. 223) showing trends in successive ionisation energies of B-Al-Sc-Y-La v B-Al-Ga-In-Tl. They write:
- "It is notable that these irregularities for the Group 13 elements do not occur for the Group 3 elements Sc, Y, and La, which shows a steady decrease in IE from B to Al, all 5 elements having the same type of underlying core (noble gas). This has a decisive influence on the comparative chemistry of the two subgroups…the steady decrease in EN in the series B > Al > Sc > Y > La > Ac is reversed in Group 13 and there is a steady increase in EN from Al to Tl." (pp. 222, 224)."
A similar pattern is seen in standard electrode potentials (p. 225).
B-Al-Sc-Y-La tables
- Rang (1893)
- Gooch & Walker (1905)
- Cuthbertson & Metcalfe (1907)
- Baur (1911)
- Rydberg (1913)
- Black & Conant (1920)
- Lewis (1923)
- Hubbard (1924)
- Deming's table (1925), which popularised the medium-long form
- Antropoff (1926)
- LeRoy's table (1927)
- Irwin (1939)
- Seaborg (1945), with Al in group 3 and in group 13
- Yost & Russell (1946)
- Coryell (1952)
- Pauling's table (1960)
- Habishi's Metallurgist's Periodic Table (1992), as mentioned by DS (Habishi leaves B in group 13).
I suspect what has happened here is that it was historically known that group 3 was better represented as B-Al-Sc-Y-La-[Ac]. Then, with the advent and rise of modern electronic structure theory, B-Al- got moved to the p-block because, after all, they were p-block elements, never mind the damned chemistry. And La stayed in the d-block since it was the first element to show 5d electron, and 4f did not show until Ce. DS and I have discussed the latter phenomenon at length.
Nowadays, this represents forgotten chemistry. It underscores the fact that electron configurations are not the final arbiters of periodic trends.
B-Al-Sc-Y-La-Ac as a linking or bridging group
It's odd to see how group 3 consistently represents a linking group. So B-Al link the s-block with the bulk of the p-block; Sc-Y link to the bulk of the d-block; and La-Ac link to the f-block.
On Sc-Y-La-Ac, Greenwood & Earnshaw write:
- "All are rather soft-slivery-white metals, and the display the gradation in properties that might be expected for elements immediately following the strongly-electroposive AEM and preceding the transition metals proper." [italics added]
B is between Be (a metal) and C (a nonmetal). G&E note B has many similarities with C (and Si). At the same time, Greenwood (2001) commented:
- "The extent to which metallic elements mimic boron (in having fewer electrons than orbitals available for bonding) has been a fruitful cohering concept in the development of metalloborane chemistry…Indeed, metals have been referred to as "honorary boron atoms" or even as "flexiboron atoms". The converse of this relationship is clearly also valid…"
Al is between Mg, a metal and Si, a metalloid. It has some properties that are unusual for a metal; its crystalline structure shows some evidence of directional bonding. Aluminium bonds covalently in most compounds. The oxide Al2O3 is amphoteric and a conditional glass-former. Stott (1956) labels aluminium as a weak metal. It has the physical properties of a metal but some of the chemical properties of a nonmetal. Steele (1966) notes the paradoxical chemical behaviour of aluminium: "It resembles a weak metal in its amphoteric oxide and in the covalent character of many of its compounds…Yet it is a highly electropositive metal…[with] a high negative electrode potential". Moody (1991) says, "aluminium is on the 'diagonal borderland' between metals and non-metals in the chemical sense."
--- Sandbh (talk) 06:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
EdChem
- So, if I am following correctly:
- Habishi argued in 1994 for moving Al but not B to group 3
- Greenwood and Earnshaw comment on the similarity of metals to B (also noted by Habishi) and note irregularities in IE, while retaining B and Al in group 13 and so not actually presenting a split p-block
- Moody's comment from 1991 that Al is on the "'diagonal borderland' between metals and non-metals" sounds to me to be consistent with placing B and Al in group 13 alongside all other such elements
- And, you have no RS literature in support of a split p-block with B and Al in group 3 that was published in the last 60 years?
- Arguing that much older work had such placements tells us nothing about the present RS consensus, and nor does referring to it as "forgotten chemistry." Do you have any significant body of recent RS that actually uses a split p-block? If not, then what you are discussing may be useful for our articles on the history of the PT but it doesn't offer any reason to alter the presentation of the PT as it is currently constructed by RS and used in practice. EdChem (talk) 08:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
@EdChem: Yes, you're following correctly. It's interesting to talk about and not for the mainspace other than in a historical sense. I refer to it as forgotten chemistry since modern texts do not discuss the idea of a split p-block. It's peculiar that modern periodic tables seem to be electronic block-based tables, rather than chemistry-based tables in which B-Al are over Sc. Even Seaborg, who arguably contributed to the dominance of the electronic table, showed Al in two places ie group 3 and 13. Looking at the list of tables with B-Al over Sc, there are some other relatively big hitters, too: Rydberg; Lewis; Hubbard; Deming; Antropoff. What was it that these luminaries knew about B-Al-Sc-Y-La-Ac that is deemed to be no longer relevant, and why is that the case?
I recall seeing split-p block tables from time to time but have never paid much attention to them. The most recent one I have at hand is in the corrected 1988 edition of Pauling's General Chemistry.
Deming (1947, Fundamental Chemistry, 2nd ed. p. 617) located Al with the pre-transition metals in groups 1−2. Cox (2004, Inorganic Chemistry, 2nd ed. p. 185) refers to the pre-transition metals as those in groups 1 and 2, and Al. Here's a 2019 periodic table (by me), recording oxidation number trends, further suggesting B and Al are better placed over Sc.
Rayner-Canham (2020, The periodic table: Past, present, and future, pp. 178–181) writes:
- "It was Rang in 1893 who seems to have been the first, on the basis of chemical similarity, to place boron and aluminum in Group 3.
- Such an assignment seems to have been forgotten until more recent times. Greenwood and Earnshaw have discussed the way in which aluminum can be considered as belonging to Group 3 as much as to Group 13 particularly in its physical properties. Habashi has suggested that there are so many similarities between aluminum and scandium that aluminum’s place in the Periodic Table should actually be shifted to Group 3.
- In terms of the electron configuration of the tripositive ions, one would indeed expect that Al3+ (electron configuration, [Ne]) would resemble Sc3+ (electron configuration, [Ar]) more than Ga3+ (electron configuration, [Ar]3d10). Also of note, the standard reduction potential for aluminum fits better with those of the Group 3 elements than the Group 13 elements (Table 9.2) — as does its melting point.
- In terms of their comparative solution behavior, aluminum resembles both scandium(III) and gallium(III). For each ion, the free hydrated cation exists only in acidic solution. On addition of hydroxide ion to the respective cation, the hydroxides are produced as gelatinous precipitates. Each of the hydroxides redissolve in excess base to give an anionic hydroxo-complex, [M(OH)4]−…There does seem to be a triangular relationship between these three elements. However, aluminum does more closely resemble scandium rather than gallium in its chemistry. If hydrogen sulfide is bubbled through a solution of the respective cation, scandium ion gives a precipitate of scandium hydroxide, and aluminum ion gives a corresponding precipitate of aluminum hydroxide. By contrast, gallium ion gives a precipitate of gallium(III) sulfide. Also, scandium and aluminum both form carbides, while gallium does not."
As a chemist, what is your take on the merits of B-Al-Sc-Y-La-Ac in comparison to B-Al-Ga-In-Tl? Sandbh (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- As a chemist, I think the periodic table has an unsplit p-block and B and Al are p-block elements. As a Wikipedian, I think the discussion is wandering into WP:NOTAFORUM territory. As a researcher (and engaging in a little OR), I think that the correlations (if I am not mistaken in how they are constructed) have serious problems with validity in a statistical sense. EdChem (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
How the B-Al-Sc vs. B-Al-Ga situation relates to the Sc-Y-La vs. Sc-Y-Lu situation
@EdChem: As noted above the source I am aware of that mentions this is an old article by Droog Andrey (= Andrey Kulsha). Link is here. I grant it is not formally published but seems to be something he did as a student at Belarusian State University in 2004. But he has gotten published outside as an academic, here (some computational chemistry about superacids) and here (in 1999 as a student, but already in the journal Хiмiя: праблемы выкладання 1999, 5, pp. 102–109; this is his article supporting Lu in group 3). Hopefully this is good enough as an RS for WP; if you feel it's not, I will listen to that.
“ | Следует заметить, что до недавнего времени к семействам f-элементов относили не La – Yb и Ac – No, а Ce – Lu и Th – Lr, в то время как d-элементами IIIб группы были La и Ac вместо Lu и Lr из-за прохода первого (n – 2)f-электрона на (n – 1)d-подоболочку [4]. Однако детальное исследование закономерностей изменения химических и физических свойств элементов [5 – 6] в рядах Ba – Hf и Ra – Rf [7], а также сравнительное исследование групп Sc-Y-La-Ac и Sc-Y-Lu-Lr [8] и проведение аналогий с группами B-Al-Sc-Y и B-Al-Ga-In соответственно показало, что целесообразнее, практичнее и закономернее относить к f-элементам именно семейства La – Yb и Ac – No [3]. В настоящее время вариант периодической системы со «сдвинутыми» семействами еще распространен [4], однако он постепенно вытесняется новой формой, более строгой формально и лучше описывающей реальные свойства f-элементов и d-элементов IIIб подгруппы. | ” |
Translation courtesy of Google Translate: "It should be noted that until recently, not La - Yb and Ac - No, but Ce - Lu and Th - Lr were attributed to the families of f-elements, while the d-elements of group IIIb were La and Ac instead of Lu and Lr from for the passage of the first (n - 2) f-electron to the (n - 1) d-subshell [4]. However, a detailed study of the regularities of changes in the chemical and physical properties of elements [5 - 6] in the series Ba - Hf and Ra - Rf [7], as well as a comparative study of the Sc-Y-La-Ac and Sc-Y-Lu-Lr groups [8 ] and drawing analogies with the B-Al-Sc-Y and B-Al-Ga-In groups, respectively, showed that it is more expedient, more practical, and more logical to attribute the families La - Yb and Ac - No to f-elements [3]. At present, the version of the periodic system with "shifted" families is still widespread [4], but it is gradually being replaced by a new form, formally more rigorous and better describing the real properties of f-elements and d-elements of IIIb subgroup."
If I used it, it would in any case only be for a sentence in the main group 3 element article, along these lines: "Kulsha pointed out that the changes going down Sc-Y-La-Ac and Sc-Y-Lu-Lr are respectively analogous to those going down B-Al-Sc-Y and B-Al-Ga-In; since B-Al-Ga-In is standard, this constitutes an argument for Sc-Y-Lu-Lr." In any case there are very many other arguments for Lu in the literature there, so even if this is considered not RS enough, it's still OK with me. Again, it's just for a descriptive sentence, in what's basically a subarticle and not the main periodic table article, not about changing the periodic table format.
I'm not arguing that we change to -Lu-Lr right now on WP anymore. Oh, yes, I still think it's the absolutely correct form and all that, but I also know that's not the point for WP. Please correct me if I'm wrong about the outside situation, but it seems the situation there among chemists and on WP is this:
- The majority of chemists don't care and if anything wonder what all the fuss is about.
- A minority thinks the issue is of great and paramount importance.
- When this minority writes articles about the matter, a crushing majority of them argues for -Lu-Lr for various reasons. (Link is to all the sources I've managed to collect, or at least have mentions of, in the literature. If you know somewhere where I can find the ones that don't have links, please write on my talk page!) There are a few who care greatly about this and who think the situation supports -La-Ac (Sandbh's view), but it is very few. So: as a general rule, those who care about this issue think -Lu-Lr is the scientifically correct, or at least a scientifically better, form.
- However, -La-Ac was the traditional form for a long time. Therefore, among those who wonder what all the fuss is about, that form predominates because it's what they learnt and they don't think there are any strong reasons to change it.
- Therefore the effect is that most textbooks continue to use the -La-Ac form.
- However, some textbook writers have been convinced by the -Lu-Lr partisans to change their periodic tables. So thanks to them, the amount of support for -La-Ac has eroded noticeably, but it still has a majority.
- The debate also seems to be responsible for the -*-** compromise of IUPAC gaining ground, but that is not as common either. See this 1988 report by IUPAC, in which Sc-Y-Lu was admitted to be the correct form according to electronic configurations (with some sources being given to justify this), but Sc-Y-* was chosen as a compromise and appeared in the next Red Book because Sc-Y-La dominated in the literature. Although inconsistently: in the next 1990 Red Book, the periodic table was shown in 18 column format as Sc-Y-*, and then on the next page in 32 column format as Sc-Y-Lu. I don't know if this was just a mistake or a deliberate attempt to please everybody; if so it clearly didn't work. The 32 column form was dropped from the 2005 Red Book anyway, so for now IUPAC shows Sc-Y-*, but does not recommend it. Strange, I know. Judging by the fact that if anything the rate of publications on this argument increased rather than decreased after 1988, it seems that this ended up being the classic sort of compromise that satisfied nobody that was promptly ignored in favour of continuing the fight.
- Therefore the average reader is likely to be familiar with all forms because it's easy to find textbooks on both sides (La-Ac: Greenwood & Earnshaw; Lu-Lr: Clayden et al.) and even popular-science books on both sides (La-Ac: The Cartoon Guide to Chemistry, Gonick & Criddle; Lu-Lr: The Periodic Table: Its Story and Its Significance, Scerri), but -La-Ac is what he or she will find most of the time when reading off WP at his or her likely level if he or she is looking up basic stuff about the PT anyway.
- Ergo, the conflict is between which sources to listen to. Should we go for the sources people are more familiar with, in which -La-Ac predominates with -Lu-Lr as just a rising upstart in the minority? Or should we go for the sources that directly take on the matter, in which -Lu-Lr crushingly predominates, except for the small problem that those sources are written at a level quite a few levels up from the basics that the periodic table is at?
- The issue has been raised a couple of times this year by me, and it is somewhat split; but the viewpoint in favour of going for the sources directly about the thing did not get a clear majority. So I have to admit there is currently no consensus for a change. Both viewpoints seem legitimate to me by the measure of "it's not against WP policy", and I do still think WP is worse off for not showing -Lu-Lr, but I think that pales before the need to respect consensus. Without that, WP can no longer remain WP. So I hold my peace.
- The issue has been going on since 1965 and apparently enough students and instructors are confused by the differences in group 3 found in the literature that IUPAC started a project to deal with it in 2015. Its chair's words here make me hopeful that -Lu-Lr will be the ruling. If that happens, the chance of getting a consensus change will be far greater, and then I will propose it again. But not before that and not if it doesn't happen. After all: at any time it is possible that they rule something that isn't -Lu-Lr, and then suddenly -Lu-Lr has even less of a position by WP policy than before. So there isn't any point in raising it again now until and unless a -Lu-Lr ruling happens soon: not much will have changed.
So, to make it clear, I'm not looking to change anything about how we present group 3 now. (I mention this here because I'm not sure I've said all this in one place yet.) It has been fairly tried and gotten no consensus, and although I still prefer -Lu-Lr as everyone knows by now, WP has to work by consensus and I respect that. Not only that, a IUPAC ruling is coming that with a bit of luck could end the entire debate: since we usually wait for IUPAC approval in any case when new elements get discovered (the only common way the PT changes at this moment), it makes sense to use that as a precedent here and wait for it too.
It is only that Sandbh's mentioning of the group 13 situation made me remember that this argument exists in the literature, and wondered if it would be permissible by WP standards to give it a one-sentence mention in the article group 3 element that discusses the arguments (of course not in the main periodic table article for which it would be overkill). That's all I'm wondering. Double sharp (talk) 11:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Double sharp and Droog Andrey: DA's paper is less than reliable.
- The key sentence is:
- "However, detailed study of the regularities of changes in the chemical and physical properties of elements [5 - 6] in series Ba - Hf and Ra - Rf [7], as well as a comparative study of groups Sc-Y-La-Ac and Sc-Y-Lu-Lr[8] and drawing analogies with the groups B-Al-Sc-Y and B-Al-Ga-In, respectively, showed that it is more expedient, more practical, and more logical to attribute to f-elements precisely the families La - Yb andAc - No [3].
- No summary is provided as to "the regularities of changes in the chemical and physical properties of elements [5 - 6] in series Ba - Hf and Ra - Rf [7]."
- References 5−7 are:
- 5. Ugai Ya.A. General and inorganic chemistry. - M .: Higher school, 1998
- 6. Physical quantities: Handbook. - M .: Energoatomizdat, 1991.
- 7. Kulsha A.V. f-Elements in the periodic system of D.I.Mendeleev // Chemistry: problems laid out 1999 , No. 5, pp. 102 - 10
- I expect these references would be hard to check.
- Reference 3 i.e. Winter M. WebElements Periodic table. URL: http://www.webelements.com, is not a RS.
- Reference 8 is Jensen. Scerri wrote that Jensen was too selective in the evidence he put forward in order to support his case.
- The real-life situation seems to be as follows:
- An electronic (physics-based) table would show (a) He over Be; and (b) group 3 as Sc-Y-Lu-Lr; and (c) group 13 as B-Al-Ga-In-Tl
- A chemistry-based table would show (d) He over Ne; and (e) B-Al over Sc-Y-La-Ac.
- What we have instead is a hybrid table with 1(c) and 2(d).
- Is that a fair summary? --- Sandbh (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- I am asking EdChem, actually. I am not sure why WebElements is not an RS considering that we actually use it in chemical elements data references. Source #7 you mention is exactly where the "regularities of changes" are mentioned: it is his 1999 article that I already linked you. The selectivity of Jensen seems to be only a charge that Scerri levels: it did not seem to stop many people from citing and referring to him as the authority for the Sc-Y-Lu table, and Scerri himself also supports Sc-Y-Lu for different reasons.
- I also do not think you have a fair summary of the chemistry-based situation. (The physics-based one is correct, with maybe some quibbles about He-Be since He chemistry is not too well-known yet.) The grounds that you accept B-Al-Sc for (mostly historical and chemical) are exactly those that have in the same era been used to support Be-Mg-Zn, according to RS. As Jensen noted, Be and Mg do share more in common with Zn than with Ca from a chemical perspective. Jensen explained the situation in that paper:
“ | As we have seen, from a spectroscopic point of view, the members of the Zn group are analogous to the alkaline earth metals or group II elements. From a chemical point of view, Zn and Cd most resemble Be and Mg, not only in terms of their atomic radii, ionic radii, and electronegativities (Table 4), but also in terms of the structures of their binary compounds and in their ability to form complex ions with a wide variety of oxygen and nitrogen donor ligands (including complex hydrates and amines). Indeed, prior to the introduction of electronic periodic tables, the similarity between Be and Mg and Zn and Cd was often considered to be greater than the similarity between Be and Mg and the rest of the alkaline earth metals (Ca–Ra). Many inorganic texts written before the Second World War placed their discussion of the chemistry of Be and Mg in the chapter dealing with the Zn subgroup rather than in the chapter dealing with the Ca subgroup, and the same is true of many older periodic tables, including those originally proposed by Mendeleev (34, 35). Even as late as 1950, N. V. Sidgwick, in his classic two-volume survey of The Chemical Elements and Their Compounds, felt that it was necessary to justify his departure from this scheme in the case of Mg (36)... | ” |
- And indeed, if you look at modern texts, you will find that indeed those similarities exist and are widely acknowledged. Greenwood & Earnshaw on p. 113 says it: "In these properties [peroxides and dissolving directly in ammonia are mentioned], as in many others, the heavier alkaline earth metals [Ca, Sr, Ba, Ra] resemble the alkali metals rather than Mg (which has many similarities to Zn) or Be (which is analogous to Al)." What's changed is that nobody thinks it has significance for PT placement anymore. Of course, you can't exactly have Be-Mg-Zn and B-Al-Sc in the same periodic table. It would break the order of increasing atomic number because B would have to come to the left of Be. That doesn't look good for your argument: if we insist that chemical similarity is the first criterion, we end up with both Be-Mg-Zn and B-Al-Sc and hence break the periodic law!
- Jensen has clearly pointed out here that this is simply coming from the change between chemical and physical understandings of the periodic table. B-Al-Sc and Be-Mg-Zn both come from this same era (of course never in the same book because it breaks the atomic number order). And in both cases, we can still find significant relationships to the other one: Al-Ga is well-known, Mg-Ca is also well-known. Look at any chemistry textbook that describes main group elements, some of their similarities will be mentioned. Over 50 or 60 years ago, because physics and electronic periodic tables weren't the norm or widely understood yet, people were using chemistry as the sole guide. But modern periodic tables are based on physics and electronic structure, not chemistry. That's also why, for example, hydrogen is placed where it is over lithium, and not over fluorine. (Helium over neon is arguable because one can think of 1s2 vs 2s22p6 as the core, in which case electronic structure is not against He-Ne: I expect this will change as helium chemistry gets revealed, because that is what proves that those are not just core electrons. Which is fascinatingly consistent with how a significant number of He-Be partisans seem to be noble gas chemists: Grochala, Grandinetti.) As Scerri himself noted, chemical arguments are not conclusive: they are rather the equivalent of classifying flowers by colour or petal number rather than genetics. (Jensen citing Jorgensen also pointed out that the path from electronic structure to final chemical behaviour is not always that straight, especially for the d and f block elements with multiple low-lying excited states that contribute for chemistry. Seems to me just like the winding road from genotype to phenotype.) And as Jensen also noted, if you just pick and choose elements from different rows and columns arbitrarily, then thanks to the possibility of trends cancelling each other you can prove pretty much anything, which is no good. As he said, you have to get the self-consistent periodic trends from the atomic structure. That's why his latest publicly expressed stand (2017) seems to be that the most important argument for -Lu-Lr is because La and Ac have low-lying f orbitals that they use for chemistry, but Lu and Lr don't: in other words, the physical argument is coming first for him too. That is why B-Al-Ga is standard, that is why Be-Mg-Ca is standard. Elements are placed in blocks according to their electronic structure, even if some other elements may be chemically more similar. And although I still can't find a source making the point I am about to make, it boggles my mind exactly how chemical properties could still be thought of as a valid way to build up the periodic table today, when everyone is familiar with nitrogen and bismuth in the same group. You could hardly come up with two more different elements. (If you object that N and Bi share the maximum oxidation state +5, simply make it nitrogen and moscovium.) In short: what you have, talking about chemistry, is widely agreed by authorities to be a historical view: everything I said above that isn't in small print is from the RS. My impression concurs with EdChem's. Other than a few people on the side, nobody thinks these added chemical similarities actually mean the periodic table should change anymore. Be-Mg-Zn and B-Al-Sc are interesting sidelines in the history of the periodic table, connected with the trouble encountered when you expand Mendeleev's original 8 column format to the modern 18 and 32 column ones; but they are only historical sidelines. As could be expected because Be and Mg are more like Zn than Ca according to RS, and B and Al are more like Sc than Ga according to RS, so if you adopted chemical similarity as the criterion for both you'd end up with the atomic number sequence getting lost because B came before Be!)
- I might also add that if one really believed in chemistry as the basis, then Th, Pa, and U would not be under Ce, Pr, and Nd, but under Hf, Ta, and W. That is where they were before WWII as well, because the valences match better that way, and the physics was not then well-understood. Nd cannot be hexavalent; U can and often is.
“ | Nevertheless, the actinoids are not a “second rare-earth set.” Instead, the early actinoids are not limited to +3 common oxidation states but have highest oxidation states paralleling their transition metal analogs. This “double-allegiance” was acknowledged by Darlene Hoffman and D. M. Lee in their discussion of the chemistry of the heaviest elements (27). This resemblance of the early actinoids to corresponding transition metals has been named the Actinoid Relationship, which “relates to similarities in chemical formulas and chemical properties between early members of the actinoid series and the corresponding members of the transition metal series” (27). The Actinoid Relationship provides such rich chemistry of the early actinoids. In fact, there has been a continuing interest in whether higher oxidation states can be found farther along the actinoids, even up to plutonium(VIII) (28). Thus, we should not give students the impression that the lanthanoids and actinoids are matching series. Instead, the answer to whether the early actinoids are actinoids or transition metals is: “both”! | ” |
— G. Rayner-Canham: Why Don’t We Really Teach about the Periodic Table? |
- Of course, nobody believes that anymore: the physical fact that the f orbitals are involved here has trumped all chemical ideas here. No doubt to a traditional chemist of Mendeleev's time, the placement of U under Nd would look deranged: now it has conquered all. Chemistry has lost utterly to physics here. I suspect this paper of Scerri is of relevance here, given its header "The Actinides. A Case Where Spectroscopy Triumphs over Chemistry?" In any case, even if one tried to use chemistry here: one could not. Th, Pa, and U would be jammed in the same spaces as Rf, Db, and Sg which cannot be placed anywhere else but as eka-Hf, eka-Ta, and eka-W. Just another example of how chemistry simply doesn't work as a basis for PT placement: it forces you to break the law that elements appear in order of increasing atomic number. It has been abandoned for a very good reason.
- I don't think the future is going to be particularly good for Sc-Y-La. We seem to be agreed that physics is not for it; whether chemistry is for it or not is somewhat disputed (Jensen thinks no, Restrepo thinks yes – but only for La, since data for Ac/Lr is thin on the ground), but chemistry has already been supplanted as a basis for the PT by physics long ago. So the dispute has almost become moot because according to the modern criterion of physics, Sc-Y-Lu is a shoo-in. After all, using chemistry as the basis means wrecking the atomic number order (B before Be, Al before Mg) and forcing two elements in the same place (U and Sg jammed together under W). Scerri has outright said in his recent workshop: "My money's on number two [Sc-Y-Lu] and I certainly will be arguing to IUPAC that they should adopt number two. ... The one I'm suggesting and other people on this committee have suggested is lutetium and lawrencium should be the official version." I doubt he'd say that if he didn't think the IUPAC committee he's chairing was on board with it, particularly since he's apparently writing an article summarising the results of their deliberations. So, I grant that I am an outsider to these deliberations, but I would be very, very surprised after hearing that if the results were not an IUPAC ruling in favour of -Lu-Lr. So I'd personally advise once again that you drop that idea and return to Sc-Y-Lu as you supported before 2016, before I to my regret convinced you otherwise based on wrong data (in fact, what I told you were the condensed-phase configurations of the Ln and An, that convinced you to -La-Ac, were not the correct such configurations; my bad). RS indicate that for the wider chemical community, periodic tables based on chemistry rather than electronic structure are a historical thing. We've advanced since then, and the reason why -Lu-Lr which is consistent with this idea hasn't gotten up seems to be just inertia or people unaware of the matter. It seems to be going as DA said: "Eventually Lu will replace La. That's just a matter of time needed for obsolete understandings to die." But it's up to you, of course. You can have whatever view you like, and so can I; the point is just to work together to let WP accurately display what's in the literature, and update things only with it. As I said, I'm totally OK with WP only getting updated to the -Lu-Lr format when an IUPAC ruling comes along. Double sharp (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Double sharp, if you are going to leave aside any action on group 3 until there is movement from IUPAC, then why put a lot of time into discussion of the topic, especially in light of WP:NOTAFORUM? EdChem (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- @EdChem: Well, I did it mostly because it seemed to me that Sandbh was using partly the same sort of argumentation as he was for Sc-Y-La as he's now using for B-Al-Sc. In this case the RS situation is a lot clearer (to a first approximation no one seems to take B-Al-Sc seriously), so I thought this might serve well at explaining to Sandbh why I feel RS was not supporting his approach. Maybe it skirts to NOTAFORUM, but my judgement might be a bit compromised by a lingering guilt: before 2016 Sandbh was a Lu supporter and I convinced him away from it based on what I now with better knowledge think was wrong data and some bad arguments. Since in 2018 DA explained to us more about this and I realised that what I was saying wasn't really correct, but Sandbh wasn't convinced, I find it a bit difficult to suppress the lingering guilt and it might impact what I say here more than it really should. Anyway, it seems clear now from his reply that it didn't really work at explaining to Sandbh why I feel this use of correlation to look for a linear trend isn't justified per Jensen. So I decided after my second post today (see the bottom) to stop posting about it here. In other words: I agree with you now, and had just decided to stop. ^_^
- Anyway, the point of me starting this subthread was just to ask you if you thought DA's article could serve as an RS for including the argument "B-Al-Sc vs B-Al-Ga is analogous to Sc-Y-La vs Sc-Y-Lu, and since B-Al-Ga is standard that makes Sc-Y-Lu seem more reasonable by analogy" in the ancillary article on group 3 element (not the main periodic table article): it was a source reliability for WP question. Unfortunately I guess it is now buried. I'd still like an opinion but it's not really that important; there are lots of other arguments which have already been listed in that article and are cleanly cited to RS, so having or not having this one isn't that important.
- I am afraid to say I have some doubts now about whether trying to continue the collaboration to improve periodic table to real FA status is really going to be good for us as a project. That's because of recent edits by Sandbh coupled with this discussion. The two I have in mind are this and this. Please correct me if I am wrong but I have serious doubts if these two trends (category analogies and isodiagonality respectively) are that common in the introductory chemistry literature to deserve this kind of high-profile mention. They are things that Sandbh has discussed in his recent journal-published articles of 2020 (this year), and he cites himself for them, but I was not aware of them being common trends to discuss among chemists rather than just appearing in a few places (isodiagonality is common for a few specific pairs Li-Mg, Be-Al, B-Si, I know, but I'm not aware of it being commonly applied to things like Ca-Y-Ce as Sandbh gives in his illustration). Again, please correct me if I'm wrong and these actually are common to discuss in the ways the figures show, but as it stands I'm not really comfortable with these additions. I'm especially not happy with the figure for isodiagonality, which he took from his own article on group 3, has aluminium moved to over scandium (as he's discussing here) against common chemical practice, contains an uncited claim about "predominantly ionic" chemistry that to my understanding is against typical freshman knowledge and not really often used to describe chemistry (surely that always depends on the counteranion; sure, NaCl is predominantly ionic, but one can hardly say it for Na3Bi, say; surely one can't exactly say the chemistry of Ce is "predominantly ionic" without making it clear what elements we're comparing it against, because with most elements Ce probably forms some sort of intermetallic phase anyway; and isn't the more common way to express this electropositivity?), and finally at the end throws in what seems to be a gratuitous Sc-Y-La argument from the atomic number triad (21+57)/2 = 39 that isn't exactly relevant to this topic (isodiagonality) IMHO. I cannot say I'm happy with this, but perhaps my opinion is coloured by the fact that I'm generally against Sandbh's research conclusions on periodicity, so your opinion might help as a third one. But in general I feel that (1) we just have very different visions for how the article should look, and (2) it doesn't look very good if I'm always the one who pounces and points out something I feel is problematic when it's the same editor each time, and (3) it seems likely that in the absence of a categorical statement of Sc-Y-Lu from IUPAC this and other issues will be hard to really provide a ruling on because this La vs Lu issue keeps sneaking in in the form of these sorts of periodic table figures and illustrations. I'd be fine with it if it was just the default PTs being shown as La, without any text trying to "prove" it correct that way when the debate is not of importance; but when we have a PT shown like that, and specially moved to have Al atop Sc in something else that the editor in question is championing, with a justification for Sc-Y-La presented in the middle of a long caption in a section not related to the dispute, it somehow leaves a bad taste in my mouth as if the argument was being given too much weight and it spilled outside its own section. So I suspect it might be better for me to just leave this article be and let Sandbh do as he wants with it, when there are a bunch of much less controversial elements in the middle of the table for which good reliable sources are not hard to come by and for which categorisation is completely undisputed (I admit that probably means just some nondescript transition metals...). After all, if what he's done is really problematic, it's better for someone less involved in the dispute to say it, and if it isn't, then I'd better also hold my peace; and I think writing this neutrally is going to be so so so much easier once IUPAC says something and I don't trust myself to be able to do it perfectly either till then. For instance, I guess the GAs on vanadium and palladium ought to somehow be restored by an article improvement drive. Most of the remaining not-even-GA articles are very meaty (e.g. gold, sulfur) or hard-to-research-because-historical (radium) topics, but taking a GA somewhere and FA-ing it might be fun. All that might very well be far less controversial than trying to achieve a shared vision for the periodic table article as the situation stands... Double sharp (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Double sharp, I mentioned WP:NOTAFORUM to both you and Sandbh as there are some pretty long posts appearing and they are not clearly directed to article-space issues. It was meant as a reminder and an invitation for reflection, so please don't take it as more than was intended.
- You asked if I thought that
DA's article could serve as an RS for including the argument "B-Al-Sc vs B-Al-Ga is analogous to Sc-Y-La vs Sc-Y-Lu, and since B-Al-Ga is standard that makes Sc-Y-Lu seem more reasonable by analogy" in the ancillary article on group 3 element (not the main periodic table article)
. Leaving aside reliability, a more pertinent question is whether DA's article makes that argument, or if it has been used by other RS to make that argument... because if the argument is built from DA's article but the article does not actually make the argument directly then it would be OR or SYNTH to use it unless another RS has already advanced the argument using DA's work. - Sandbh citing his own work does not raise OR or SYNTH concerns so long as the work cited does support what it is used to support. That doesn't mean that its inclusion is appropriate based on DUE, however. You link to two additions and I can see why you have concerns based on a first look. Starting a talk page discussion and neutrally inviting comment from the Chemistry WikiProject might be a way forward. I tried to encourage work on the PT article to look at the non-controversial parts that can be improved, but it does not appear that my approach is developing along the lines that I envisaged. EdChem (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- @EdChem: Right, I understand what you intended now. ^_^
- Well, DA's article says (relevant bit in translation)
However, a detailed study of the regularities of changes in the chemical and physical properties of elements [5 - 6] in the series Ba - Hf and Ra - Rf [7], as well as a comparative study of the Sc-Y-La-Ac and Sc-Y-Lu-Lr groups [8 ] and drawing analogies with the B-Al-Sc-Y and B-Al-Ga-In groups, respectively, showed that it is more expedient, more practical, and more logical to attribute the families La - Yb and Ac - No to f-elements [3].
I guess it's pretty clear what he means by it, but it's maybe expressed in a way that requires the leader to draw the line to the final step. Do you think it'd be SYNTH to say what I said? I'm not sure, that's why I'm asking. ^_^ - Oh yes, I agree that Sandbh citing his own work is totally OK wrt OR and SYNTH. It is cited to an RS and it supports what it claims to. My concern was just about DUE, as mentioned. But I think I'll let you opine first, because as I mentioned I may have some unconscious biases. Double sharp (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Double sharp, if you are going to leave aside any action on group 3 until there is movement from IUPAC, then why put a lot of time into discussion of the topic, especially in light of WP:NOTAFORUM? EdChem (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Group 2 as Be-Mg-Ca-Sr-Ba-Ra or Be-Mg-Zn-Cd-Hg
I mapped the trend-lines going down these two options using the same eight properties I used for group 3 and 13.
The average goodness-of-fit values were:
- Be-Mg-Ca-Sr-Ba = 0.84
- Be-Mg-Zn-Cd-Hg = 0.66
This is better than the figures for group 3 and group 13, which I did not find surprising. It is consistent with 16 of the 17 B-Al-Sc-Y-La-Ac tables. Only Hubbard shows Be-Mg-Zn-Cd-Hg. It is consistent with C & W (1999): "The Group 12 elements differ markedly from those in Group 2 in nearly all aspects except having II as their only important oxidation state." (p. 599).
I haven't double checked my figures, so maybe I got something wrong.
The quality of DA's source 7 is too low to be legible.
I agree many people cite and refer to Jensen as the authority for the Sc-Y-Lu table. The only people I know who have looked critically at Jensen rather than superficially, as I did at first, are Scerri, myself and you. And I only did so with the help of Scerri. In our joint IUPAC paper we showed how nearly all (as I recall) of Jensen's arguments don't hold water.
I feel there is too much confidence being placed in physics, as opposed to chemistry, given the nature of IUPAC. I sort of addressed this is in my article on the location and composition of Group 3:
- "Nor does IUPAC prescribe which elements, for example hydrogen and helium, belong in which group. All they have done is approve collective names for like elements e.g. chalcogens (oxygen, selenium, selenium, tellurium, polonium) and noble gases (helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, radon) (Connelly et al. 2005, p. 61). For example, if helium is placed over beryllium then helium still belongs to the noble gases.
- Why then would IUPAC be interested in prescribing which element goes under yttrium when, depending on the circumstances, either lanthanum or lutetium could be suitable? For example, in electronic structure terms, lanthanum has the advantage of incumbency, since the 5d1 electron appears for the first time in its structure whereas it appears for the third time in lutetium, having already made a brief appearance in gadolinium (Trifonov 1970, pp. 201–202). On the other hand, lutetium may be a better choice if crystallography is the focus, since the crystalline structures of scandium, yttrium, and lutetium are all hexagonal close packed whereas that of lanthanum is double hexagonal close packed. As another example of the flexibility of group assignments, Group 14 in the Earth Scientist’s periodic table is composed of carbon, silicon, titanium, zirconium, and hafnium rather than the standard set of carbon, silicon, germanium, tin, and lead (Railsback 2018).
- The current confusion for students and teachers as to why the IUPAC table has a 15-element wide f-block, whereas other authors show lanthanum or lutetium under yttrium and an associated 14-element wide f-block, arises from a lack of IUPAC guidance along the lines of the previous paragraph, rather than because it has not formed a view as to the composition of Group 3.
- Such guidance could read, for example, as follows:
- Draft IUPAC Red Book guidance
- ELEMENTS IN THE PERIODIC TABLE
- The periodic table on the insider cover is the form agreed and used within the IUPAC, rather than being IUPAC recommended or approved. In this instance, the lanthanoids are shown as a 15-element wide series in light of their chemical similarities.
- Different forms of the periodic table may be more or less appropriate in particular contexts. For example, a 14-element wide lanthanoid series may be more appropriate to better bring out the concept of an f-block. Such a series could start with, for example, lanthanum or cerium depending on the context.
- IUPAC does not recommend or approve any particular format of periodic table or system, nor does it mandate the composition of Groups."
An IUPAC format table leaves open the implications associated with each group 3 option. [1]
It says the chemistry of La to Lu is the primary item of interest, with group 3 being able to be treated flexibly as Sc-Y-La-Ac [2] or Sc-Y-Lu-Lr. [3]
If consistency is also important, you can move B-Al over Sc-Y-La-Ac if the focus is on chemistry [4]; or, with Sc-Y-Lu-Lr, move He over Be, if the focus is on electronic structure [5].
So the options are:
Basis Group 2 Group 3 Group 13 Group 18 Chem Elec [1] IUPAC form Be-Ra Sc-Y-*-** B-Tl He-Rn Chem ? Elec Chem 2½ 1½ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [2] Traditional La form Be-Ra Sc-Y-La-Ac B-Tl He-Rn Chem Chem Elec Chem 3 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [3] Traditional Lu form Be-Ra Sc-Y-Lu-Lr B-Tl He-Rn Chem Elec Elec Chem 2 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [4] La form (consistent) Be-Ra B-Al-Sc-Y-La-Ac Ga-Tl He-Rn Chem Chem Chem Chem 4 0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [5] Lu form (consistent) He-Ra Sc-Y-Lu-Lr B-Tl Ne-Rn Elec Elec Elec Elec 0 4
It's curious that:
- the IUPAC form is not really sitting on the fence i.e. it has a chemistry bias: chem. (2½) elec. (1½);
- the most common, traditional [2] form is inconsistent—not so surprising given the nature of the subject matter i.e. chemistry;
- the traditional Lu [3] form is a fence-sitter in that it cannot make up its mind if it is Arthur or Martha;
- the La [4] form is perfectly unambiguous, and requires three split blocks; and
- the Lu [5] form with He over Be is perfectly unambiguous, and highly symmetrical.
I know of nothing that would prompt IUPAC to make a decision on the composition of group 3. Recall that the commissioning of the IUPAC project on group 3 does not necessarily mean the recommendation of the project will be accepted by IUPAC.
Of course, I may be be mistaken, and I'm looking forward to what eventually comes out of the IUPAC Group 3 project, and its reception, by the chemistry community, and IUPAC and its world-wide affiliated bodies, as much as you are. --- Sandbh (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: I think you're still asking for goodness-of-fit trend values comparing against straight lines. But the point is that the trend should not be a straight line. If you do that, then it's like staring at exact parabolas and shouting "there's no trend! there's no trend!". Of course there is, but if one insists on the linear dogma, then it becomes simply impossible to see. Just try and plot the goodness-of-fit value for the following data:
x | −10 | −9 | −8 | −7 | −6 | −5 | −4 | −3 | −2 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
y | 100 | 81 | 64 | 49 | 36 | 25 | 16 | 9 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 9 | 16 | 25 | 36 | 49 | 64 | 81 | 100 |
- The correlation coefficient happens to be exactly zero. But there is a clear relationship between x and y here. An exact one, in fact. I think it's pretty obvious. ^_^
- There's two kinds of trends in the table: Be-Mg-Ca-Sr-Ba-Ra is the "straight line" kind, Be-Mg-Zn-Cd-Hg-Cn is the "kinked" block-insertion kind. The latter is natural everywhere outside the s block, which is why for those trends a lower goodness-of-fit value is actually better: it indicates we have the right type of trend. But if you insist on those, then I suggest plotting goodness-of-fit values for C-Si-Ti-Zr-Ce-Th (all four electrons above a noble gas) vs C-Si-Ti-Zr-Hf-Rf (Earth scientist's periodic table) vs C-Si-Ge-Sn-Pb-Fl (standard). The former will probably be better. And the same for N-P-V-Nb-Pr-Pa vs N-P-V-Nb-Ta-Db vs N-P-As-Sb-Bi-Mc. Are those forgotten chemistry also? Maybe in a way, they are the A vs B secondary analogies that Jensen agreed were kind of "lost knowledge" today. But that doesn't mean that a true chemical periodic table "should" really contain C-Si-Ti or N-P-V (unless we talk about the 8 column form still common in Russia, in which case yes, C-Si-Ti is there, but so is C-Si-Ge simultaneously); apart from the Earth scientist's periodic table for C-Si-Ti, nobody thinks either of these belong in the 18 or 32 column forms. Also maybe try Ti-Zr-Hf-Th vs Ti-Zr-Hf-Rf, V-Nb-Ta-Pa vs V-Nb-Ta-Db, and Cr-Mo-W-U vs Cr-Mo-W-Sg. Thanks to the actinide contraction probably the former would look better in best-of-fit values. ;)
- Indeed, commissioning a project does not mean the recommendations will be accepted. But doing so would defeat the entire purpose of it, which is that students and instructors are puzzled by the differences. Many IUPAC projects do indeed result in recommendations, even for such basic issues as those that appear on the PT. Such has happened quite recently for the project on naming new elements and the project on discovery criteria for new elements. Well, they've since both progressed to recommendations and have become the new rules. The first was already in effect for why Ts and Og have -ine and -on suffixes; the second is already also in effect, it just hasn't been applied yet because no serious claims for elements 119 and up have come. Don't see any reason why this one will not progress similarly when Scerri already did write in Chemistry International back in 2012 about how IUPAC should be recommending one form of group 3 and indeed exactly the -Lu-Lr one. That's a IUPAC magazine, so IUPAC knows what his stand is. I also suspect IUPAC must have learned its lesson from the 1988 -*-** compromise which pleased nobody. After that debacle, they probably know that if they don't make a ruling, the issue will just end up being kicked down the can for another few decades before flaring up again just like it did this time (1988 compromise, 2015 opening of IUPAC project). Besides, predicted chemical properties meant absolutely nothing to IUPAC when Ts and Og were recommended to be named with -ine and -on; the symmetry of keeping the whole column the same won the day. So in that case chemistry was shot down in favour of symmetry which came from physics (the predicted electron configurations match F-Cl-Br-I-At and Ne-Ar-Kr-Xe-Rn, even if chemical behaviour probably totally doesn't). So if IUPAC was fine going for physics rather than chemistry then, it doesn't seem that implausible that they'd do it again for -Lu-Lr. Again, I'm not saying I know this is how it will work out (I don't); just saying that the situation and what Scerri has said makes it seem to me that we should not be too surprised if the end result is a IUPAC recommendation of -Lu-Lr. Of course that's not the only thing that might happen; I just think it seems likelier than I had imagined previously.
- I am indeed in the camp that says that Lu is the only correct form and that the La form is an old historical misunderstanding, as you know. That's a stronger view than your support of La, I see, which seems to account for the possibility of different forms being more or less valid in different contexts. (This I see as secondary relationships, like Jensen.) So let me just state this honestly: I've been trying to fix the consequence of my faulty understanding in 2016. Then I had a faulty understanding, and used what I now know were faulty data and faulty arguments to influence you in User talk:Double sharp/Archive 11, probably you would not be supporting Lu now. If I knew then what I knew now, you'd never have been influenced by me to La, and probably you'd be still supporting Lu unless somebody else made La arguments to you that convinced you. You may recall that I totally withdrew my support for that old IUPAC submission we worked together on and now think that actually Jensen's arguments do hold a great deal of water after all. For me to do that when it went that far says something, probably. If you don't think that's enough for you to reevaluate your position, and you want to continue supporting La, that's your choice and I respect it. So if this post of mine doesn't convince you, then that's alright and my stance returns to "let's wait for IUPAC". Scerri's the chair of that project, he understands quite a bit about these issues, and I am sure he will come up with something interesting and that is worthy of following on WP as a IUPAC recommendation. And then we'll see. Till then, there's no point discussing it further. But you may still go ahead if you like and post interesting things you see here like your B-Al-Sc support, of course. I just probably won't reply, both because it'll go in circles, and because you probably already know what I think and what I see the RS as saying. Basically, my viewpoint is settled enough and tested to my personal satisfaction, and I don't think further discussion of this point is going to change our disagreement: only a IUPAC ruling might. To that end also, I think that if you're not convinced by what I've pointed out here (plotting goodness of fit will probably also support C-Si-Ti which G&E also show), then there's no point in me discussing the PT article until IUPAC comes around, as our visions for it are going to differ too much for a very meaningful collaboration. Maybe I'll just find an element article that is far away from all PT placement questions and also PT categorisation questions. That probably means a nondescript transition metal. Most are GA already, but some could use further improvement pretty easily. So maybe I'll channel whatever free time I have (not too much from tomorrow onwards, but we'll see) into that and wait for IUPAC to say something about group 3 before touching the PT article. There is no deadline after all.
- And in any case, speaking personally: I'm already happy that you see my He-Be + Sc-Y-Lu personal view as a "perfectly unambiguous" one. I recognise it's pretty much on the opposite end of the spectrum to your preferred one, so it really pleases me that you see something in it. Double sharp (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Basis for goodness of fit
Double sharp: There are no straight lines, as understand it. The goodness-of-fit trend values are for polynomial lines.
Oh yes, He-Be + Sc-Y-Lu is wonderful in its clarity! As far as IUPAC is concerned, they may well endorse it, on these grounds! Consider what Jensen wrote in JChemEd (2008):
- "Above all, such demands should be tempered by the sobering recollection that IUPAC is the organization that brought us density in units of kg/m3, 4πε0 in the denominator of Coulomb's law, and the finger-count labels 1–18 in the periodic table."
If IUPAC introduced the dumbed down 1−18 group numbering system, it would seem to be within the realm of possibility that they could recommended at least Sc-Y-Lu on "simplicity" grounds, and just put up with He over Ne.
It's ironic that Jensen is on the IUPAC Group 3 project and will presumably support Lu on, inter alia, symmetry grounds even though he disparagingly referred to the 1−18 numbering system, and has rallied against the abuse of symmetry considerations when it comes to organising the periodic table! We know he won't support Lu on the grounds of triads per Scerri, since Jensen has disparaged the relevance of triads. Since Scerri referred to Jensen's argument as being too selection, I don't know on what basis Jensen would support Lu. Lavelle is also on the project team, and his support for La and opposition to Lu is well known. And Restrepo most recently supported La.
On students and instructors being puzzled by the differences, that is the fault of IUAPC in not providing sufficient guidance in e.g. the Red Book, along the lines I suggested.
On group 4 v 14, I looked at this, and the average goodness of fit values are about the same. This being so, I'd leave group 14 as C−Pb. Sandbh (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Sandbh: Over here I'll just answer the question about Jensen as it is a question that can be answered from publicly available RS without editorialising on my part: presumably Jensen would support Lu for the reason he publicly expressed in 2017, which is also the reason I support it:
a consideration of their available excited-state configurations (2, 4, 12)... reveals that both La and Ac have low-lying empty f-orbitals and that these are implicated in several low-lying excited configurations, whereas Lu and Lr have no available empty f-orbitals. This implies, in turn, that both La and Ac – like 25% of the other d- and f-block elements (including their nearest neighbor Th) – are best viewed as having anomalous ground-state valence configurations, which, in their case, take the place of an idealized (n-2)f1ns2 valence configuration. Since such an interpretation is not possible for Lu/Lr, it pretty much determines that this pair should be assigned to the d-block whereas the La/Ac pair should be assigned to the beginning of the f-block.
He cites among other sources 10.1364/JOSA.61.001112. I don't think Scerri referred to this argument when he mentioned that Jensen's arguments were too selective, although I may be wrong. Regarding the other points, I'll write on your talk page. Double sharp (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Jensen's 2017 paper
Double sharp, you've honed in on a key consideration.
As I read it, Jensen's 2017 unpublished and non-peer reviewed paper is a mixed bag:
On the one hand he wrote:
"To tip the scales in favor of one pair of elements or the other requires instead a consideration of the additional chemical and physical properties discussed in my original paper of 1982 and, above all, a consideration of their available excited-state configurations.
This is bad. We showed that nearly all of the chemical and physical properties he referred to in his 1982 paper were inconclusive. Not to mention Scerri's view.
To his credit, Jensen brilliantly goes on to write:
"Though there are many misconceptions concerning the nature and function of the periodic law and table, perhaps the most prevalent among modern chemists is the belief that the periodic table is nothing more than an electron configuration table. While there is certainly a significant correlation between electron configurations and chemical periodicity, the correlation is, as already noted, far from perfect. The increasing prevalence of irregular configurations among the d- and fblock elements, the increasing lack of correlation between minor irregularities in these configurations and actual chemical behavior, and the ever present empirical question of how to properly divide an atom’s configuration into the chemically relevant categories of valence versus core, all require a careful balancing of both chemical and physical evidence rather than an appeal to authority and a naive, and apparently arbitrary, freshman chemistry application of spectroscopic atomic ground states."
Exactly. The PT is not a simple electron configuration block based table. Electron configuration considerations, in isolation, do not tip the balance. Sandbh (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- PS: Of course, they can tip the balance if that is the context of interest, in which case you have the beautiful He-Be + Sc-Y-Lu-Lr table. And that is a perfectly fine way to approach it, among others. Sandbh (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Subdividing the nonmetals in 1844
I stumbled on this source…
- Dupasquier A, Traité élémentaire de chimie industrielle, Charles Savy Juene, Lyon, pp. 66–67
…and was struck by how advanced it was, for its time—a quarter century before DIM published his periodic table.
Dupasquier was a doctor, pharmacist and chemist. Per Google translate, here's his nonmetal taxonomy:
- "There are 13 metalloids: nitrogen, boron, bromine, carbon, chlorine, fluorine, hydrogen, iodine, oxygen, phosphorus, selenium, silicon and sulfur.
- To facilitate the study of metalloids, they will be divided into four groups or sections, as in the following table:
Section Name Constituents 1st Organogens O, N, H, C 2ns Sulphuroids S, Se, P 3rd Chloroides F, C, Br, I 4th Boroids B, Si
- Organogenic bodies, as their name indicates, are those which constitute, as essential elements, organized matter, plant or animal. Plant matter is mostly composed of oxygen, hydrogen and carbon; animal matters generally have one more principle, nitrogen. There are exceptions to this rule; nitrogenous vegetable substances are known, and some matters of animal origin, which do not contain nitrogen.
- The prototype of sulfuroids is sulfur; their general characteristics are: To be solid, volatile at an average temperature between 100 degrees and red heat, very combustible, and very inflammable. They have more affinity for the oxygen gene, with which they form powerful oxoacids, than for hydrogen. They can be divided into two secondary sections: 1 ° sulfuroids forming acid combinations (hydroacids) with hydrogen: sulfur, selenium; 2 ° sulfuroid in basic combination with hydrogen: phosphorus.
- Chlorine is the prototype of the third section; the four bodies which constitute it have between them a great analogy of nature and properties; their main characteristics are: To be gaseous or very volatile at ordinary temperature; to give off a strong odor similar to that of chlorine; to have a lot of affinity for hydrogen and very little for oxygen; to form strong hydroacids, gaseous or very volatile, very greedy for water, and easily decomposable oxoacids; finally to constitute by their union with the metals combinations haloids. (See salts in general.)
- The fourth section, which is boron-type, contains only two bodies, both fixed, odorless, of dull brown color, both forming solid, fixed, odorless oxoacids, and other acids, gaseous and volatiles, by their combination with fluorine and with chlorine."
Comments
- The organogens + the sulfuroides = our other nonmetals
- F was not isolated until 1866
- The discovery of the noble gases occurred from 1895 onwards.
Are there any thoughts about this WP policy, given EdChem has mentioned it a few times?
Everything I post here I do so with the aim of sharing information and enriching perspectives, in support of improving articles. Good writers are well-informed writers, as I see it. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The context is these posts by EdChem:
- "As a Wikipedian, I think the discussion is wandering into WP:NOTAFORUM territory."
- "Double sharp, if you are going to leave aside any action on group 3 until there is movement from IUPAC, then why put a lot of time into discussion of the topic, especially in light of WP:NOTAFORUM?"
- "Double sharp, I mentioned WP:NOTAFORUM to both you and Sandbh as there are some pretty long posts appearing and they are not clearly directed to article-space issues. It was meant as a reminder and an invitation for reflection, so please don't take it as more than was intended."
--- Sandbh (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- I find that the number and volume of posts makes it difficult for me to concentrate on the forest rather than the trees, and so it distracts me from the main purpose: building article space. I also note that when I see substantial references to primary sources and non-mainstream secondary and tertiary sources, I lose confidence in my ability to distinguish between due and undue WP:WEIGHT. So while I don't think we have violated the letter of WP:NOTAFORUM, I think the project would better served by having fewer and smaller posts. YBG (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- @YBG and Sandbh: Well, how about this as a halfway house: we put here whatever is directly describing and discussing what we're planning in the articlespace, and write the sort of thing Sandbh describes to each others' user talk pages? There aren't that many of us, so it shouldn't be hard to find (since mostly the long conversations happen between me and Sandbh), and this talk page becomes easier to follow. Double sharp (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- This seems to be a very workable solution. And when a topic starts to gel into something that might directly affect article space in the immediate future, a new thread can be started on this page, with a summary of the user talk thread and a link to the complete discussion. Yes, this might work out very well indeed. YBG (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- @YBG: in you post you mention two issues: use of primary/secondary sources and long posts. While reducing post and thread lengths by moving preliminary work to userspace by itself is an improvement indeed, that does not solve the sources-item you mentioned. And if I am correct, that is what EdChem is pointing to by mentioning NOTAFORUM. This issue then will pop up again when a usertalk thread arrives on this page, and so introduces the issue for article space. (IOW, in userspace talk is more free, but when a conclusion/proposal is posted here to go live somehow, the sources-problem you mention is activated). ping @EdChem and Sandbh: -DePiep (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- This seems to be a very workable solution. And when a topic starts to gel into something that might directly affect article space in the immediate future, a new thread can be started on this page, with a summary of the user talk thread and a link to the complete discussion. Yes, this might work out very well indeed. YBG (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- @YBG and Sandbh: Well, how about this as a halfway house: we put here whatever is directly describing and discussing what we're planning in the articlespace, and write the sort of thing Sandbh describes to each others' user talk pages? There aren't that many of us, so it shouldn't be hard to find (since mostly the long conversations happen between me and Sandbh), and this talk page becomes easier to follow. Double sharp (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
My experience of our talk page comes in four flavours:
- Someone posts something here that I don't have much interest in so I don't follow it, so much.
- Someone posts something here that I find interesting, so I join in the discussion.
- I post something I find interesting to see if anybody else is interested. Nobody else is interested. End of thread. Collapse into a hat note after a short while.
- I post something I find interesting to see if anybody else is interested. Somebody else is interested. I join in the discussion.
Any of these may impact the article space. Personally, this has worked fine for me. I pay as much attention as I feel I need to.
Primary, secondary, tertiary sources
Here's what our policy says:
- "Articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."
For primary sources, these do sometimes appear in the article space, as e.g. "In 2020 it was reported that".
For secondary sources, there seems to be two kinds: mainstream, and higher-level. Mainstream = e.g. textbooks e.g. those that show polonium as a metalloid. Polonium is normally excluded from metalloids by higher-level texts, and for an element that is hard to study those will be more reliable. This example comes from Double sharp.
Tertiary sources (of which WP is one) seem unremarkable to me, provided you keep your wits about you. They can provide a global summary of what secondary sources say.
The beauty of posting things here is the convenience of exposing it to all of us, and the ease of searching. Since we've started moving some of our discussions to each other's talk pages it's notably harder to find things i.e. I may now need to search my talk page, YBG's talk page, Double sharp's talk page, and this talk page, before I can find whatever it was I was looking for.
The things we've talked about here recently are: our periodic table article; categories; noble metals; group 3; colouring. There are plenty of reliable secondary sources addressing these. All of our discussions are related to associated content appearing in the article space. Where we have got to now seems to provide fair coverage. --- Sandbh (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
About thread lengths
A scan of history and archives of this page WT:ELEM shows that since 1 July, 2020 (arbitrary date), that's 23 weeks:
- 2800 posts were made (65/week)
- 1950k was added (85k/week).
That's too much to handle, no quality of discussion or results can be established. -DePiep (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have removed all {{Collapse top}} etc collapsings from this page, as they disrupted the talk understanding (for example, an F3-search for keywords did not highlight right).
- Collapsing might be useful for minor subthreads, for obviously closed dead ends, but not to introduce a limbo status. Closed threads go to archives, but only so after obvious closure. Collapsing is no mean to reduce thread length. -DePiep (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Please Sandbh do not use {{collapse}} to fold texts. It breaks text searching, also in Archives, and is not a clean way to finish a talk. Instead, you could consider keeping thread flow clean, even afterwards (by agreed reduction somehow); arvhice obviously closed threads, etc. -DePiep (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)