Paneth suggested that if an old claim turned out to be unsupported, the element should be renamed. Now, I cannot possibly apply this completely because we would get symbol collisions, and discoverers changed their minds about names often, but if I tried to apply this as much as possible, I would get this table:
As you can see, I haven't changed Re to "nipponium" following Ogawa (it would collide with the symbol for Np, and also render nonsense the naming of 113 as "nihonium"), and I haven't changed cases where the real discoverer acquiesed to the old name (e.g. nobelium, bohrium, or actinium). Neither have I changed "vanadium" (since it wasn't del Río himself who asked for the reinstatement of his name). Hatchett discovered Nb first and so it appears here as "columbium", but since Bergman discovered W first it remains "tungsten". It is quite striking how little has changed... Double sharp (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
BTW, does anyone know when the term "cassiopeium" finally dropped out of use, or if it even has (despite IUPAC mandating "lutetium")? Even CRC 97th edition still dares to say "Lutetium – (Lutetia, ancient name for Paris, sometimes called cassiopeium by the Germans), and it is actually not hard to find even recent books giving the name "cassiopeium" in parentheses. How remarkable! (Although I can understand, because the name is beautiful and it had the likes of Bohr supporting it.) Double sharp (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. There would be more if I applied the idea more strictly, but I couldn't bring myself to have two distinct elements with symbol Np, or have both nipponium and nihonium on the table.
I missed Rn though (more like, forgot about it). Dorn originally suggested emanation, and when it became clear that there was not just Ra emanation, but also Ac and Th emanation, expressions like radium emanation had to be resorted to, and the isolators of the element, Ramsay and Gray, suggested niton ("the shining one"), a name that was accepted by IUPAC. Both were alive for the acceptance of niton, but not the final name radon, so I have changed Rn to Nt as well. (Also, I don't like the idea of having Dorn's emanation, Rn, together with Giesel's emanium, Ac. What would "Em" stand for?) Double sharp (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
P.S. I impose a date limit on this: the names must post-date 1813, because otherwise there would be no symbols for them. As well, I don't think anyone wants to rename oxygen to "dephlogisticated air". I also would insist that the discoverer have truly discovered the element, and known what they were discovering (Ogawa fails the second one, unfortunately, but historical justice has already been dealt for him). If you're fine with false discoveries, I think Sandbh has already suggested the Periodic Table of Originally Named Elements. Double sharp (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we should have this effect for all cells! Right now it is wonderful (I don't have to try to click the symbol for iodine) but it feels weird when you have to aim for the "I" but not the "Xe" beside it. Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
We agree. Please also check {{Periodic table/sandbox}} for this, because that one is in article space (and so in mobile view), not just a navbox. When deployed, I don't want broken articles in any browser. And of course will try this for the micro PT in the infobox which can use any improvement asap. -DePiep (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Somehow {{Periodic table/sandbox}} doesn't work as I'd expect: the click-sensitive area only seems to include the actual line the symbols are on. (So if you try to click the "Mo" for molybdenum, it will work; if you click just to the left or right of it, it also will work; but if you try to click on the name "molybdenum" or the atomic number "42" it will not.) This seems unintuitive. Double sharp (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
As you write. Still, the clickable area now is cell-wide, not just symboltext-wide. First solution is to make all three text-elements linked, but that adds those underlines to all. Could be too much, visually. Maybe there is an other solution. -DePiep (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Look again: H-cell now as you expect. (I had to suppress linking underlines and hardcode colors for wikilinks on both element name and number. Could mean virtual jailtime for trespassing good w3c webpage coding...). -DePiep (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
In the extended PT, these elements are colored (in the lighter shade) OK, but in basic Template:Periodic table (7 periods), they are 'grey' for 'unk chem properties'. Q: leave it like that, ie no key for 117 in basic PT? Or add that color + its key in the legend? Q: now there are three greys with a different key... Time to change colors. -DePiep (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
No matter what we say Ts (117) is predicted to be, it is still not known what its chemistry is actually like. Therefore it should be 'unknown chemical properties' there, which it is. I think it is perhaps not so bad that 'post-transition metal (predicted)' and 'unknown chemical properties' have very similar colours, because they cannot occur at the same time. Double sharp (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
In case this is not clear, the current situation for the classification is:
Elements H (1) to Hs (108), as well as Cn (112) and Fl (114), always keep their classifications (not predicted, but experimentally known).
When the table is extended, "predicted" colours are used as follows for the eight discovered elements that have not yet been chemically characterised: Mt (109), Ds (110), and Rg (111) as "transition metals (predicted)", Nh (113), Mc (115), Lv (116), and Ts (117) as "post-transition metals (predicted)", and Og (118) as "noble gas (predicted)". Previously Ts (117) was in "metalloids (predicted)"; it has now changed categorisation here.
When the table is not extended, all of these eight elements are coloured as "unknown chemical properties". Ts (117) does not change its colour here.
Similarly, element 171 has also changed colour with its lighter congener element 117 to "post-transition metal (predicted)", but it does not occur in non-extended tables (since it hasn't been discovered, and I have grave doubts that any of us will see it). Double sharp (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Why do these exist, exactly? They're single transclusion and I see no reason why they shouldn't be merged into the parent articles. ~ Rob13Talk01:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
This has been asked before (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements/Archive_10#Template:Infobox_.3Celement.3E_-_why_do_these_exist.3F), and they've also been nominated for deletion several times, none of them successfully. The reason is that it would be an absolute pain to edit the lede if you did that: unlike a typical infobox, these are huge. Additionally, this allows edits to the data to be monitored much more carefully and not get lost, as these are constants that should not change at all until perhaps better data is obtained (in which case the sources need to be updated too): that's why all the element infoboxes are protected, whereas not all the element pages are. The previous deletion discussions are here and here. Double sharp (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
No doubt it would be a good idea to make the difference between W(CO)6 and F2 as examples of 0 oxidation state clear, but since they both technically have the element in the 0 oxidation state, there should probably be some kind of special formatting for the non-trivial examples of this state. Double sharp (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
It strikes me that we also probably should kill reports of primordial 244Pu and 146Sm: the former has been disputed, and the latter has never actually been detected AFAIK. (It was added because its half-life was then thought to be longer than that of 244Pu. Now even that half-baked rationale doesn't work ever since its half-life was more accurately determined.) Double sharp (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
P.S. This would result in Pu changing border from "primordial" to "from decay", since natural 237Np and 239Pu are not seriously disputed.
This makes thorium and uranium the only two radioactive primordials. (I would like a moratorium on calling bismuth radioactive, seriously, at least not without an apologetic "technically", and then only in articles where this matters like the main one on Bi. Exception: if you are an ageless immortal, you are allowed to do so.) Double sharp (talk) 08:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Or perhaps if you are omnipotent and can actually effect a moratorium on Bi's radioactivity, and omniscient enough to be able to actually measure the difference in its half-life after a moratorium of, say, a couple of months. YBG (talk) 08:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I have done some basic plutonium-removing from the list of primordials. This is nowhere near all of it, so hopefully we can find and remove other occurrences in less than its half-life. Double sharp (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
HSAB theory
I'd appreciate a review of a couple of edits I just made to HSAB theory:
special:diff/744742032: Tweaking two PT images to be more comparable. There is still a great deal of room for improvement here, maybe it could be changed into a single PT rather than two?
Chalcogen, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Double sharp (talk) 05:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Alkaline earth metals – Sr can be done pretty easily by following the model given by Ba. Ca is a little more difficult because biology gets involved. Mg is a little distinct and does not have such a good model. Ra, being radioactive, is essentially historical and should be thought of that way.
Lanthanides – pick one, copy La, and you're in business! Just change the applications. (The weird ones are already done.) They're almost as easy to spam as the transactinides (which we have polished off already – Sg and Bh are at GAN, and Db is in progress).
Silver and gold – oh dear. To touch either of these you will either need a collaboration with diverse WikiProjects, or you need to give yourself educational training from hell. On the up side, it will be incredibly worth it (I have a half-done draft of the chemistry section for Ag in one of my sandboxes).
Aluminium – the famous sister of Ga, In, and Tl. The chemistry is pretty similar (the differences arise from the lack of a filled d-subshell in Al), but there is more to say. Might be fun in that sense.
Silicon – Ge is not a bad model, but by no means the best. One problem with the article as it stands is that it is very lacking in chemistry, so that needs to be remedied.
Tin – Pb is a pretty good model. Should not be too hard to GA.
Nitrogen – long haul. Essentially needs a complete rewrite. The other problem is that this is such a ubiquitous element that it becomes difficult to avoid having the chemistry section explode violently like NCl3.
Phosphorus – about as bad
Sulfur – about as bad
Arsenic – would not be so bad if not for the fact that it is a very well-known poison. Actually this is another case where the article is chemically sound, but the culture is lacking.
Halogens – F is not a bad model (as is iodine, which is actually almost finished in another of my sandboxes). They probably are not so scary. The main problem with things like N above is that they just appear too often in too many ways, whereas when you see Cl, it's probably being Cl− (exception: chlorine oxides and fluorides).
P.S. An interesting goal might be: always have at least one FAC/GAN/PR open as a beacon showing that we are being productive. Our current batch should last us quite a while, but I'd like to see how high it can be held. When I first got here (approaching six years ago), the PTQ looked pretty ugly: a calming stretch of greens in the d-block surrounded by angry yellows and oranges. Now, the green is conquering all. (And frankly, given how much chemistry I tend to stuff into the articles regardless of whether the average reader wants it or not – look at Np – I might dare to say that GA is usefully becoming almost like FA would have used to be some time ago here; look at Ir. I don't think it's a bad thing, not as long as nitrogen remains a lame article.) Double sharp (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
P.P.S. Leave the group articles alone (except maybe starting with groups 2 and 17 and reading an awful lot). They look easy but they are not. An example of what happens when you assume the former is the trainwreck that is the group 16 article. Double sharp (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm having way too much fun doing the halogens, so I'm going to shamelessly reserve Cl for myself (Br is almost done). And maybe one day I'll make everyone happy by completing the transition metal rows with Ag and Au... (actually the former is in progress in my sandbox too). I have way too many offline notes! ...I admit, I do not have many other dreams at the moment, apart from N. (Pb and Th are not dreams: they are concrete things that are being written!) Double sharp (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
A more chemical classification of the not-GAs, ignoring Cl (which I'm taking care of) and Db (which R8R is):
Highly electropositive metals: group 2 (magnesium, calcium, strontium, radium); lanthanides (praseodymium, neodymium, gadolinium, terbium, holmium, erbium); aluminium. These are not hard to write, because of how many models there are. Radium is a little different; unless you have sources focusing on history, I would recommend you stay away from that one first.
Late transition metals: silver and gold. You have to be very brave to take these on...
Arsenic and tin – strange metallic gaps, given that lead, antimony, and bismuth are all right. Both are old metals, although the environmental scares about arsenic may make that one a little harder to write...
I'd like to use a longer time frame and a source that would list all the element articles, but I haven't found it yet. YBG (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Never mind all the element articles; this is a reasonable cutoff that lets me accept the reality that no, despite my love of the f-block elements, they really are not particularly important here (not even uranium or plutonium). I've added quality scale ratings: we're actually not doing that bad a job, because out of the nineteen articles on the list, eleven are GAs or FAs. Actually I daresay that this is the problem we have that our print competitors don't: they tend to be uniformly adequate in quality, whereas our articles tend to alternate between great comprehensiveness and great terribleness. Double sharp (talk) 09:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Edited. Progress happens! I note that first ionisation energies are now also known for the elements up till Hs (used to be Rf). (Now when can we have chemical investigations of Mt–Rg?) Double sharp (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Not yet, though it seems that a return to Sc-Y-La-Ac might happen, a recolouring of group 12 is being discussed, and despite the objections I know you have (^_^) I once again proposed using the 18-column table as default because it is the only common form in the literature (though it is not a formal proposal yet). No Sc-Y-*-** horrors are being proposed. Welcome back with a greener PTQ! Double sharp (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I just read the "About" page in Russian. Seems this is a regular person who you can contact and ask permission to use these photos here if you want and who will probably agree to give it. Descriptions in Russian indicate these photos were made by him or her.--R8R (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The predictions are: element 113 should be weakly adsorbed on inert surfaces like Teflon or polyethylene, but be strongly adsorbed on gold. If water is present, UutOH should form and be much more weakly adsorbed on gold. These predictions are based on the behaviour expected for a typical group 13 element (such as Tl), with relativistic corrections.
They write to describe their observations: "Therefore, we conclude that the element 113 species observed in our experiment is generally confirming theoretically predicted properties listed for atomic element 113. It is a volatile (gas-jet transportation at 70 °C) and does not strongly adsorb on surfaces like Teflon. Its final deposition occurred on the surfaces of detectors covered with gold and held at ambient temperature. The observed deposition pattern of the five events does not allow for the absolute quantification of an adsorption enthalpy on gold surface. However, the observation of its deposition at room temperature rather than in the temperature gradient makes it possible to estimate a lower limit adsorption enthalpy of the observed element 113 species on gold as −ΔHads > 60 kJ mol−1." (The predictions indeed expect a higher value than this.) They continue: "The chemical species of element 113 observed here for the first time was found volatile; it weakly interacts with Teflon surfaces but reacts much more strongly with gold surfaces. Its adsorption behaviour is comparable to the adsorption properties of mercury and astatine in our experiment. Based on an analogous behaviour to the next lighter homologue thallium, we tentatively attribute the observed species to either atomic element 113 or its hydroxide 113(OH)."
Given the clear confirmation on the predictions for a typical member of group 13 (Tl acts in about the same way), I think a colour change is reasonable.
Comments? (Preemptively using the new names, since knowing our typical speed of discussions they'll be in force by the time the colour change goes live.) Now I am hoping for the next advances – chemical investigations of Mt, Ds, Rg, and Mc. (Lv, Ts, and Og are too short-lived for chemistry for now.) There are already plans for meitnerium chemistry with carbonyls! (10.1515/ract-2013-2198) Double sharp (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I just re-read the discussion on coloring element 114 which concluded in coloring it dark gray. The reasons were, "we know now that it's a metal" and "we assume that group 3--12 elements are by definition all possible TMs and thus elements right to it are PTMs." Assuming that our decisions should follow a system of common law or something alike, we conclude there are two questions to be answered: can we even say 113 is a metal and how, if in any way, will a possible recoloring of group 12 affect this?
As for metallicity, the article does not anywhere say it is metallic. It only mentions volatility, which they authors apparently don't find in itself convincing enough to label a new element a metal. Neither do I, assuming the main conclusions have been drawn and displayed in the article correctly. Theoretical calculations are in my opinion irrelevant exactly because they are theoretical. In general, theories are known not to match facts from time to time.
As for group 12 recoloring, more of a note than a decision-maker: if it does happen, then we should perhaps abandon all coloring past hassium. We know that Hg is (given this assumption goes standard) a PTM because we did an enormous number of experiments and the best d-electron character we've seen so far has been observed at 4 K, which is extremely rare and definitely not characterizing and thus cannot be a reason why we could call it a TM, because this is not seen at 8 K already, not to say room temperature. However, we have very insufficient information on copernicium to say that it definitely cannot show TM features nor do we have information that it does show something absolutely transition-ary. And that is correct for elements 114 and (especially) 113 as well (once again, assuming theoretical predictions are irrelevant; however, I insist on this).
If we do not stick to previous cases (I propose we set up a system of rules to be used in the future. Should we stick to them or not?), then I would just hint that the authors do not claim this volatility makes element 113 a metal and thus neither should we. I would also note that a metal is not a PTM just because it's a metal unless by definition.
Actually IMHO Cn could still be a legit PTM even if group 12 were to be coloured PTM, because the Red Book gives that definition as "group 3 to 11 inclusive" without talking about d-electrons and all that. Thus the premise would be "groups 3–11 are all the possible TMs and anything to the right of it is a PTM, because they should follow the group". The general feeling, with Hg as much as for any other "wannabe-TM", is that "does not formally belong to this important group as there were no well attested examples of it existing with partially filled d-orbitals" (i.e. if it's to the right of group 11, we assume it isn't unless we have incontrovertible proof that it is). The reason why I think "following the group" is the thing here is that we are already placing these elements past Hs without actually knowing what their electron configuration is. The only reason we put Mt in group 9 is because we expect it to have that chemistry and have the [Rn]5f146d77s2 configuration, but we do not know this. When we put Cn and Fl in groups 12 and 14, we at least know they behave like their heavier congeners in groups 12 and 14, and this group assignment is literally the only reason why they are coloured now. Whether or not the d-orbitals are participating has nothing to do with it. (Otherwise, don't we have to start uncolouring Hg because we don't know for sure if it can or cannot show d-character, just that none has ever been seen and confirmed?)
[Note: Current predictions tend to rule out the possibility of Hg(IV) and Cn(IV). The completion of the 6d shell, like Hg, coupled with its immediate drowning deep into the core, results in all the elements from Cn to Og being much more volatile than the ones from Rf to Rg (just like the sixth period, though much more strongly), which is in fact one of those predictions that has been theoretically verified at least for Cn and Fl (maybe Nh). Furthermore, I gave you a ref about this (I know you don't see it with the .ru, but try this!). The main point is that the synthesis of HgF4 is based on reports coming from one group that has never been replicated. Furthermore, calculations predict that HgF4 are CnF4 are unbound. They deliver the crushing verdict: "I doubt, therefore, that [CnF4] can exist, and the probability that HgF4 will exist is also very small." (And in a later chapter the only chemically relevant Cn ions under discussion are Cn+ and Cn2+.)]
Re Red Book's definition in Wiki: oh, okay then. I thought it would be a strange definition like that "has an unpaired d electron." Somewhat a relief.
"it seems to have been confirmed" -- the authors are apparently OK with that ("In accordance with the periodic table, element 113 is a heavier homologue of Tl in Group 13 having most probably the electronic ground state configuration [Rn]5f146d107s27p1." However, I wonder if they haven't confused "in accordance with" with "according to": it seems to be a common mistake in English), so be it.--R8R (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Over the next few weeks, such moves and related edits are likely to become more frequent. On June 8, the IUPAC stated (on their website):
The IUPAC Inorganic Chemistry Division has reviewed and considered these proposals and recommends these for acceptance. A five-month public review is now set, expiring 8 November 2016, prior to the formal approval by the IUPAC Council.
As I read this, what happens on 8 November is the close of the public review period, which does not make the names official. Rather, the names become official upon "formal approval by the IUPAC Council."
With this in mind, I have some questions:
1 Should we ...
1a ... make the changes on November 8 unless the IUPAC says something contrary?
1b ... wait until after a formal action by the IUPAC?
2 Would any additional protection be helpful in the mean time?
I daresay all we need to do is wait for an official press release from IUPAC, just like I remember we did for Cn, Fl, and Lv. (I wasn't on WP for the namings of Ds and Rg.) Thus, 1b. I think the current situation of move-protection is fine; likewise, IIRC, we already have hidden comments in the article warning people not to change the names. We can always revisit this if the situation worsens, but preemptive protection does not seem to be a thing WP is particularly fond of doing. Double sharp (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, let's wait until the IUPAC states the new names are now in action; nobody even said they would be on Nov 8.
As for protection, I think protection is used too harshly now and I wouldn't want to increase usage of this practice even further.--R8R (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
our navbox periodic table is failing to get an important thing done
Look, I know we have had strong proponents of the 32-column table here. Yet the fact of the matter is that it's impossible to get any info out of our navbox tables. You can't really see where you are on Internet Explorer; you can't see the symbols of the elements in the same group or column (to the extent that we have to ad-hoc add those direction markers); and by the time you can, you're at the bottom of the page, when you should have gotten this info at the beginning.
Would it really kill us to switch to 18-column, since we are so pressed for space there? And do something like this, hopefully with links?
P.S. I stole this from one of my sandbox projects, which is why it is a Sc-Y-La-Ac table. What group 3 and 12 are shown as don't matter; they can be as they are on Wikipedia now. The main issue is that the current navbox table is not doing its job. Double sharp (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I doubt anyone sane prefers it, but there are times where you don't have a choice, no? (It also doesn't look right on my phone, which is where about half my edits these days are coming from, so it's not just that.) Double sharp (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't have any strong preferences for 18- or 32-. I can see either well enough on my phone although having the symbols on the 18- is probably a bonus and there is room to make them bigger. Certainly the 18- is hugely more common, although the 32 explains more. Either version looks OK on Chrome, Firefox or Safari; I can't remember the last time I used IE. Sandbh (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
You're lucky! ^_^ But I probably won't need to suffer with it much longer anyway. Indeed, my main problem with the current one is that you can't see the symbols. Double sharp (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The infoboxes, e.g. the "micro" one in {{infobox mercury}} and the rest (where it says 'Mercury in the periodic table'). The problem is that in IE the cells run into each other and the border around the cell is incomplete. And no, the table is not too big – in fact I daresay it is too small. I think it would be more useful if it was big enough that you could squeeze in the element symbols (perhaps by imagemap, since text won't make the symbols big enough). That would force an 18-column table to avoid a sprawlingly wide infobox, but I don't think there will be many objections to that as long as we make it clearly Sc-Y-La-Ac or Sc-Y-Lu-Lr (preferably the former). ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Sure, the micro PT is a crude beast (also in [en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_mercury mobile view]). It uses a prehistoric trick to catch an element-click (each cell has a transparent image overlay for this). It should be recreated asap (noted). One more question. If it is not too big (wide) what would be solved by going 18-column? -DePiep (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The main reason I would suggest 18-column is that it is the most common form in the literature. I would argue that when the precise format of the periodic table is not the issue at stake, one should always choose the most common form to avoid distracting the issue. Double sharp (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Adding symbols: that's 36 characters in a row, plus say 18 more for cell/border space so 54 total. That's widening the infobox. (btw, irrelevant as you say but the PT you added is actually an Sc/Y/*/**). -DePiep (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
(I suppose it technically is one, but I think you know what I mean.) If we add the symbols we can probably get rid of the navigation arrows, so that would help somewhat. Double sharp (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm chewing on this, of course. So, for the webtechnical improvement it should be changed from a wikitable into a clickable image (and anyway we could add the groups and periods, e.g. as clickable dots). This is quite feasible, see demo 2 as a quick example (both symbol and Z in the cell, hmmm). demo 2
Then there still is the issue of size: the infobox should stay narrow, and readable symbols would either widen the box or require an extremely small fontsize. We need a zooming option here: I like the overview aspect too, as it is now (poststamp-size PT)! Being a WP webpage, the only zoom option I can think of is to open the image page (try demo 2). -DePiep (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
(strange: when clicking I'd expect the full-image screen, not the commons-techical page).
Todo, of course: click per cell, highlight an individual element, decide do we add symbol / Z, keep arrows to neighbourds. (All minor). -DePiep (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I'll accept anything that comes live, but I'll ask to leave arrows. I occasionally click on the neighboring element rather than the one I aimed for, and having a bigger link to it that is far harder to miss is useful.--R8R (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
OK, makes sense. I couldn't think of any purpose to the arrows at first which is why I thought it would be OK to get rid of them, but since you've convinced me there is one I think we can and should keep them. The main issue I have here is honestly just that the symbols should be visible in the table. It gets tiring to search for things like europium. Double sharp (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
As demo 2 shows (over here at least), 18 symbols in one infobox row is too tight. Only zooming trick so far is full-screen image. Should work in mobile and deskltop. -DePiep (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I have found some technical improvements: better view (esp in mobile view), and more robust code. Needs more tweaking.
Sure this does not address the main quest for better overview vs. detail (PT vs. element), eg adding symbols and going from 32-co to 18-col. However, these tech changes are long overdue and do not limit any future choice. -DePiep (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
A further note regarding elements 113, 115, 117, and 118
Ultimately, and after the lapse of the public review, the final Recommendations will be published in the IUPAC journal Pure and Applied Chemistry. The Provisional Recommendation regarding the naming of the four new elements can be found on the IUPAC website at www.iupac.org/recommendations/under-review-by-the-public/.
Finally, laboratories are already working on searches for the elements in the 8th row of the periodic table, and they are also working to consolidate the identification of copernicium and heavier elements. To be able to evaluate this work, IUPAC and the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP) are currently reviewing the selection principle and operations of a future Joint Working Party (JWP) and as soon as these principles have been decided a new group will be formed. This new JWP will review new claims and the consistency of new results with those already evaluated by earlier JWPs.
I note how they write "the 8th row of the periodic table". That shows how laid-back IUPAC wants to be re prescribing a PT presentation form: don't even suggest a row is a period. ;-) -DePiep (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I have added or expanded the hidden comments (asking not to make he change) by adding a note indicating that we should be waiting for a journal article. It looks like some of the protection has recently expired, so I hope some administrators will be watching in case they need to be re-protected.
Lately I've been thinking of two classes of chemical elements. I notice that when I work on Pb with R8R, I feel the need to simplify things for the average reader much more than I do for the time I worked on Np with Thingg, or Th by myself, and I think it has a lot to do with how much the element is in the consciousness of people, and when you learn its chemistry in the long track from your first chemistry course onwards. (Some truly ubiquitous elements, like H, C, N, and O, need really special simplification, mostly because their subtopics are already articles in themselves; for C I do not even need to say why.)
The only problem is: which elements are important in this way?
My tentative list is H; Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs; Be, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba; B, Al; C, Si, Ge, Sn, Pb; N, P, As, Sb, Bi; O, S; F, Cl, Br, I; He, Ne, Ar; Sc; Ti; V; Cr, Mo, W; Mn; Fe; Co; Ni, Pd, Pt; Cu, Ag, Au; Zn, Cd, Hg; U, Pu. Now, you may not agree with all of it, but it's currently a sort of "mental list" I use as a guideline. I think the idea is sound, but I'm now bracing myself for being unrealistically optimistic (Be? Sc? Ge?). Double sharp (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I think this concept is quite sound, although I'd state my reasoning slightly different. No one who navigates to Dysprosium would be surprised to find a technical article, but many who navigate to gold would not expect highly technical information. In all cases we want to present information so that whatever a reader's technical competence, they are able to quickly find the information that is easily within their grasp, and ideally, if they want to go deeper, help them transition into information just beyond their grasp. This difference represents one dimension, which I would call technical expectation or depth of information expected. This is not so much related to the elements themselves but to the level of chemical education of the typical reader. It can probably be roughly quantified by the hitcount of the element's article page.
There is also a second dimension, which I would call breadth of information available which has to do with how much information there is about a particular element. On one side are elements like ununoctium for which almost all known information fits in a single encyclopedia article. At the other end of the spectrum are carbon, hydrogen and the like, which have many subsidiary articles about various aspects of the element. This can be quantified by the number of articles directly related to the element; a rough approximation would be the number of articles containing the element name, possibly restricted to WP:ELEM or WP:CHEM.
So what we'd like to do is put every element into one of the cells in this grid:
Breadth of information available
Technical expectation Depth of information expected Do typical readers expect to see lots of technical detail?
Most want non-technical info (probably high-readership articles)
Most expect technical details (probably low-readership articles)
Single encyclopedia article
Many related articles
Raw data to classify element articles
The raw data for this would be a table like the following:
Then we'd need to decide where the appropriate cut point(s) are in each dimension. This schema could no doubt be improved. YBG (talk) 07:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Just a lighthearted note. While working with carbon, I noticed that Wikidata puts C in category "polyatomic nonmetals" [1]. And not in that awkward non-category misnamed "other nonmetals" (still in use in other lang-wikis). Similar for F (WD puts F also correctly in the halogen group). So, our categorization (color) scheme has gotten acceptance in high ranks of Wikidata. Feels better than eh pushing that scheme through the PT images into other wikis...
Then, with the risk of spoiling this fun, I went to check La and Lu about this group 3 thing. Well, La nor Lu have a group number added. Wikidata is waiting.
The problem with that (F vs. C) categorization is that F should be in polyatomic nonmetals too. IMHO polyatomic nonmentals should be renamed to "other polyatomic nonmentals"... Christian75 (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
If so, that would be our internal enwiki problem. What I pointed out is that Wikidata accepted "our" classification of F as "diatomic nonmetal". And apart from that, a classification that says Other such-and-so ... is not a sound system. One always wants to prevent creating such a alltherest-class. -DePiep (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster defines polyatomic as containing more than one, but especially more than two, atoms. In the latter sense F is not a polyatomic nonmetal, whereas for example C is. Double sharp (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and thank you for the kind words about my article-improvement activities! I'd like to completely eradicate the orange, yellow, and light green, because (1) I like it and (2) I would be more motivated to go for FA as long as things like nitrogen and gold don't continue to languish at C-class. But that will take a while, and I am somewhat approaching the limits of what I can realistically do alone. (I am pleased to say that the halogens are almost done – perhaps GT material when I get the main article done too?!) Double sharp (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I wounder how they define polyatomic ions? But you could replace F with O and you have the same problem. O belongs to two or three groups (chalcogens, diatomic nonmetals and polyatomic nonemetals). My point is that its not easy to have all the elements in one and only one group unless you have a "other-something"-group - or just ignore the allotopes as we for oxygen which have "Element category" as diatomic despite it should also be in polyatomic. Thats why it have been such a big deal on enwiki to figure it out. And btw. the Wikidata field is totally unreferenced. Christian75 (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
We're not actually using "pnictogen", "chalcogen", or "halogen" as colours on our periodic table, so this question is a little moot. Besides, the convention is to look at elements in their standard states. Under high pressure rubidium is a transition metal with the [Kr]4d1 configuration, but we don't colour it that way. Under high enough pressure everything is a metal (well, at least theoretically) but it would be a rather silly classification. Double sharp (talk) 09:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
IP 108
IP 108... is jumping IP's, and using a lot of time from our editors. I plan to follow IPs with similar behaviour (and/or expressed familiarity).
Done. See any element article eg nitrogen. To have a good link in template space, say {{Infobox gold}}, the template requires |wdQID= for gold (a "Q....." number).
IUPAC is quite unambiguous in the Gold Book, which defines "transition element" as follows: "An element whose atom has an incomplete d sub-shell, or which can give rise to cations with an incomplete d sub-shell."
Note that there is no caveat here, like how the Red Book at least says "lanthanoid and actinoid are preferred to lanthanide and actinide" (but clearly, allowing the latter). The Red Book also makes it clear that this exclusion is about the group 12 elements.
Now, the last time we proposed this colour change for group 12, it got steamrolled by the fact that "poor metals" is a name that nobody uses outside PT fans. Now that we use "post-transition metals", this should not be a problem.
Furthermore, the evidence for HgF4has recently been questioned. Granted, Hg is expected to still act as a transition metal under high pressure, but we do not call K, Rb, and Cs transition metals just because they have a d1 configuration at such pressures too, and we do not call Br a metal even though it becomes one at about 100 GPa. I think the qualification "at standard conditions" is rather implicit in the IUPAC definition.
I realise it seems to be a shame to uncolour Cn and Fl, since the only things we know about their behaviour are from their physical properties (to date we still have no chemistry). But I think Zn, Cd, and Hg are much greater priorities than Cn and Fl.
I would also suggest labelling Rf–Og on our periodic table as simply "transactinides", as that is the most important thing about them. Greenwood & Earnshaw relegates Rf–Cn to the very end of the book, as what is known about them (primarily nuclear properties) is not very similar to what is known about the transition metals. Even Holleman & Wiberg, which keeps every group in one chapter, always splits the transactinide member away to cover in a page detailing its history (and even covers the transactinides separately after Rf). The Chemistry of the Actinide and Transactinide Elements covers them all in one chapter (despite the fact that this would be silly for such chemically diverse elements for Hf–Rn, it makes sense for Rf—Og since so little is known). Cotton's Lanthanide and Actinide Chemistry does likewise, after Sc, Y, La–Lu, and Ac–Lr have gotten so many chapters to themselves. I realise that Rf–Hs at least are certainly also transition metals, but that's not the main point. Technically many of the lanthanides and actinides are also transition metals since they have a d-electron or two in their electron configuration, but that's not the main point either. Besides, to be a metal according to IUPAC an element needs to have itinerant electrons, which is not something that you can really test yet for Rf onwards. (Fm–Lr get a free pass on this because "actinide" doesn't have "metal" in the name, and that term is already defined by IUPAC.)
(This is very nearly my "ideal periodic table", except that mine would have Sc and Y over La and Ac, and label the latter two as transition metals, since after all IUPAC says the transition metals are group 3–11 and occasionally used to include 12 in the Red Book. But let's argue about one thing in one place.)
Regarding the extended periodic table, I am considering abolishing "predicted" colours altogether. They are a stretch for things like E165–172 after all. Instead we could have them all white as "undiscovered", just placed in the table following Fricke or Pyykkö, and then the article would expound a bit on their chemical properties. Once E119 and E120 become discovered, they become transactinides: once E121–E155 get discovered, they become superactinides. Beyond that, scientists will have come up with something: I don't think we'll get even to E155 within any of our lifetimes.
I like it, mostly because it eliminates the "unknown chemical properties" category, which IMHO is somewhat objectionable though considerably less obnoxious than "other metals". I see this as a recognition that while lighter elements can easily be categorized based on chemical properties, it makes sense to categorize heavier elements based on atomic properties, which can be known even when macroscopic quantities are not available. YBG (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad you like it. I got the idea from Greenwood, honestly. For example, in chapter 21 (on group 4) they only cover Ti, Zr, and Hf, and simply says "For rutherfordium (Z = 104) see pp. 1280–82." In the next chapter on group 5 they similarly say "See p. 1282 for element 105, dubnium." They stop even mentioning the transactinides beyond this until the final part of the last chapter on the actinides and transactinides. To be fair, it stops being radiochemistry and starts being physics with a dose of chemistry at about Z = 100; but chemically, Fm, Md, No, and Lr are actinides, so it seems to segue in pretty reasonably as chemistry bows out as the sea of instability yawns before the shore. (This is why I now have chosen a violet colour for the transactinides, so that the row seemed like a continuation of the actinides, but more unstable.) Double sharp (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
"... as the sea of instability yawns before the shore ..." And some may say there's no poetry in the hard sciences! I'd go for a lighter violet myself. Oh, and feel free to adopt (or adapt) my editorial comment above as your own and delete my signature from it. YBG (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
And one more thing: technically, this is a re-categorization proposal, not a recoloring proposal. I'm all in favor of making the change in categorization, that is, replacing "unknown" with "transactinides" and recategorization a few elements into the new category. I'm also intrigued with the idea to change the colors per DePiep, but I'd suggest we deal with recategorizing first and once that is complete, move on to the recolorization. YBG (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Note that there are actually two recategorisations being proposed by me here:
Change group 12 (Zn, Cd, and Hg) from "transition metal" to "post-transition metal", based on IUPAC's clear definition, since none of these three elements are known to form ions where the d-shell has been broken into, despite unconfirmed weak claims for Hg4+. The only real similarity with the transition metals in groups 3–11 is a propensity for forming complexes, and even then, many of the heavier p-block elements do so too!
Change elements 104–118 from their current categories to a new "transactinide" category, following respected chemistry textbooks. The other reason is that frankly, I think the average chemist thinks of rutherfordium (as an example) more as a "highly unstable physics lab curiosity" than as a a fully-fledged member of group 4. There's always this urge to actually viscerally see what you're talking about. I think Md, No, and Lr get a free pass as actinides mostly just to finish filling the the last row of the f-block, and At and Fr just to avoid ugly gaps. Double sharp (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll skip the discussion on group 12 and move straight to the superactinides. I do not want this category to be introduced. These books are right, in their own way, to split transactinides off the rest of their groups. That is because they're all telling a long story each, and facts on element 105 (say) will dissolve in the variety of facts on group 5. This fact isn't prohibitive, of course, but that's how they're telling the story and you can see why.
But just because the books do something doesn't mean we should too. I assume all these books, for example, group hydrogen separately from anything? Should we establish a separate color for H? G&E treats carbon separately from silicon and from Ge, Sn, and Pb? Should we get colors to match that? Of course, that would intervene with our current coloring system, but why not just follow the books?
The books group elements per their needs and we should group them per ours. We currently group them per chemical properties. We even invented the polyatomic--diatomic nonmetals break, which I hadn't seen anywhere to support that, so I assume this reasoning of grouping per chemical properties is strong. The "transactinides" term is not related to chemistry and thus doesn't fit our table.
Actually I wouldn't really mind making a separate category for H. I've proposed it before. If any element deserves it, it's that one. Actually, maybe it is a good idea to remove the OR-ness and simply use the categories "hydrogen"/"other nonmetals"/"halogens"/"noble gases" (counting At as a halogen "by definition" – it does at least have some of the properties). "Other nonmetals" would obviously have to be linked as such.
I don't support things just because G&E do them. After all, they think group 12 is a transition group. Their way of looking at the elements is strictly by group. After hydrogen, they cover groups 1, 2, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and finally the lanthanides, actinides, and then the transactinides. I find it significant that they break this sequence just for the transactinides, as does just about every chemistry text I've checked. (And if it's not a chemical category, why are chemists using it?)
The first time G&E split a group, at boron, it is explicitly because of space. On pp. 139–140 they write "[The complexity of boron compounds dictates] that boron should be treated in a separate chapter. The general group trends, and a comparison with the chemistry of the metallic elements of Group 13 (Al, Ga, In, and Tl), will be deferred until the next chapter." And they keep their word, covering them all together in the next chapter, while simultaneously noting that boron is not directly comparable to the rest of them thanks to its nonmetallic nature (finally getting to the real reason, which they can't really say if you read the book in order until you read about Al, Ga, In, and Tl). I would do this too if writing the group 13 article; cover boron separately from the rest. It is pretty different. Isn't this why we already colour B differently from the rest of the group? Everywhere in the table apart from the p-block (which is the only place where G&E do this sort of splitting), we colour the table in nice vertical (s- and d-blocks) or horizontal (f-block) rectangles! I think it's not a coincidence, and that the fact that we do this here reflects exactly how G&E felt that differing trends metallicity overshadows group similarities here.
Lastly, I think there is no problem with counting "transactinide" as a chemical category. After all, isn't G&E titled "Chemistry of the Elements"? Isn't H&W titled "Lehrbuch der Anorganischen Chemie"? Isn't Cotton titled "Lanthanide and Actinide Chemistry"? Isn't the big Springer book titled "The Chemistry of the Actinides and Transactinides"? Then why do they all use it? (The physics term is rather "superheavy element".) It is also a chemical category in terms of how you chemically experiment on these elements. Double sharp (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
"And if it's not a chemical category, why are chemists using it?" -- let me repeat myself: "These books are right, in their own way, to split transactinides off the rest of their groups. That is because they're all telling a long story each, and facts on element 105 (say) will dissolve in the variety of facts on group 5. This fact isn't prohibitive, of course, but that's how they're telling the story and you can see why." Actually, do you see how that paragraph is (generally) self-contradictory? "I don't do something just because they do, but look at what they're doing! (Let's do the same thing!)"
No, I mean that I don't choose it solely because they do it, but because to me, it makes sense. I also think of it as "primary categorisation": to me, the nuclear stability of 105 is more important than it being eka-tantalum. That is to say, when I take off my "superheavy-element-fan" hat, I think of V, Nb, and Ta very differently from how I think of Db. The first three are important due to their personality (chemistry); the last is important because it is a big deal that it even exists (after all, without the island intervening, there would be no elements after Lr). Double sharp (talk) 03:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, great, we color B differently than the rest of group 13. For one p-block group (leaving out the noble gases as there hardly could be any differences there), we do the same thing as they. What about the other four groups? They go group by group because, as I said, it's easier to tell a story this way. (We, on the other hand, are not limited by having to discuss elements in groups. We are free to have 120, instead of 20, stories.) So, uhm... are we abandoning our PTM--metalloid--nonmetals colorings?
We're not abandoning it. The way I see it, the shift from group-colouring to metallishness-colouring here exactly reflects how Greenwood & Earnshaw feel the need to break up the groups. There are admittedly exceptions, because the line is fuzzy. For instance, in the chapter on Ge, Sn, and Pb, they feel the need to say that while the chemical trends work well, Ge is a metalloid (and you could justifiably call it a nonmetal) whereas Sn and Pb are metals. So where you draw the line is up for debate (I think of Se as a metalloid, but there's not so much consensus on that one). The important thing, though, is that there is a line, and that the first and second rows are really quite individual and important everywhere (hence the separate chapters for B, C, Si, N, P, O, and S; Al doesn't get one, but the rest-of-group-13 chapter is quite focused on it and treats its compounds away from those of Ga, In, and Tl).
Additionally, from writing quite a few of these articles I do not think it is a limitation to have to discuss elements in groups, but rather a benefit (you then see how the story goes through the whole family). Actually I think I had more fun writing alkali metal than I would have had writing Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, and Fr separately, mostly because I could actually cover everything and not have to repeat myself several times (like I currently have to do thanks to having taken iodine and then bromine). Double sharp (talk) 03:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't connect this to the original story (another night without sleep, sorry): you mentioned how we do the same thing as them for group 13; in response, I drew you attention that we don't do the same thing for groups 14 through 17 and ironically suggested we should get consistent and go with vertical colorings. What point exactly are you defending right now?
Of course it's no coincidence. I've never seen anyone group those elements in a fashion different from what both we and they do. Have you?
Holleman & Wiberg strictly follows the principle of "one group, one chapter". Of course, we wouldn't do that because (1) it makes for the most boring colouring ever and (2) it forces them to have chapters like "group 16" which tend to devolve into two sub-chapters, "oxygen" and "everything else". Double sharp (talk) 03:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I think I should remind you of the context, or I'm misinterpreting something: you mentioned that anything other than p-block gets horizontal or vertical coloring both here and in those books. I agreed, adding it wasn't surprising, as there was no grouping that would employ anything else that I knew.--R8R (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh great, we're now judging books by covers. There is actually an idiom in English that implies this isn't the best way to analyze something. Instead, look at why they were doing it that way -- but I wouldn't want to repeat myself so many times.--R8R (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I think I made my point in the opening paragraph of my response (it's basically like YBG's). These categories are crude labels that give you a sense of an element's personality at first glance. So, we avoided colouring At as a halogen, mostly because its metallic properties are more important than its nonmetallic ones. Furthermore, we avoid colouring La as a transition metal (even though by IUPAC it is one), because its similarities to Ce–Lu are the main thing here (actually I still think the "rare earth metal" category is a good idea – why do you think Sc and Y are in so many treatments of the f-block elements?). So when I look at Db, I don't think its transition-metalness is the main point. I think the fact that it's really quite heavy and doesn't really want to exist is the main point. Just like the actinides are kept apart from the lanthanides, instead of using "inner transition metals" (even though that is well-defined by IUPAC as the f-block elements), because the radioactivity that permeates the whole actinide series is an immense part of their personality and contributes to their difficulty of investigation and the radiolysis of many of their compounds.
Then, I'll repeat another point of mine: if we're moving away from chemistry to simpler concepts (even though we're talking about chemical elements), which is what you're suggesting, how does that fit with the unobvious and unpopular categories of "polyatomic nonmetals" and "diatomic nonmetals" to begin with? I assume we should be consistent and if we're moving from chemical terms (I don't accept that "how we do chemical experiments" is a valid reason per chemistry: fluorine and iodine greatly differ too, then), we should move from those two categories as well for this reason: nobody thinks of nitrogen as of a diatomic nonmetal as in terms of initial characterization?--R8R (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Pessimistic DS incidentally thinks that our PT already has so many colours that we'll end up doing something wrong no matter what. It also really only needs to be black and white (Petergans suggested this too, IIRC). But I don't think anyone else agrees... Double sharp (talk) 03:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
How about leaving the transactinides as they currently are, but still moving all of group 12 (Zn, Cd, Hg, and Cn) into the post-transition metals category?
It wasn't somehow specifically confirmed in 2016: the refs date back to 2007 and 2008. (Too bad I can't open that page with Cn, as it's not available to me.)
Intuitively I like the current coloring better, but I have no desire to actively defend it, because it's (again) a matter of preference rather than science. I'll instead ask: this question was raised a while ago and we decided to keep TMs spanning from group 3 to 12. At what point do such decisions lose their weight and their respective topics can be addressed for another time? We (seemingly) don't have specific influx of new information. Copernicium didn't, as I recall, matter all that much in that discussion. At least it shouldn't have. On the three stable elements, we have no new info. So why are we re-opening questions we seem to have settled?--R8R (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
The situation then was different. It was rejected mostly because "poor metals" was seen as a poor category (pun intended). That was the main objection. Now that we do not use that category, it seems to me that a second look is justified.
I do think it is more than "preference" now, since (1) there is no confirmed involvement of d-electrons at all in Zn, Cd, Hg, and Cn, and (2) the IUPAC definition in the Gold Book is pretty clear for the elements it evidently was meant to be applied to in the d-block, and clearly excludes group 12. Double sharp (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay, probably that's enough to call another meeting on the matter. I still think it is a matter of preference (see next para) and I won't really argue. Though personally, I'd want some sort of consensus for the change to happen.
You're looking at it as if IUPAC was some undeniable authority. But it's not. We don't have to follow if agree not to and we follow only if we agree to. (I am not saying it's not important, it is; just not undeniably so.) According to their definition, a bunch of f-block elements are also transition elements, which is hardly what people actually mean when they say "transition metal." Do we have to follow?--R8R (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that's entirely what they meant: I think the whole thing was intended to apply only to d-block elements (the Red Book kind of suggests this, since that's the context it is raised in). I have two points here. Firstly, IUPAC is pretty dominant up to high-school chemistry, and that is already the level where the TMs are first introduced. There you will hear such systematic names like "propanone", "ethanedioic acid", and "potassium manganate(VII)" that in the real world and in university and higher are always "acetone", "oxalic acid", and "potassium permanganate". Secondly, it's not just IUPAC: there is already a clear divide in the English-language chemistry world of textbooks on whether the transition metals include group 12 or not. (I was taught that they didn't, if you were wondering.) I don't support using IUPAC terms that no one uses, like "lanthanoid" or "actinoid". But in this case, since the topic is rather basic and since many people do in fact use the IUPAC definition, I think it is a worthy thing to discuss doing. Double sharp (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't like this line of reasoning at all. Not only we pick an imperfect definition and treat it as the definition to use, we assume that they just overlooked these imperfections and let's deliberately forget them?
Well, the group 3-12 definition from IUPAC is also imperfect. It implies that either La/Ac or Lu/Lr are also TMs and we don't colour that, because the categories end up overlapping. Double sharp (talk) 08:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Wait, I just read what you wrote there and it seems I replied to something different than what was written. Anyway, my point is not that a good definition should include/exclude group 12. It's that a good definition should not include a bunch of f-block elements. Either strict "groups 3--11" or strict "groups 3--12" would be better.--R8R (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
IUPAC seems to de facto treat group 3 as Sc, Y, La–Lu, and Ac–Lr, including all the lanthanides and actinides. This is shown by the element priority given in the IUPAC nomenclature of inorganic chemistry 2005: they go from group 17 backwards to group 0, inserting H between groups 16 and 15 (thus F–Ts, O–Lv, H, N–Mc, ..., Ti–Rf, Sc, Y, La–Lu, Ac–Lr, Be–Ra, Li–Fr, He–Og). Another clue comes from the wording of the 2016 recommendations on element-naming: 'The names of all new elements should have an ending that reflects and maintains historical and chemical consistency. This would be in general "-ium" for elements belonging to groups 1–16, "-ine" for elements of group 17 and "-on" for elements of group 18.' Since element 121 is not far away, I don't think they failed to realise that literally taking group 3 as Sc-Y-La-Ac or Sc-Y-Lu-Lr excludes all the f-block elements. I think this means that at least, the people drafting IUPAC documents generally think of the whole of the f- and g-blocks as degenerate members of group 3, thus following the Sc-Y-*-** structure. But, as we all know, mind-reading is a dangerous game.
P.S. In high school I was told that the f-block elements were TMs, along with groups 3–11 (but emphatically not 12, which was stated several times; in fact, I was originally told that group 3 and the f-block weren't, but a few years later I was told that that was a bit of a "lie to children" and it's useful to include them for their physical similarities, even if their chemistry is atypical of TMs). So it's not a completely unknown classification. IIRC, IUPAC also explicitly calls them "inner transition elements". (Such a name seems to reflect a vestigial Sc-Y-La-Ac viewpoint, as only then do the lanthanides and actinides form a transition that is engulfed totally by another transition.) Double sharp (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll admit nobody taught me that KMnO4 was "potassium manganate(VII)" and while they said the systematic name for (CH₃)₂CO was "2-propanon," I was immediately told nobody ever used that name. Same thing with oxalic acid. Is that really what chemistry in an English or American school is like? (Somehow, I doubt that, it can't be that way.)
Yes, I'm afraid it is like that now. IIRC Clayden et al.'s Organic Chemistry has to spend the first chapter detailing the most common non-systematic names (e.g. acetone, acetic acid, oxalic acid, formic acid, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, toluene, xylene...). Double sharp (talk) 08:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I remember one article here in Wiki once said there was a 2003 study on the matter, which concluded that the two camps were of equal size in terms of publications.
Which only demonstrates the uselessness of that debate, as I see it. I'm not really telling you to just accept the current standings, I just don't see the point to argue here.--R8R (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
My impression has been that (a) authors who show 3–11 give sound reasons for excluding group 12, whereas (b) authors who show 3–12 either say nothing and hope nobody raises a hand at the back of the class, or they offer weaker or superficial reasons for including group 12.
Cotton et al., recently a US standard, are an example of (a). They define transition elements as those having partly filled d shells, which covers groups 3–10, plus those that have partly filled d shells in any of their commonly occurring oxidation states, thereby including group 11 (Cu, Ag, Au). The group 3 elements are counted as transition metals, but since the properties of these metals are "quite different" from those of the regular d-block elements, they are treated, on chemical similarity grounds, in the chapter on the lanthanides. The group 12 elements (Zn, Cd, Hg) are treated as main group metals, since none of these elements give rise to compounds in which d electrons are lost.
Greenwood and Earnshaw are an example of (b). They write that the d-block elements (groups 3–12) are commonly described as "transition elements". On the group 3 elements they note that, "although each member of this group is the first member of a transition series, its chemistry is largely atypical of the transition elements." On the group 12 elements they comment that, "in view of the stability of the filled d shell, these elements show few of the characteristic properties of transition metals despite their position in the d block of the periodic table." They add that zinc resembles transition metals in forming complexes; cadmium is "rather similar" to zinc; and that many compounds of mercury (and cadmium to a lesser extent) are highly coloured, which is a characteristic of transition metals.
Since the literature is roughly divided on this point, and we need to go one way or t'other in colouring our table, it appears preferable to occupy the arguably stronger ground of 3–11 rather than the dubious ground of 3–12.
I don't mind treating Sc-Y as (incipient) transition metals. The addition of the d-electron confers transition metal physical properties, as noted by Greenwood and Earnshaw, and that's good enough for me in terms of periodicity. OK they don't display hardly any of the characteristic chemical properties of transition metals. I can live with that since it provides an illustrative contrast with the group 4–11 transition metals and shows the chemical influence of d electrons (in addition to the impact on physical properties.
Towards the other end of the d block, are the group 11 twilight zone transition metals and their capacity to demonstrate both transition metal chemistry and main group chemistry. Effectively, they can also be regarded as incipient main group metals.
Of course, by the time we get to group 12 there is no d-block chemistry, and there is no d electron cohesion contribution to physical properties, as demonstrated by the abrupt and significant reduction in melting and boiling points in passing from group 11 to group 12.
The reported synthesis of HgF4 carries near enough to zero weight, given (if it really does exist) it would represent something on the order of one-millionth of the chemistry of mercury, and even then at only a few degrees above absolute zero.
In our transition metal article I'd be inclined to still discuss the group 12 elements, at least for comparative purposes (presuming they were colour categorised as PTMs).
In conclusion I'd support group 12 as post transition metals on the grounds of superior chemical and physical arguments. Sandbh (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Cn keeps the grey colour since it acts as a good member of group 12 and is no longer expected to form the +4 oxidation state. Similarly Fl is no longer expected to form the +6 oxidation state. Yes, we probably need to rewrite the copernicium article. Double sharp (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm wondering if it might be useful to consider these rules:
Clear
Unambiguous
Meaningful
Referenced
Specific
Unique
Complete
Clear. The criterion for division should be easily explained
Unambiguous. It should be (relatively) obvious which category each element fits into
Meaningful. The categories should have significance more than just dividing for the sake of dividing. There should be enough within-group similarity and enough between-group dissimilarity so that each group could be the subject of a separate encyclopedia article
Referenced. Categories and their names are supported by reliable sources
Specific. Catch-all, none-of-the-above terms like 'Other X' are avoided (unless properties are not sufficiently known)
Unique. The categories are mutually exclusive (a bit stronger than Unambiguous)
Complete. The categories are jointly exhaustive (a bit stronger than Specific)’
See User:YBG § Criteria for categorization for links to the origin of these rules, which Sandbh called the "YBG rules" but I claim were just my summarizing the thoughts of others. (Note: That § link doesn't work real well for me, probably due to {{cot}}/{{cob}} earlier on the page)
As far as the TM/PTM dividing line, I agree that our focus was getting rid of the "other nonmetals" category, but also, that we kept TM/PTM discussion relatively small in order to avoid derailing hope of consensus on mon-/di-/poly-atomic nonmetals. So following the same logic, I think it would be good to first deal with the TM/PTM issue, and once that is resolved, then we can proceed to discuss the best way to classify and color the postactinides. YBG (talk) 06:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Transactinides are OK under 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. They are not OK under 6 because Rf–Hs are both transition metals and transactinides. Then again, La is both a lanthanide and a transition metal (feel free to say Lu instead, but the bottom line is that one of them is double-category), so already we have problems under 6.
The [four] series of elements arising from the filling of the 3d, 4d, [5d, and 6d] shells, and situated in the periodic table following the alkaline earth metals, are commonly described as "transition elements", though this term is sometimes also extended to include the lanthanide and actinide (or inner transition) elements. They exhibit a number of characteristic properties which together distinguish them from other groups of elements:
(i) They are all metals and as such are lustrous and deformable and have high electrical and thermal conductivities. In addition, their melting and boiling points tend to be high and they are generally hard and strong.
(ii) Most of them display numerous oxidation states which vary by steps of 1 rather than 2 as is usually the case with those main-group elements which exhibit more than one oxidation state.
(iii) They have an unparalleled propensity for forming coordination complexes with Lewis bases.
(They forget to mention 6d in the opening chapter, but then include Ac along with Sc, Y, and La, so clearly they must have meant it. Much later they call Ac, along with Rf–Cn, a fourth transition series.) I think that's not a bad set of criteria.
The elements considered transition metals, according to them, are thus Sc–Zn; Y–Cd; La, Hf–Hg; Ac, Rf–Cn. (Admittedly, we do not yet know if Mt–Rg are metals, but no one seriously thinks otherwise.) They note that group 3 and 12 are in some ways anomalous, since they do not fulfil all three criteria; but they at least fulfil some of them. Double sharp (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be a lot easier if we said the definitons was "groups 3--12 (or 11), because reason 1, reason 2, and reason 3," rather than looking to find criteria to then define the set, because these criteria make sense, but are imperfect as well, as you mentioned the flaws for groups 3 and 12.
(I hope we're not diving into another -La vs. -Lu debate? this, of course, may be revisited if IUPAC recognizes group 3 as ending with -La-Ac, though I personally wouldn't think to change our orientation, but I realize I'm not the ultimate decision maker.)--R8R (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
We're not. I'm just saying what they say, since they are -La-Ac partisans. If IUPAC decides on -La-Ac, I think we ought to change it. But if they decide on -Lu-Lr, we shouldn't. Double sharp (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm dropping the "transactinide" colouring proposal, mostly because I think R8R makes good arguments against it.
I am still in favour of moving Zn, Cd, Hg, and Cn to the post-transition metals category, as is Sandbh. Note that this does not create any new categories; it simply moves these four elements from one category (TM) to another (PTM). The reason is simple. I have often said here that an element's electron configuration acts like the genetic code that fixes its nature and personality. Transition-metal physical properties are guaranteed by having unpaired d-electrons in the atom (groups 3–10); and the chemistry is guaranteed by having unpaired d-electrons in the ions (groups 4–11). Thus groups 3–11 show TM properties with group 3 a prelude from the s-block and group 11 a postlude into the p-block. Group 12 does not show TM physical or chemical properties to any significant extent, at least no more than any other average main-group element like Pb, and thus should be considered PTM. Finally, it helps that the simple group 3–11 definition is stated by reliable sources such as Cotton. Double sharp (talk) 10:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Additionally, since E166 is not really expected to give up its 7d10 electrons readily if at all, the extended PT would look like this:
If we do go ahead with the recategorisation of group 12, I would request that it take place simultaneously with the mass renaming of elements 113, 115, 117, and 118. This way, it actually has a chance of propagating throughout. I am afraid I will not be able to find everything within a reasonable amount of time for our readers. Double sharp (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The complete filling of 6d at Cn has a drastic effect, incidentally: there is a sudden increase of volatility expected from Rg to Cn (and Cn–Og should all be very volatile elements). Source. Of course, all the elements from Hs to Lv inclusive should all be very noble metals (though Cn may be semiconducting), while Ts should be semimetallic. (Though given that it falls below At, I would be inclined to deny Ts membership to the Royal Halogen Club unless it can form salts like NaTs – if otherwise, I'd call it a metal.) Double sharp (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
So if there won't be any protests (and I don't see why there would be any; I wouldn't speak as confidently otherwise), I recommend just adding these values but not having to fill them all at once so the task of adding them doesn't become all that difficult. Everyone would be free to add those which are still absent.--R8R (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
OK. |abundance=. Should it be free text, or add unit "ppm", or "kg/kg" as the linked article does? Or use three parameters |abundance earth=, |abundance seawater=, |abundance solar system=? Positioning at bottom of "General properties" section? -DePiep (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I think abundance should have a separate subheader, like history does; ppm is best, I think, except it would be great to have the possibility to choose between ppm and ppb. And, I think, there should be three parameters.--R8R (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
{{done}}[too soon. See below. Will be OK. -DePiep (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)]. added |abundance= to get this going. I don't think an extra header is useful, for 3 similar data rows (and History was more difficult to catch under an existing header, while abundance is one of a bunch properties). Which names are ok: |abundance earth/crust=, |abundance seawater/oceans=, |abundance solar system=?
ppm is a different quantity from is kg/kg, right? Both dimensionless, but counting vs mass)? Do we want to use the confusing "billion" in ppb? -DePiep (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I suggested a separate header because abundances are different from the stuff we label "miscellaneous": there, we list properties of the pure material. Abundance is not a property in that sense. As for names for parameters, I like the ones you initially proposed, but don't insist as this is minor anyway and the text to be displayed is more important.
ppm is one part in million. So if there is a kilogram of something and we have a milligram of (say) radium in it, then adundance of radium there is 1 ppm. Percents you're familiar with are precisly the same, except they're 1 in 100 rather than 1 in 1,000,000. ppb is a regular notation. Myself, I wouldn't recognize ppm as "parts per milliard." Would even look at the word "milliard" spelled out in any context surprised (even though in my mother tongue, they call 1,000,000,000 exactly that). So ppb is fine. kg/kg is one in one. ppm is equivalent to mg/kg. ppb is equivalent to ug/kg.--R8R (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
About the unit (dimension): Abundance of the chemical elements in the lead describes three dimensions: abundance by mass, by volume, by molecule. For one single same entity (say C in Jupiter), these numbers are systematically different. this table shows two numbers per element.
For the infobox I think we should allow free text (the box will not add a predescribed unit like ppm nor edit the input otherwise). One should enter the unit with the number, because there are so much correct options. This nicely allows for adding sources & comments too.
However. It would be good if we have consistency over all the elements. Would be great if you could come up with a preferred format (e.g. "always use ppm/ppb, not kg/kg"). -DePiep (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I suppose you could make a case for using kg/kg throughout to avoid the problems posed by when you need scientific notation for the extremely small abundances like protactinium, radon or radium. Double sharp (talk) 04:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Proposal
{{infobox element/sandbox2
|abundance=some abu text<sup>[1]</sup>
<!--|ppb=y-->
|abundance in earth's crust=14 [[parts per million|ppm]]
|abundance in oceans=9 ppm
|abundance in solar system=0.1%
|name=carbon
|number=6
|symbol=C
|category=polyatomic nonmetal
|category comment=sometimes considered a [[metalloid]]
|group=14
|period=2
|block=p
|allotropes=graphite, diamond
|appearance=graphite: black<br/>diamond: clear
}}
| abundance=some abu text<ref>some reference</ref>
| abundance in earth's crust=14 [[parts per million|ppm]]
| abundance in oceans=9 ppm
| abundance in solar system=0.1%
I did some edits per my liking. Don't really insist on these (so you can undo if you want to), but I am offering them for consideration.--R8R (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Or I can build: "first ppm mentioning is replaced by ppm" (same for ppb).
I have removed the |ppm=yes option: automated adding the unit is too complicated to do it right (first unit should be linked; other units used). Now: what you type is what you get. We can scan the 120 infoboxes afterwards for formatting. -DePiep (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Mostly lack of free time. I just spent some time now updating tennessine and now I'm finding myself in a great hurry. Besides, for now, I'm thinking of having to write dubnium and then, once it's done, aluminium (which, I hope, will remind me of my plan of having to reassess WP:ALUM). But if there's a specific job you'd want me to do, let me know.--R8R (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.
Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Recently, Drbogdan has added {{PeriodicTable-ImageMap}} to all element articles (section title "Interactive Periodic Table"). I'm not sure if we want that Table in the article. As a navigation help, we already have one in the navbox below. Otherwise, it is not that related to the element, I guess. Technically, the interaction does not work in mobile view. And the positioning is wrong (off-page). Opinions? -DePiep (talk) 11:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Invited Drbogdan. GF sure. I am pondering: could this one replace the compact one in the navbox? Some merits. -DePiep (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@DePiep, R8R Gtrs, Sandbh, Alchemist-hp, Kbrose, and Graeme Bartlett: FWIW - Thank you for inviting me to discuss my newly created interactive "{{PeriodicTable-ImageMap}}" - yes - added the template to the "chemical elements" for the reasons posted below - however, the additions were reverted, without any apparent discussion that I'm aware, by "User:Kbrose" - for my part - the template was added in good faith as a possible improvement to the articles - please understand that it's *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edits - esp if there's "WP:CONSENSUS" of course - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for inviting me to this discussion - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I too think that three is too much, but the wording against this PT is too harsh -- biting a GF contributor. Kbrose did not engage in any talk, AFAIK.
I suggest we add this image-linking to the top image of Periodic table, as long as it does not change anything else (esp. keep layout). Also attention to be paid to the mobile view situation (interaction won't work there, but no harm either).
I applaud Drbogdan for the development of this interactive image map, and for the bold addition of it to the many articles. I also applaud all those who reverted it and invited a discussion. This is all a very clear application of WP:BRD, the bold-revert-discuss cycle, which has clearly worked well in this case because of an abundance of good faith. I agree with DePiep in seeing this interactive image-map as a potential improvement to the table-based one that is included in our element infoboxes. One thing to keep in mind: if this image map is the first image to appear in an article, it will be the image that appears in the hovercards that appear to users who have turned on this beta feature. Depending on what the article is, this could be either a welcome addition or an unfortunate side effect. YBG (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
DePiep, when you say, "We also can consider replacing the navbox, compact PT with this one" are you referring to the 32 column table appearing in the infobox in our element articles? Sandbh (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
The Über-PT on a webpage would show this: when your phone is upright (portrait), PT In 18=-col form. When horizontal (landscape): "PT in 32-col form" (because: 18/32 col is just a showing stuff, not a PT definition). And: w3c css style is right about this cut-and-paste stuff, even without knowing anything about the PT. 18 or 32 cols: css can handle it. -DePiep (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if that is possible? Any way I do like the 18 column form better than the 32 column table. But I do not think it should go in a section with its own title. Instead it should go with the other navigation templates at the bottom. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if that is possible?: in webpage styling (css), sure! eg, style="float" for starters. CSS only needs page size etc. Not the QM numbers.
Any way I do like the 18 column form better than the 32 column table. I can guess your age range. You are used to the 18-col format, right? Really, that footnote-thing is an extra mental lap before understanding the PT. But why teach that to young people? My statement is: everybody born in this century should learn the PT by 32-col format. -DePiep (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually I like the 18-column form better too, the reason being that then there's a clear demarcation between the main-group and transition elements (for which thinking in columns as primary works very well) and the inner transition elements (for which you should think in rows instead, as U does not behave like Nd outside the +3 state). But I think there is too much redundancy in having 3 periodic tables on one page. One at the bottom and one at the top is quite fine, but I am concerned that this treads past simplifying to babysitting the reader. Double sharp (talk) 03:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
FWIW - yes - *entirely* agree with the comments of "User:Double sharp" above, although simplifying is *entirely* ok with me re "Wikipedia" - goal seems to be to reach a "9th grade/14yo" average reader as noted in my "comments/refs above" - a less simplifying treatment may be ok with a more specialized encyclopedia (even "Citizendium" perhaps?) but not for Wikipedia afaik at the moment - in any regards - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
It is not as if the Flesch grade level is a valid indicator of anything, especially since it doesn't actually check to see if the material you put into it is actually in English. Already I suspect some articles like praseodymium get penalised unfairly because the element name itself is highly polysyllabic. Even more hilariously, the nitrogen article goes into even more excruciating chemical detail than the uranium article (with many things like the MO diagram and the coordination modes that aren't even covered in high school), and yet the latter gets a lower Flesch readability score.
If WP is supposed to be the sum of all human knowledge, I daresay it should look like an actual encyclopaedia, not a colourful, sparkly one for kids that doesn't actually say anything useful. Double sharp (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
@Double sharp: Thank you for your comments - yes - *entirely* agree with you of course - I understand your pov - however - perhaps there's some middle ground re WP - WP is unique on the world stage imo - and may, at best, strive to be a truly global encyclopedia - one to reach the most viewers - and one to share the best knowledge - as a truly global reference source - seems sharing knowledge in a simple nontechnical manner - *if possible* - might work best to reach the most, with the best - but there may be other ways to do this as well I would think - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Except that I'm not sure how you could explain everything from the ground up. If I want to explain the bonding in the N2 molecule, I should have thought that one of the key advantages of hypertext was that I didn't need to go into a whole description of the linear combinations of the 1s, 2s, and 2p orbitals to form σ, σ*, π, and π* molecular orbitals, because I could link to it. Explaining the whole thing from the ground up, all the way from the fact that the electrons are in atomic orbitals in the first place (described as 1s2 2s2 2p1 x2p1 y2p1 z instead of the middle-school "2, 5"), would take too much time and bring us away from the topic (not to mention read like a textbook instead of an encyclopaedia). I support having all the info available, ranging from the specialist to the simple, so that if you read multiple articles in an appropriate sequence you may be able to learn everything you need. But I think it's not the best idea to have it all in one article. Double sharp (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
@Double sharp: Thanks for your recent comments - *very* well stated imo - my own recent WP work with my created (and/or modified) timeline templates (ie, "{{Nature timeline}}", "{{Life timeline}}", "{{Human timeline}}") also use hyperlinks (about 30 in each timeline) to relate the relatively simple wording found in the timelines - to the more detailed wordings found in WP articles - seems we may be describing the same notion - albeit using different examples - Thanks again for your recent comments - they're *very* much appreciated - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogan (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Mmmmm. I was explained both in the 9th grade. In fact, I don't think it's something you couldn't handle.
As for me, what it would take to get me convinced is probably a comment or two by actual laypeople saying it does make a difference. I was taught the 8-column table and I accepted the 18-column layout alright, though this change is bigger than a change from 18 to 32. Think it's no biggie to worry about unless proven wrong.--R8R (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Must be a difference between systems, but while I got "2,5" in the 9th grade, spdf wasn't covered till (I think) 11th? Then again, I read ahead enough to know it by 9th grade, even though it was obviously a very basic understanding (just Aufbau, with the exception for 5d and 6d at La and Ac to have a split d-block). I agree that the 18-32 difference is not confusing provided you keep the elements in the same place: that is, if you use a -Lu-Lr table in 18-column, so should it be -Lu-Lr in 32-column, and similarly for -La-Ac. (Thus -*-** is quite discouraged.) Double sharp (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
In general, I think that for elements beyond 120 we should keep the speculations in the extended periodic table article. The reason is that there are no complete calculations beyond element 122 at the moment and therefore what we write there is mostly from one source (Fricke) and may be either very right or very wrong. As an example, looking at element 164, Fricke, Nefedov, Greiner, and Pennemann all considered that an important element to look at because it may be a closed proton shell like Pb and Fl. They arrived at four different conclusions regarding the chemistry, under which element 164 might act like platinum, mercury, lead, or radon!
For this reason, our general policy since about 2012 has been along the lines of "unless you can make it pass GA (i.e. there's a variety of sources giving a complete picture), stick it in our speculations article and wait". The limit then was 120. I keep lists of sources at Talk:Unbiunium and Talk:Unbibium to see when the time will be ripe to make them articles: I think the time approaches but has not come yet. For elements beyond 122, I'd say: "no, not for a few more years"! Double sharp (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I have added |magnetic susceptibility= to the sandbox, see Template:Infobox aluminium/sandbox. At the moment, it is anytext-input (input will show unformatted). Position OK?
Questions (for TerpeneOttoDouble sharp): is the unit always cm3/mol? If so, we can add it by default (you only need to input the number then). If not, the editor should add the unit. Note that we want perfect formatted values in there (like: by SI notation, use NBSP, use minus not hyphen, a form generally accepted in the field). And: does it need a comment option, or a reference option (as extra parameters)?
More general: do we really want this info in the infobox? As with {{Chembox}}, the list of parameters, each one OK by themselves, is getting impractically long. It indicates that there is a lack of priority/oversight (adding way too much detail to the infobox). An other solution could be: add a section "Data sheet" and move less prominent data to that section (create new template for this). -DePiep (talk) 11:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Think it fits well in, because it is known for many elements; now I'm editing from my phone and can't easily add them, but I can and will when I get back on Christmas Eve or so. Unit is always cm3/mol. Position below magnetic ordering is good. Why I think it is a good idea to add it is because our reference for magnetic ordering actually gives the magnetic susceptbility, and we are just taking the sign to give magnetic ordering. So I think we can afford to take a little more. Double sharp (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Added
| magnetic susceptibility =
| magnetic susceptibility ref =
@DePiep: Thanks for the time you put into magnetic susceptibility! I'm having a problem entering magnetic susceptibility on the aluminum page still. Magnetic Susceptibility doesn't appear on the template page and it doesn't show up as something I can add to the aluminum info box. If I can't change the pages, I can post a table of the magnetic susceptibilities of all the elements here for someone else to input.
Do this:
Step 1: Use the element infoboxes listed here or here. That is your working list.
Step 2: per infobox, add:already added to the infoboxes
DePiep Magnetic susceptibility is a number that describes how much a compound can move a magnetic field. To measure a compound it is placed in a container similar to a test tube. Then it is placed in a magnetic susceptibility balance and the reading is recorded. The number the machine displays describes how much the sample in a certain volume moves the magnetic field. Typically, someone will calculate the grams of sample per volume. This number is known Xmass. Its units are cm^3/g. If Xmass is multiplied by its molar mass you get Xmol. Xmass and Xmol are both acceptable standard units for magnetic susceptibility. Most tables prefer Xmol.
I chose to publish 500+ organic compounds in Xmol and I'm going to start on inorganic compounds soon. The only ones I don't have access to are the elements. The only downside to Xmol is that someone attempting to identify a compound without the molar mass of the compound could have complications. Xmass numbers appear low and similar although the minute differences are truly significant.
The magnetic susceptibility does not appear on the aluminum page now. If I were to place the magnetic susceptibility it would go under magnetic ordering in the miscellanea section or in the physical properties section at the bottom. The new message under the chem. box is perfect. I'm not sure who placed it there but its awesome. Magnetic susceptibility is constant for a certain temperature. In rare cases users might need publish a magnetic susceptibility of compound at an unusual temperature so I would recommend a comment option. A comment option is also important because wiki doesn't always have a page for amine salt versions of certain compounds and they could be placed on the compounds page with a comment section.
Magnetic susceptibility is an important tool for identifying isomers. Branched carbon chains with the same molar mass and chemical formula can be identified with just a simple magnetic susceptibility reading. I understand it's a complicated idea but, its a simple test that provide valuable information in terms of identification and doesn't destroy the sample in the process. TerpeneOtto (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks TerpeneOtto. In {{Chembox}}, it was there a long time but we had to find out the parameter is |MagSus=, recently.
Now I do not mind the physical background for this primarily (though interesting it is!). I'm here to make shining infoboxes. And adding it is not a problem: see Template:Infobox aluminium/sandbox!
The issue is: how many data can the infobox have? As with {{Chembox}}, having dozens of parameters misses the point of the infobox. Toooo much info. So I ask: where do we draw the line? -DePiep (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
DePiep In my opinion, databases of chemical compounds are just a mess of useless information lacking the necessary data and linking you to more databases with the same data. We should remove those from the chem. box. I wouldn't limit chem box physical properties if I had the option. I realize materials and molecules have numerous physical properties but they are important for future scientist and their research. In the future wikipedia could develop the chemistry pages just like the water page. The water pages are split into a water description page and a physical and chemical data page. If Chem box had its own page it would allow for images like IR spectra and other fun chemistry stuff. I realize Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it just tries to cover the basics, but people are really fighting for a database of the people so the numbers are accessible to those who need them. Data can be tough to find sometimes.
"My work is gratefully dedicated to those institutions which have fostered free inquiry through these troubled times." --Benton B. Owen , Physical Chemist, Yale
So if I create a table of magnetic susceptibility of the elements can someone with the power post them on the pages they belong? TerpeneOtto (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
