By now, we should be familiar (actually, I'm happy that I am, at last ;-) ) with the variant values that IUPAC (CIAAW) publishes for each element. That is, next to the formal s.a.w. (often a long number, and possibly an interval), the element may also formally have an abridged and a conventional value. The resulting short number value I started naming "formal short" here.
Over at Wikidata, things are a mess (see this comparision). WD 'must' have a mass unit, so they've added "u" (by recalculation); they've used PubChem as a source which has way different numbers, it is a mixup of long and short numbers. (One wonders what molecular weights are worth, when calculated by PubChem). Anyway, I'll start a talk over there. -DePiep (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Looks good – except that I think we should define that values encased in square brackets are the mass number of the most stable isotope, not the nonexistent standard atomic weight. Double sharp (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I never found this section title sympathic or fine, but I can understand Sandbh's first response. (Is why I kept the original title). Below, I opened a new ==-level section with a more neutral title. -DePiep (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that you can look at the PT either as explanatory or as descriptive, or maybe as both. It not only tries to describe the commonalities we see between the elements, but also be founded on an explanation why they should show these commonalities at all – which inevitably goes back to the relationship between observed electron configuration and observed chemistry. If we are basing the table on observed chemistry, as we should, then idealised electron configurations never actually enter into it.
I do not think we can press very much further: the Madelung rule only explains things as much as the original version of periodicity. It notes the pattern in shell-filling, but we are left rather in the dark on why it should happen that way, and what's more, actual calculations show something a bit more complicated. In Cs and Ba, 6s is below 4f and 5d; but 5d drops down in energy and collapses at La, whereas 4f only does so at Ce. This is probably my main point when I argue for Sc-Y-La-Ac. If we discover a deeper truth that explains this ordering from more fundamental principles, it would be more comfortable to go further. But while this goal of reductionism is good, it doesn't do us much good to reduce down to foundations we're not even sure of, and we must keep in mind what we are reducing from. Double sharp (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
We have talked about diagonal shading before. Nothing ever came of it. I saw this table and thought the diagonal shading was quite effective. Goodness knows the nonmetal saga will keep me going for a while but I thought this table was noteworthy.
08:51, 18 October 2017 Sandbh
Cool – though I think Tc, Pm, Po–Ac, Pa, Np, and Pu should be listed as a separate category "from decay". Then maybe we could put Am–Og on the table as "Humans". ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 02:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Apart from showing the cells being double or triple colored, should not this history (where does an element come from?) be rewritten, or at least expanded with a new topic? The current primordial etc. approach is Earth-centric. This graph says there are six origins, plus grey and human. -DePiep (talk) 09:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Not really. Stars produce some of everything; there is probably some oganesson in the mess that results from the r-process. It just doesn't stay oganesson for very long, so the breakdown is itself stuck to primordial elements only. (The short-lived daughters of Th and U should really be greyed out as from decay.) Double sharp (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Back to what the OP wants to say: combined colors, diagonally, look good.
Yes, and we could work on that - later on. However, wrt graphical presentation, important is: in our general PTs, we present multiple themes, like: Z, symbol, category, atomic number, SoM, occurrence (and this is the small PT; wall-size PTs also have atomic weight, elconfig, oxidation states). The diagonal coloring in the OP's PT is nice and effective, because it only has one theme (with six colors only, how easy that is ;) ). For inspiration, graphical abundance: [1] (from [2]). -DePiep (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Today, {{Infobox periodic table group}} is a wikitable construct. I have rebuild that into using {{Infobox}} (in /sandbox). Also, serious design changes are to be considered. For example: improve group overview data (think: header), reduce individual element data, only add data that has group-related (periodic) meaning, and present that as such (how to?). See current demo's at /testcases (including alkali fireworks!).
I recall there was a consensus in this project once to abstain from creating articles on elements beyond 121 (or was it 122?) for as long as we don't have too much predicted data. Personally, what I think makes an element notable is an actual attempt to create it because that would be actual non-trivial data and predictions in this area, as I recall, are indeed fringe and cannot be the sole reason to have an article. I would personally be very interested to see any proof of the claimed attempt to synthesize element 123 from lawrencium; if nothing shows up, I think we should delete the article for the time being by any measure.--R8R (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
It looks like all Ysku has done is bring together all the stuff, including the deleted, wrong stuff, from all the previous versions of the article he could find, so I have turned them back into redirects. IIRC when we had the consensus, we set the limit at 120, but since then enough papers have come out for 121 that I felt okay recreating it this April or May. I still haven't found much substantial for 122, or anything at all for 123 and up, but I still keep a list of sources at Talk:Unbibium like I had at Talk:Unbiunium. And in the meantime I am rooting for the next attempts from the JINR and RIKEN to hit 119 and 120, which is basically a prerequisite before predictions of 123 and up can really be taken seriously. Double sharp (talk) 06:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
That category is a bit a polluted mess, and I did that ;-). A year ago, when we had the Uuo -> Og changes, I wanted to be sure no old symbols were left behind. So I took the rough secure route. -DePiep (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
"
This towel feels quite at home in some SiO2.
Its cozy cotton terry will make you feel at home, too.
The best thing about this beach towel: you can calculate the molar mass of the silica you will be lying on, or the water hopefully surrounding you.
Our beautiful and cleanly designed periodic table of elements to take with you wherever the adventure takes you.
The perfect companion for any activity actually, especially on Towel Day.
A towel, it says, is about the most massively useful thing an interstellar hitchhiker can have.
— Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
Printed, cut, and hand-sewn by our in-house team in the United States of America.
"
For years, I am searching on how to start understanding quantum mechanics. Then I found this quote, the opening paragraph of a book:
“Quantum mechanics” is the description of the behavior of matter and light in all its details and, in particular, of the happenings on an atomic scale. Things on a very small scale behave like nothing that you have any direct experience about. They do not behave like waves, they do not behave like particles, they do not behave like clouds, or billiard balls, or weights on springs, or like anything that you have ever seen.
That's a great quote. It occurs to me that at the other end of the spectrum, a similar thing could be said about the happenings near the speed of light. YBG (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Bonus points for Sandbh, for recognising the source [3]: Feynman RP, Leighton RB & Sands ML 1965, The Feynman lectures on physics: Quantum mechanics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, p. 1-1.
We have a general problem with our infobox in that it contains too much data at this point. Let's see how come so and what could be done.
According to WP:INFOBOX: An infobox is a panel, usually in the top right of an article, next to the lead section (in the desktop version of Wikipedia), or at the end of the lead section of an article (in the mobile version), that summarizes key features of the page's subject. That's great and makes sense. Unfortunately, our infoboxes go way beyond key features and become more of databases, which an infobox even conceptually definitely should not be. From an infobox, we can learn a Shear modulus of an element. Not that I need to know that, however: to begin with, I (no physics/chemistry expert but moderately familiar with the basic concepts) do not even know what a Shear modulus is (blame the ignorant me, sure, but so is almost everyone reading the article. What do they need that for?). This is certainly not a thing we need to highlight in an infobox. More than that, we never even mention that in the body of the text. If this information was useful at all, it would be found in the text, and an infobox is meant to highlight the key features so if this doesn't even make it to the text, why would it to the infobox?
This all makes our infobox incredibly long which rather discredits the point of the infobox: one could easily see and read the basics in an infobox, which is what an infobox is meant for. One, however, has some extra challenge to it finding the relevant information. Our reader will benefit from having less information marked as important: this will highlight the actually important information after it's separated from the merely technical stuff.
I will provide a list of sections and suggest what information of all we could keep. Feel free to comment; please do.--R8R (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
We certainly need the phase, mp, bp, and density. Everyone will understand this info and can make easy conclusions (tungsten is refractory and very dense, lead is much easier to melt and dense as well, chlorine is a gas). Heat of fusion, heat of vaporization, and molar heat capacity are fairly technical and not essential. Don't recall ever discussing these in my articles.--R8R (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Atomic properties
Oxidation states, electronegativity, atomic radius, and covalent radius are fairly simple. You learn this kind of stuff in schools and (provided you learned chemistry well) understand the value of this knowledge. Van der Waals radius is, however, quite specific. We could easily leave that out.--R8R (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I did learn van der Waals radius in school; as we of course know, covalent radius is for two covalently bonded atoms (similar generalisations hold for ionic and metallic radii), and van der Waals is for two non-bonded atoms. It really is the one that makes the most sense for the noble gases, for instance, especially He, Ne, and Ar which don't want to bond with anything. And it is rather easy to explain and appreciate. I think that the noble-gas use makes it worth having. Double sharp (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Miscellanea
(My Google Chrome dictionary markes this word red. Maybe we could find a Germanic synonym?)
Generally, I think that none of this is essential. We could use crystal structure, thermal conductivity, electrical resistivity, and magnetic ordering, probably. We talk about this stuff sometimes. Magnetic susceptibility, Young's modulus, Shear modulus, Bulk modulus, Poisson ratio, Mohs hardness, Brinell hardness, CAS Number are all free to go.--R8R (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Could be either way if you ask me. I'd rather have it replaced with a list of the most stable isotopes because an element with an isobox will have a shorter table and a longer one, which is fairly redundant if you ask me. Would conserve the information and the space. But my opinion on this one isn't as strong as on most parameters I suggest to abandon.--R8R (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
We recently changed the subtitle into from "Most stable isotopes" into "Main isotopes", exactly to have more freedom in the list e.g. to remove less relevant stable isotopes (Lead).
We discussed this with lead already. I repeat: not a good way to present multi-value information (multi-value is screaming: Table me!). BUt let's first see which info we want in there, not get distracted by how to. (And: didn't we have an example where "most stable" differs from "most relevant"?) -DePiep (talk) 10:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I would stick to relative abundance and half-life. These are the basics. While thinking what I could write about aluminum in the Isotopes section, I stumbled on the idea that even the decay mode isn't really necessary to have as an essential. In those cases where it is important, we can employ isoboxes.--R8R (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that would be a different issue. I only proposed changes for the Isotopes part of the main infobox. To quickly summarize it, we shouldn't mention any isotope-related information other than relative abundance and half-life in the infobox, in either linear or tabular form (to be discussed later on). Perhaps you missed it?--R8R (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Possibly. I wouldn't oppose this. What I wouldn't like, however, is if the Electrons per shell parameter would be moved as well, and I think we shouldn't separate the two in question. Possibly we could abandon the Electrons per shell because while it is simple, I've never seen it as useful.--R8R (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Let us get this clear. So you don't think a CAS-number is fit to be in an element article at all, but you can not make a single push that says: "remove CAS number from the Infobox". Que pasa? -DePiep (talk)
So, if I understand you right: no issue having a CAS number in the infobox, but having it elsewhee in the article is a problem? -DePiep (talk)
Not sure where you got the idea from. In this very section, I wrote, "[...] and CAS Number are all free to go." I do want to get rid of the CAS number in the infobox and in our articles. It is not an necessary at all, rather dispersing the actually useful information. CAS may use them if they wish.--R8R (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
This points to the fundamental issue: "This information is not fit for the infobox, so should be removed from the article". IMO, this is a wrong grasping of information concepts of both WP:INFOBOX and article. -DePiep (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Add section "Data sheet"
Shall we add section ==Data sheet== to the article body, somewhere below? That is where the Misc and otherwise removed data can go, in a data-box. -DePiep (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Data bases don't belong in articles. Possibly in separate articles like lead (data page) but I think someone will eventually get these deleted and I wouldn't be unsympathetic to this.--R8R (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
No lead (data page) pages indeed. Because: that can not be an article (now that would be creating a database). But why no data list with data that today in the infobox no less (mostly without being mentioned in the article, an infobox sin). I maintain: if you think obscure data is important enough for the infobox (e.g. the Misc data you kept), I definitely can propose to have that data in a less prominent place, with more space to adstruct it. -DePiep (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
To clarify this: I think we can go without Misc data at all. I only suggest some are less useless than others and could be kept if other editors insist. None, I think, is vital.
No, my point is that we don't need a section at all.
The example with a jet engine and an airplane are not particularly great to me. If I was to write either article, I wouldn't want the data as well and would rather set up pages like Specifications of General Electric J79. Again, collecting data pages for each property would be an appropriate choice.--R8R (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
This is mixing up two concepts. There is
1. "All specifications for object X": the per-object list. (e.g., for the General Electric J79 engine). Parallels with Lead (data page).
re 1: not great to me and we don't need is hard to argue about. But I don't see why you need a separate page All specifications of object X. Why would that be OK as a separate full stand alone article, while not being acceptable as a section? How can it be an WP:ARTICLE at all? More in general, why should Property of object X be separated from Object X by design? -DePiep (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
re 2: When looking for such a property Y of object X, the reader expects that in article X. A property is subject to the object, and that is how the reader perceives it. So we build it like that. (The Mohs data page maybe could stay, especially when the list *itself* is useful, for example by showing a trend or pattern. Still, that list should be considered to move to page Mohs hardness). Even worse, exactly these data-list pages are the database setup you (and I) disapprove of.
For example: apply this #2 issue to {{Chembox}}, which has up to 100 data rows. Would you then propose to add 100 property-links in a chemical article? How would that look like? How long would such a list be, for property Y? And how would that be helpful for the reader? -DePiep (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
One note. By adding a data-list (section) to the article, the requirement to have certain data Y in the infobox is less troublesome. Because without the data list section, the major choice is: in the infobox or completely out of the article? While, having a data-list option, it is less b/w to have data Y just moved only within the article. Several of the data points you have in the proposal are nicely eligible for such a move. -DePiep (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
re 1: Because every article needs a good structure. For instance, you may recall the recent debate over much should be included and people opposed inclusion of too much information. Same here. We have limited space for the purposes of a good article (we have overview articles on elements because of that), we shouldn't have everything. That's what subarticles are for. If I found an element article that had such stuff, I'd try to get rid of it like I got rid of the tables here. Too subtle for inclusion in an article and not nearly as relevant as we would need in an element article.
I don't like data pages but I can deal with their existence. If something is too big for an article, it shouldn't stay. If a data page is the way to go, so it is then.
re 2: Yes. When looking for such a property Y of object X. In reality, however, I, a reader myself, wouldn't want an article such as lead tell me the speed of sound in lead; if I needed to know that, I'd specifically look for a data page (possibly first for speed of sound and then for a data page if the info isn't there).
My basic problem with data bases is them interfering with the regular content. They shouldn't be allowed to do that. As long as that's settled, I'm not as concerned. If this info is in a subarticle, we have a dedicated article type for that (lists). So that's envisaged.
Re one note: Yes. And the way to go is completely out of the article. I hope I've made clear why in the text above. In short, again, that's not good article writing. You don't collect any data you could find in an article, that only makes articles more messy and deteriorates their quality.--R8R (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
R8R re recall the recent debate over much should be included and people opposed inclusion of too much information. Yes I remember. AFAIK, it was about "how much/which information in the infobox", and "how much/which information in the article". These are different questions. Earlier here, above, you said: "None [of the Misc info, to be removed from infobox per proposal], I think, is vital." Well, I could agree with a simplified "None of it". But "vital" refers to infobox-level of importance. What is missing is the "relevant, but not vital" option: info that should not make it into the lede or infobox, but should be in the article (if not in body text or some tabular data list). This option is missing, and frankly I also miss your argument to throw such data out of the article altogether. (Yes it is arguable, but allow the argument then). Test would be: for each individual data point (data row) in the current infobox, check: 1. Does it belong in the article [[Element X]]? 2. Does it belong in the infobox? - DePiep (talk) 09:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
re here: Because every article needs a good structure, and interfering with the regular content: no, by creating a dedicated section, as proposed, the list- or tabular-like data is separated from article regular text (it still should be considered article body text, not navigation like). That section be positioned below, as is external links and see also sections. You say As long as that's settled (that is: in the infobox or not in the article at all), which does not address the core of the proposal (or miss it, as I explained just here?).
In Wikipedia, we don't have "subarticles". Please specify what that would be, in Wiki terms (I know what "subject topics" are of course). The property "density" is a subject of the object Element X, but as a wikipage it should be a stand alone full blown article (could be a WP:LIST).
"What is missing is the 'relevant, but not vital' option": oh, sorry, I was just doing the thing that is so often done in the English language and speaking in blurry phrases rather than directly. I wouldn't (note the wording: see, this is how I think in English) add to articles any of the information I'd want to remove from the infoboxes. First, we already don't have them, second, the space is limited, third, I'd rather want to remove even more from the infobox but I think we should start off somewhere.
"Creating a dedicated section, as proposed, the list- or tabular-like data is separated from article regular text" is not a particularly great idea. This information is not at all so important to keep it in the main article. WP:UNDUE perfectly applies here: we should not overstretch information on physical/chemical properties when there's much more still to be covered (occurrence, history, production, etc.).
I imagine we still do have subarticles. For instance, I consider history of aluminium a subarticle of aluminium. Maybe you'd pick a different term (maybe you even have a rule to quote) and I don't insist on mine, that's just the phrase I use.--R8R (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Here's my thoughts:
Re 2: (Elemental property Y (data sheet)) - I like the current data pages, although I have only occasionally used them
Re 1: (Data sheet for element X) - I think the list of properties of an element is long enough that it belongs in a separate data sheet article.
Re 1+2: It might be really nice to use wikidata to support this, if wikidata (or a WP:ELEM subset of wikidata) resolves citogenesis issues
While I would prefer to have a [[Data sheet for element X]] article to having a ==Data sheet== section, maybe another alternative to consider would be having a {{Data sheet for element X}} template that could be included amongst the navboxes at the bottom of the article. I immediately see two potential problems with this: (1) There is no doubt a WP rule somewhere against having non-navboxes that look like navboxes, and (2) wouldn't this simply be creating a secondary infobox for the clutter we're trying to remove from the infobox. But despite these potential problems, I can see a potential benefit: the navbox style is collapsible (in the desktop version) and the smaller font size at least visually reduces the potentially reduces the WP:UNDUE problems.
Overall, my preferences are (1) [[Data sheet subarticle]] (2) {{Data sheet pseudo-navbox}} (3) ==Data sheet section== (4) Complete elimination YBG (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, we have a precedent in Noble gas (data page). I think I prefer organising them by property, though; you usually want one property of many elements, not many properties of one element, since someone looking for shear modulus is not likely to also be looking for electrical resistivity. Double sharp (talk) 07:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I would like to have both, so that one could access the data either by property or by element. But this would lead to the problem of how to maintain the pages in synch. The solution would be to have a way to have both types of data page derived from an underlying source like wikidata. Then if there is ever a need to do an update, an update in one place would fix it everywhere. YBG (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
re YBGYBG statement A:one could access the data either by property or by element (to read: "one could access the data both by property and by element"): I agree. This should be the primary level organising principle: governing which information should be in which article.
(Only after this, on a secondary level, we should consider wikipedia-level choices like "where do we put that in an article" (infobox, in-text, or listed ortherwise?) and "must there be separate data pages or they be merged into their object pages" (data pages be a [[stuff X (data page)]] and [[List of property Y for stuff Z]] respectively"). Also tertiary questions loom, "howto put that in articles?": should a page like [[List of density for stuff Q]] also contain compounds? And "If there exists a [[List of density for elements Z]], should the [[element Z]] article wikilink to that page, or to Density only?" - DePiep (talk) 09:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
If we are completely rethinking the infobox, with a much trimmed down infobox, it might be possible to present some key numeric data graphically, something like the US EnergyGuide labels or the European Union energy label. I'm not sure whether this would be workable or not, but I think it is worth considering. For example, for melting point of, say, gold, it might be nice to show a ruler with gold's MP along with the highest and lowest metal and highest and lowest from among all elements. Thoughts??? YBG (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
The point of the graphic representation is to quickly show the basics so you get the general idea before you read the data. That's an extra layer of the information. The EU energy label (I'll refer to it because I've seen it) protects clients by letting them know this essential information and making sure nobody will miss the key energy point. Frankly, we don't have such important information to employ an additional level of information to show it. So that's good out-of-box thinking, but I'll say no on this one.--R8R (talk) 07:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Posted here for project members rather than the broader RfC audience.
Colleagues, my impression at this point, and subject to your views, is that the RfC should be closed due to consensus not being obtained.
I’ve thought long and hard about what happens next.
I now propose, as per @R8R:’s preference, that we have only two categories of nonmetal:
(1) a placeholder category of "other nonmetal"; and
(2) a noble gas category.
Yikes! Not other nonmetals again! I know, I know: please read the rest of my post carefully before making a judgment about this term.
Importantly, this proposal is consistent with (a) the example given by EvilXFish, i.e. PT.com which is the top rated Google result,
and (b) the Encyclopedia Britannica. I also recall that all project members apart from me were happy with a single non-noble gas nonmetal category.
In our colour category table the name other nonmetal would be used only to avoid the need for a more cumbersome collective term such as "non-noble nonmetals", or "nonmetals other than noble gases", given there is no widely-used proper alternative category name, including "chemically active nonmetals", which is the point made by those who opposed my original proposal.
Since "other nonmetal" is a placeholder name rather than a proper taxonomic category name, there is no real further need for its use in the singular. For example, chemists usually refer to group 14 as comprising carbon, a nonmetal; silicon and germanium, metalloids; and tin and lead as metals. The fact that lead is a post-transition metal is convenient when discussing this particular category of metals as a whole but it is otherwise not usually needed when speaking in general terms. Same goes when one refers to "nonmetals": the presumption is that someone is referring to nonmetals other than noble gases, unless they have specifically referred to the noble gases. However it is convenient when you want to talk about the non-noble nonmetals to be able to refer to them collectively as other nonmetals. And the other nonmetal name would still show in the info boxes for the applicable elements.
The comparison of properties section of the article would then have three rather than four columns: one for metalloids (given their nonmetallic chemistry), one for other nonmetals, and the last for noble gases. The other nonmetal column could be split into two with a dotted border between them (i.e. to indicate that the border is not always sharp). One sub-column would be for H, C, N, P, S, Se; and the other for O, F, Cl, Br, I, in order to show the contrast between the two subsets of nonmetals, noting neither half of the column is named. The blurb introducing the table will explain the basis for this semiquantitative treatment i.e. oxidising power; covalent v ionic bonding tendencies with metals: corrosive behaviour; ionisation energies, electronegativities, electron affinities, and simple anion formation.
This approach is an attempt to highlight and preserve the interesting progression of nonmetallic character seen in the vicinity of the nonmetals, and to make the nature of the seemingly rag-tag collection of the nonmetals in the other nonmetal placeholder category more transparent. I hate obfuscation, which is what the placeholder category of other nonmetals usually conveys.
I know the term "other nonmetal" is unpopular but as an encyclopaedia we have insufficient leeway.
In summary, I am trying to accomodate as best I can the views of both camps i.e. those who supported and those who opposed the original proposal, and clarify a good amount of realistic complexity (namely the omnium gatherum that is the other nonmetals) without misleading anyone.
@R8R:, @Double sharp:, @YBG:, @DePiep:, @Parcly Taxel: I ask that you consider this proposal carefully and to please not get unduly concerned about the name "other nonmetal". It is not a real category, only a placeholder for the rest of the nonmetals. Despite the "resting place" connotations of the term, there are still some interesting observations that can be made about nonmetals in this space.
We did talk about calling the two categories "nonmetal" and "noble gas" however this is cognitively dissonant (does it mean noble gases are not nonmetals?), unless you happen to look at the legend. And the legend boxes for the periodic table in the top right of the nonmetal article would presumably have to read "Nonmetal" (other than noble gases), and "Noble gas".
I recall that an "other nonmetal" category appeared on our periodic table for many years, with no controversy until I stirred things up. Mea culpa. In retrospect I agree with R8R that the poly-di categories were a split for the sake of having a split. I see no need for the reintroduction of the other nonmetal category to raise any angst, given the considered way I am proposing to deal with it now (and the practice of PT.com and EB.com).
Having written all of this, if anybody is going to die in a ditch about the name "other nonmetal" it won’t matter much to me since I can still write about the properties of this bunch of nonmetals in the way I have described, although I will have to use more clumsy phrasing like, "The nonmetals other than the noble gases are characterised by…etc".
This is what I am talking about, as per PT.com and EB.com, and the way Wikipedia used to be:
In the above option the relevant sections of the nonmetal article section would go something like:
Other nonmetal
There are eleven such nonmetals: hydrogen (H), carbon (C), nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), oxygen (O), sulfur (S), selenium (Se), fluorine (F), chlorine (Cl), bromine (Br), and iodine (I). In periodic table terms they largely occupy a position between the weakly nonmetallic metalloids to the left and the noble gases to the right.
The other nonmetals have a diverse range of individual physical and chemical properties…
Updated 12 Oct to make clearer my personal preference that metal, metalloid, and nonmetal are super-categories; that metal spans six categories; that metalloid spans none; and that the nonmetal super-category has one category. Just as the seven metalloids are not further categorised below their super-category level, neither are the eleven nonmetals that are not noble gases. In classification science terms I suspect that if we can have a super-category that spans several categories, and another one that spans none, then a super-category with one category should be nothing unusual. Sandbh (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
In the above option the relevant sections of the nonmetal article section would go something like:
Nonmetal (other than noble gases)
There are eleven such nonmetals: which are hereafter, for convenience, referred to as other nonmetals (strikeout added Sandbh (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)) hydrogen (H), carbon (C), nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), oxygen (O), sulfur (S), selenium (Se), fluorine (F), chlorine (Cl), bromine (Br), and iodine (I). In periodic table terms they largely occupy a position between the weakly nonmetallic metalloids to the left and the noble gases to the right.
I'd like to get rid of the white spacing between the two patches of nonmetal color. This is my attempt to show that the noble gasses form just a subset of the nonmetals but that there isn't a specific name for the NNNM. YBG (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm really sorry, but using "other nonmetals" without qualification, and without saying at least once what they are other too, still sounds really weird to me. It makes it sound like a term in itself. I know we've been through this with "transition metals", but the truth of the matter is that "transition metals" has become a standard term in chemistry with a sharply defined meaning (groups 3 to 11, and maybe 12), while this is not true for "other nonmetals".
On reading the response to your RfC above, I think one of my priorities in categorisation would be to not make up new terms by ourselves. I think we are all agreed that some nonmetals are more reactive than others, but I think we would also agree that we cannot make a blanket statement that P is less reactive than I; P is more likely to catch fire at standard conditions, after all. At the most we can use something that is indisputable and quantitative that nevertheless correlates reasonably and suggests the trend at work.
I think the greatest strength of the polyatomic/diatomic classification is that it is quantitative and, well, correct enough that it does not attract argument. No one can argue that, in their standard states, C, P, S, and Se are polyatomic, and H, N, O, F, Cl, Br, and I are diatomic. Reality is fuzzy and I would not be fussed if this one predictor of reactivity is not universally applicable, with a commonly encountered polyatomic allotrope of O, as well as the odd cases of H and N. There are many other factors at work, but it would be the height of folly to disregard them all because none of them explain everything by themselves.
Reality is always fuzzy, so we cannot use that directly as a categorisation. Every categorisation implies a certain straitjacketing of reality to fit the narrative, whether it be categorising chemical elements (is Bi really a metal?), musical styles (is Schubert really a classicist or a Romanticist?), or languages (what is a dialect, really?). But the power of categorisation is that it lets us suggest the more complex underlying reality, and provide us with a welcome beginning trail while we learn to navigate the terrain there – provided that we do not take the trail too seriously, and remember that it is only a guide. Double sharp (talk) 06:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
P.S. On reading through the archives I strongly suspect that "other nonmetals" as a category would end up being about as well-received as "other metals" was in the past: that is, not well at all. Double sharp (talk) 07:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Plus that "other nonmetals" may be defined differently in other wikis, usually the nonmetals remaining after halogens are categorised too (as NG's are) (see de:Nichtmetalle). While this my look a wikipedia-issue only, it probably signifies an understanding in RL chemistry too. Note that this is about the category naming only, not its existence. -DePiep (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Comments by DePiep
A strong step this is, Sandbh, after all that effort in an other direction.
Procedural: See WP:RFCEND. I'd prefer not to have closing conclusions, since those could impede or prejudice future development. (For example, if a conclusion would be "not acceptable to devide the other nonmetals into subcategories" --I made one up--, we'd be blocked for any other improvement in this). Better would be to, e.g., withdraw the RfC, and allow using the comments, so rich in content, for next steps. And maybe wait one more week to gather some more? -DePiep (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
In overview, I see separate angles of objection:
1. The new categories not being mainstream or even in stream (fringe science; OR even?),
2. The proposed names of the categories,
3. The actual categorisation per element (includes category definition and border issues),
4. The 'right' to categorise at all, being an encyclopedia not a journal.
I mention them here because they may recur, and need to be distinguished. Also, this list may be up for improvement & refinement. -DePiep (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
It's a step back. The fact that top-category metalloids has one subcategory (metalloids) is OK: they are the same. BUT, subcategorising nonmetals into noble gases only is inconsistent: elements are disappearing. This way both vertically (subcategorisation) and horizontally (completeness of both rows) the categorisation is loosing its coherence and relevance. Letting go those principles in categorising should be done for dire reasons, not for the awkward-name-reason. IOW, it is getting uselessly chaotic.
It occurs to me that all this is because one dares not pointing to an existing category, only because it has trouble finding a name. This is entering through the wrong door. If we can point to that RL category, finding a name should not obstruct that fact or category creation. (I note that before 2013, and in other wikis and in other PT charts and literature, category "other nonmetals" is used—however awkward, for lack of a better name, but legit). -DePiep (talk) 06:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but the categories are themselves a construct that we impose to emphasise the order that permeates reality to wrap our heads around it. ^_^ That's why depending on what you're trying to show, you might categorise N as a diatomic nonmetal, a less active nonmetal, just a plain nonmetal, a pnictogen, a first-row element, or even a metal (this if you are an astrophysicist). But all these categories are trying to tell us something about what the behaviour of N is like. Using "other X" just defines it by what it is not, and it is not behaviour that is so characteristic that not following it is itself characteristic, as in the case of metallicity vs non-metallicity.
TL;DR: The categories don't really "exist", but are just a combination of what's most useful in most circumstances, which is why we jump ship from periods and groups to metallicity once we pass the Cu-Ag-Au triad. If something doesn't have a name in itself, it is a worrying sign that it may not be all that useful. Double sharp (talk) 08:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
re Double sharp All categories are abstract constructs, and this way do exist in real life & in sources. In this categorisation scheme, we don't just add a 'useful' category. We also look for PT-completeness (this why, for example, we don't use the otherwise clear cut set of 'rare earth metals'). Second, again you are dismissing a category only because it has 'non' in its name. So that is dismissing because of the name-quest. 1: we do not do that for the existing "post-" and "transition" name parts. And rightly so, because names may be this relative because of the cover-all principle. If we'd drop that principle because of a name issue, we are loosing the structuring principle, and its PT-relevance. 2. Also, it can be easily solved by picking another name for the same category ("chemically active nonmetals" fits best I think). -DePiep (talk) 11:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@DePiep: Do not lose hope as there may be a better solution, which I talk about towards the end of this post.
It must be frustrating that the way nonmetals are categorised in the literature lacks scientific rigour. Chemistry can be like that. Nevertheless, I do not see that our colour category legend loses its coherence and relevance. It seems straightforward that the nonmetal super-category contains some nonmetals grouped at that level and some which are categorised as noble gases. The same situation occurs with the transition metals in that some are categorised at that level and some are further subcategorised at the level of noble metal or refractory metal. It does not matter that within the transition metal category there are some metals at that level and some others at a lower subcategory level. Of course we do not show, for example, the noble metals in our colour scheme but that does not matter since it is the principle I am advocating for rather than its application. If it is OK for a noble metal child to coexist with a transition metal parent it should be OK for a nonmetal parent to coexist with a noble gas child.
If I can draw a loose analogy with zoological naming conventions, there is something called a type species which is the species that a genus is permanently associated. For example, Cygnus cygnus, the whooper swan, is the type species of the genus Cygnus. In the case of our nonmetal super category, this is the genus, and within that genus is (1) the type species nonmetal nonmetal and (2) the noble gas species. Calling one of our categories nonmetal nonmetal is clumsy so we drop the second nonmetal and simply leave this species at the genus level. The idea is to quickly and simply segment the elements into convenient sets. With respect, I feel this is a human sense thing rather than a matter of sharply defined science.
@Double sharp: The NNNM used to be called nonmetals in the days when the inert gases were thought of as inert i.e. neither metal nor nonmetal. And nonmetal was a perfectly useful category name. Then it was discovered that some of the inert gases could in fact be chemically reactive so the inert gases became the noble gases, and they were generally admitted to the nonmetal club. So the category name nonmetal is still useful as long as it is borne in mind that some of them are noble. From my reading, this is the approach taken by five of the six books on nonmetals listed at the end of the current nonmetal article (I presume Emsley did the same but do not have his book at hand).
The Argonne National Laboratory's Ask a Scientist site has an interesting discussion on this question re the Classification of Noble Gases. Here, the nonmetals are simply divided into nonmetals and noble gases.
I like the option of treating the eleven non-noble nonmetals as a single bloc (as was the original preference of our project) because the bloc can then be examined according to any other property such as atomic structure; oxidising power; electronegativity; or ionisation energy, or any other split such as one of the four other alternatives included in my first draft rewrite of the nonmetal article, rather than having these considerations dictated by a pre-determined split. And there is a rich story to tell about what is going on within this bloc in accordance with as many properties of the elements in question as seems possible.
If we feel we still need a more respectable looking name then I presume the eleven non-noble nonmetals could(?) be called covalent nonmetals since they all feature covalently bonded structures, at standard conditions, unlike the monatomic noble gases. (We discussed this term previously when it was suggested by YBG in a different context).
So we would then simply have:
Nonmetal Covalent nonmetal Noble gas
I don’t know how much clearer we could get. Personally, I'm fine with Nonmetal and Noble gas, but Covalent nonmetal and Noble gas would be at least as good. I presume @DePiep: and @R8R: would be happy, as would @YBG:? It is a superior and more accurate solution than Other nonmetal and Noble gas, given the capacity of the covalent nonmetals to engage in covalent bonding plays an influential role in determining their properties. As the first draft rewrite said, "Nonmetals show more variability in their properties than do metals. These properties are largely determined by the interatomic bonding strengths and molecular structures of the nonmetals involved, both of which are subject to variation as the number of valence electrons in each nonmetal varies." Sandbh (talk) 07:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The suggested categorization principle resonates well with what I've had in mind for years now. Of course, that makes me happy.
As for the name for this new category, I think the number one rule is to have mutually exclusive names among the color categories. All our names are mutually exclusive so far (TM overlap with lanthnides and actinides by two elements in total, but that's clearly considered a flaw only overcome by how well established the conflicting categories are, not just in Wikipedia but in chemistry in general) and that's just a good thing in general because such a categorization is easier to comprehend, which is good for a general-audience-oriented encyclopedia. Unfortunately, this excludes the possibility of having "nonmetal" as a color category name for as long as Wikipedia claims noble gases are actually nonmetals, too. We ruin our internal consistency otherwise. Similarly, this excludes the name "covalent nonmetals" for many xenon conpounds, for example, are covalent just as well, so we're running into the same overlapping problem.
Personally, I've come to think for a couple of times that using the word "nonmetals" for what we call in this discussion NNNMs could be useful. But while it could go okay in a discussion, the problem I've outlined above is absolutely prohibitive for the name to appear as a color category name in our PT. I wasn't back then aware of any two-word terms for the category, which would indeed solve the problem for me. So yes, we do need a fancier two-word name, but we should limit ourselves to two words; I wouldn't want to use the term outside of Wikipedia mainspace articles otherwise.
My money is still on "reactive nonmetals": it is quite clear what the difference between these elements and the noble gases are. This is not a perfectly precise differentiation, but not a particularly blurry one, either; you do get the difference naturally. "Active nonmetals" will also do. I think it's better to specify that these elements involve in reactions rather than that they are active, but I also think this is somewhat preference-related, so I can overcome that. There haven't been other terms that satisfy the requirements I've listed above to my knowledge and I consider them to be necessary to fulfill. If there are any other names that fulfill them, I'm willing to consider them and I'm sure that so is everyone.
Hi @R8R: good to hear from you. It seems to me you may have misunderstood the rationale for calling the NNNM covalent nonmetals. You may as well rule out diatomic nonmetals on the basis that some of the noble gases form diatomic compounds. Instead, the covalent refers to the structures of the nonmetals, not to the nature of their compounds. Thus, the NNNM have covalent structures. S for example, as S8, is a covalent nonmetal. The noble gases have single atom monatomic structures. The distinction between the NNNM and the noble gases, on this basis, is sharp and *widely* recognised in the literature.
Reactive nonmetals is fine by me although Double sharp has expressed a reservation about the relatively reactive nature of Rn.
In taxonomic terms, the name nonmetal need not be a problem if taxonomic conventions are rigidly observed. By this I mean that nonmetal becomes the type species of the genus nonmetal. And strictly speaking, metalloid would need to be recognised as the type species of the metalloid genus. Thus we would need to show:
Metalloid Metalloid
Nonmetal Nonmetal Noble gas
The structure and integrity of the categorisation legend is thereby preserved.
I am otherwise very pleased to say we are thinking in a resonant fashion. This includes the general-audience orientation of our encyclopedia, rather than what we tend to focus on which, in my opinion, are dead-end, highly specialised, disorienting, and mentally deranging rabbit holes, rather than pragmatic solutions. I mean no disrespect to anyone in saying this. It's how I feel. We do need to have these discussions to test our thinking but sometimes we lose the continuous improvement plot. Sandbh (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I see; then yes, this is a valid categorization principle. However, a major objection from me comes to the fact I have not correctly understood the name "covalent nonmetals" by just looking at it. That is to say, if there is a name following this principle that does not cause this confusion, I'll want to consider it.
At the moment, it appears to me, however, that chemical reactivity is a better basis for a category name than structure of the simple substances. But if there's a valid name based on that principle, I wouldn't want to reject it right away and would be ready to give it a good thought.
The comment re radon's activity did worry me. Based on the basis of our Wikipedia article alone, however, I think it will be fair not to list radon as a reactive nonmetal on a good basis and not on the basis that it is marginal and none will notice anyway:
Being a noble gas, radon is chemically not very reactive. However, the 3.8-day half-life of radon-222 makes it useful in physical sciences as a natural tracer. Because radon is a gas at standard conditions, unlike its parents, it can readily be extracted from them for research. // Radon is a member of the zero-valence elements that are called noble gases. It is inert to most common chemical reactions, such as combustion, because the outer valence shell contains eight electrons. This produces a stable, minimum energy configuration in which the outer electrons are tightly bound. 1037 kJ/mol is required to extract one electron from its shells (also known as the first ionization energy).
I do understand the taxonomy principle but I don't happen to like it for the same reason as I've outlined above: It is confusing for those who are not familiar with it. People will confuse nonmetal the genus and nonmetal the species. The readers get to see the category species long before they get to see the whole picture (infobox vs. the collapsed table at the very end of the article). That is not to mention I genuinely do consider this to be a very poor solution for a categorization problem. I guess the taxonomists can go with whatever they like as long as the get to learn the same stuff and all understand it. (Possibly they also named genuses (or gena) after the single species they could assign to this genus and only then they found some other related species and assigned it to the named genus?) We are, however, dealing with a general public that probably can't and most certainly shouldn't be made learn our notation; the notation must come naturally as long as it's possible.--R8R (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@R8R: I'm quite pleased to say that, as a pragmatic solution, I quite like reactive nonmetal. This would then give us:
These two category names make for a nice pair. "Reactive" is more general-reader orientated than "covalent". It may be a bit fuzzy for the chemistry professional but is close enough, and cp's do not represent our primary audience. (Up to 2007 only about half a thousand noble gas compounds had been synthesised, whereas as at 1987, the Chemical Abstracts Service had recorded 8.4 million chemical species of all kinds. The contrast is sobering.) The two categories have no taxonomy presentation issues. Curiously, Nergaal seems to have first made the suggestion to use the term reactive nonmetal, in September 2012. But for my obsession with splitting the NNNM we would have already been there. ¡Ay, caramba! Headslap! Sandbh (talk) 06:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
With this progress I guess the genus-type issue is moot, as it is not used. I'd support the scheme, and have no strong opinion on the exact new category name because my chemistry reading is too limited. -DePiep (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I quite agree. "nonmetals" = "reactive nonmetals" + "noble gasses" is a very good solution to the entire issue. YBG (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Parcly Taxel
We already had the conclusion for what to call the other nonmetals earlier: the chemically active nonmetals. Nevertheless, I'm so concentrated on life in university that I won't need to contribute anymore to this project – or even Wikipedia.
I can finally do the mathematics I always wanted to do. I'm looking to go to the Sorbonne or some other French university in 2019 or 2020 to play the game at its very best. So this, after six years, I hope will be a final farewell. ParclyTaxel08:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
What a great view. Future and ambition! Enjoy and soak it all, is my wish for you. I still hope we will read more from you here. And thanks, F = FA for example. -DePiep (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Comments from R8R
I think this is a step in the right direction, but not quite there yet.
First of all, I have carefully analyzed what you have written. The problem is that most readers won't even know there is something to analyze because most readers won't click the link and won't read the article nonmetal. Second of all, I would easily consider it a bad design if we had a colored metal category without a single element being colored as one. So I'd down vote the versions II and IIa. Version I is worth investigating into, though.
I see why you're thinking of the possible "other nonmetal" (regardless of the name) category as of an untercategory, if some German is allowed. I've been thinking something along these lines myself, so I quite understand this thinking. I have said I could give up my support on this category if there ever was a good break, and I've meant it; the problem is, there hasn't been one and I no longer believe there is one at all. (Though I remain open-minded on this one to new suggestions.) However, I don't find it necessary to underline so much that these elements have nothing in common so they don't have a defining characteristic when there clearly is one: they are reactive unlike the noble gases. Even nitrogen (the element; the periodic table is filled with elements, not substances they form at STP) is clearly reactive. This is a clear definition if you apply the common sense just like you do not to count all nonmetals as monoatomic because they are at some extreme conditions. We could have "reactive nonmetals" and keep on thinking that this isn't the perfect category but the best thing we've got. That'd be fine by me. If this name still isn't good enough, we also could go with "chemically active nonmetals"; that's, too, a fine name. How's that sound?
To summarize the previous paragraph, I believe a not-so-perfect category and a proper name is better than a not-so-perfect category and a poor name, and there are genuinely good options regarding the name for this category on the table.--R8R (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Comments from YBG
Two comments
In retrospect, it may have been better to use "corrosive nonmetals", as I think it may have removed some of the uncertainty as to whether N and P belonged in that category. But that may not have made any difference, and even if it had, it's water under the bridge now.
When a category has a proper name, it is helpful to consistently use it in each and every situation - paragraphs, infoboxes, charts and diagrams, the whole lot. But when a category has no perfect name, it may be that different terms are suited in different situations. After mentioning the inertness of the noble gases, it would be perfectly natural to say something like, "On the other hand, the chemically reactive nonmetals ...." Other sentences might work best simply saying "the other nonmetals" or even "the non-noble nonmetals". By avoiding an absolutely rigid insistence on consistent nomenclature, we could choose to use the descriptive phrase best suited to each circumstance.
I'd like to get rid of the white spacing between the two patches of nonmetal color. This is my attempt to show that the noble gasses form just a subset of the nonmetals but that there isn't a specific name for the NNNM. YBG (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
re YBG: Scheme IIa is an improvement, because each row now is a full & complete categorisation scheme by itself (just the zoom level changes: general or detailed). Scheme II misses the "other nonmetals" in the bottom row, making that row incomplete. re whitespace: so far we've not added a meaning to the border (in the scheme), let alone variant borders. I don't think the scheme itself (the graph) is the place to add this. Expect it to be described in article(s); see metalloids for example. -DePiep (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
re "so far we've not added a meaning to the border" I'm not proposing to add a meaning, I just think that removing the white space would subliminally emphasize the fact that Nonmetal in the upper row and the in the lower row both use the same color. YBG (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Now I see. Well, as theym are different categories (by definition, by element list), they should have different colors (unlike metalloids). But we'll get to this in the end, color is editorial only so not an issue now. (For clarity, you could use that new yellow or green one for the smaller box). -DePiep (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
(end of moved discussion, the remainder was created here)
I suppose I should have created both Scheme Ia and Scheme IIa as follows:
Schemes Ia & IIa: YBG's versions of Sandbh's Schemes I & II
First of all, when I looked at Sandbh's Scheme I, what I actually imagined in my head was Scheme Ia. But on reflection, the lack of the first row ay or may not have been intentional, so I have here created Scheme Ia. Now I understand the desire of DePiep to distinguish different (sub)categories by using different colors. But if we do that, there is virtually no difference between Scheme Ia and Scheme IIa.
The point of Scheme IIa is to show, by repeating the color, and by using a narrower box showing no name, that the 11 NNNM are somehow or other NOT a full-fledged category, that is to say, they lack their own defining properties and have no proper name. Personally, I don't like this sort of categorization, I want categories to be mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive. But if what we want to say is that these 11 aren't a subcategory but merely the leftover elements after removing the NG from the NM, then Scheme IIa is precisely the way to show that. What I dislike about Scheme IIa is not its re-use of colors, but the presence of 11 elements that don't have their own 2nd level subcategory. I really don't like that. But if I want to illustrate that categorization, then Scheme IIa, complete with the re-use of the color, is IMHO, the best way to illustrate it. YBG (talk) 06:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
We should dissociate the questions of (1) whether a categorisation is a good idea and (2) whether a legend is showing it well, and while I am so far not convinced of (1), I am certainly convinced of (2) here. Double sharp (talk) 07:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
And I have now managed to restore the white borders between differently-colored cells while retaining the joining of the two -colored cells. YBG (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
And much as I dislike Scheme IIa, think for a minute about what you would expect to see in an article entitled "Chemistry of nonmetals" or "Electronegativity of nonmetals" or similar. I think you'd expect to find information about the 11 NNNM. While everyone agrees that the noble gases are nonmetals, I think that in the context of chemistry, you wouldn't expect to see information about noble gases unless you are explicitly told to expect it, as if an article was called "Electronegativity of the noble gases" or perhaps (gasp!) "Chemistry of the noble gases and other nonmetals". Or consider the sentence: "Nonmetals tend to form ionic bonds with metals covalent bonds with other nonmetals." I have no idea how NG bonding is analyzed, but it seems to me that no one would read this sentence and start thinking about noble gases. Well, no one except for nerds editing an encyclopedia, who therefore are always thinking about not just the specific things in focus but also all the rest of the WP:ELEM universe. Does any of this make sense to anyone? Or am I (once again) making a fool of myself by trying to make too much of my limited knowledge. Enlighten me, please. YBG (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I might agree for He, Ne, and Ar, whose chemistry is rather vacuous. But I suspect that most chemists would think of Kr, Xe, and Rn as fairly normal elements which comport themselves chemically rather like their neighbours Br, I, and At one oxidation unit lower. After all, compounds like KrF2 and XeO3 are fairly clearly covalent, and are clearly analogous to [BrF2]− and [IO3]− respectively. (RnF2 is I guess an exception, but even PCl5 is on the covalent-ionic divide already.) After all, R. Bruce King's book on main-group chemistry covers groups 17 and 18 in the same chapter. ^_-☆ I don't think I would treat Kr, Xe, and Rn as not being nonmetals, and I don't think anyone would either: and the marginalisation of He, Ne, and Ar is only because they have no chemistry to talk about at standard conditions. Double sharp (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
P.S. Powell and Timms' The Chemistry of the Non-Metals includes the noble gases, the eleven NNNM's, and the metalloids. (And while I might quibble about whether the ontological approach is most appropriate here, I think it's unquestionably true that ontologically, metalloids are non-metals. I include the hyphen to differentiate "non-metal", which to me implies the ontological approach, from "nonmetal", which may have some independence in its definition from that of a metal.) Double sharp (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
#Scheme IIa is inacceptable, because you declare two different categories the same (by intentionally using the same color). The scheme has this to convey: row 1 = categories metal-metalloid-nonmetal, and row 2 = alkali metals-...-noble gases. Each row by themselves is mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive (good wording!). The vertical connection is: "x is a subcategory of y". When a category is defined exactly the same above and below (metalloids), they can & should use the same name & color. However, not so for the Scheme IIa "nonmetals [row 1]" vs "some nonmetals [row 2]". With this, changing the border is trivial and has no meaning. And I repeat: this only needs to be solved once we have some agreement on those 11 nonmetals category (unless you really want to shake up the bigger scheme, which I did not read). -DePiep (talk) 09:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that the primary purpose of a legend is to be easily understood, not to conform to some hard-and-fast rules that usually correlate with easy understanding: that is similarly why abuses of notation exist in mathematics. So I do not see the problem in the colouring: it may be unusual, but I think it is clear to everyone what it means. (I may revise this position if someone can come up with a plausible alternate reading of the legend pictured.) Rather, I would critique the categorisation. But that is a different issue, as I have already stated above. Double sharp (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
It's not "unusual", it is dead wrong because it breaks the categorising principle. This way, two categories are defined both named "nonmetals" while one contains all nonmetals and the other one contains just eleven. Nonsense, to be rejected before causing headaches. "it is clear to everyone what it means": no, it has (actually: "they have") two different meanings so "it" can not be clear. We are not in need for such informal nudge nudge wink wink concepts. -DePiep (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I think you're expecting a sort of strictness in categorisation that is simply not present in the way the terms tend to get used in chemistry. Contrary to what the pretty colours everywhere tell us, element categorisation is a fairly fuzzy concept, and chemists simply don't expect them to be mutually exclusive or jointly exhaustive; they would simply mix and match whatever analogy or grouping is most germane to the situation at hand. It just so happens that some categories are more often used than others, and are thus more "standard" in the sense that people understand what they mean. But it is indeed, as you put it, very much an "informal nudge nudge wink wink concept" compared to the groups.
The idea here is simply that you have these 17 nonmetals, and while you can group some together as noble gases, the others don't really have any standard name for them. If it is that much of a problem to display this reality, simply because it doesn't provide neat little boxes, I would much rather avoid splitting the nonmetals at all, and simply let the little "18" at the top of the column take care of the noble gases. Double sharp (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
P.S. The WP categories are not even mutually exclusive anyway: since we consider La to be in group 3, the IUPAC definitions mean that La is both a lanthanide and a transition metal, and similarly Ac is both an actinide and a transition metal. Double sharp (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Again, what problem is being solved? I get the strong impression that because some people have difficulty with naming a category, they want to abolish an RL existing category. (and P.S.: both otherstuffexists and border issues do not count). -DePiep (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The problems lie in your sentence "RL existing category". First is the assumption that these categories exist in real life. They don't: they are just human constructs aimed at organising the messy reality before us. That is why every supposed category has its more or less representative members. The groups and periods have more of a real existence, because they simply ask one scientific question: "how many electrons are there in the valence subshells?" or "how many subshells are filled?". You can give a yes or no answer to those. Categorisation asks a different question: "how should I split the elements for my purposes?". Scientific inquiry can give you suggestions to the answer: it can tell you what commonalities are illuminated and which are obscured by each split, as well as the same for the differences. But at the end of the day the decision is yours based on what you think is more important to show, and science isn't going to tell you that. There's a good reason why group and period are words you learn in first-year chemistry, while category is not. If it were really that clear-cut, then perhaps we would have stopped the never-ending differences in the boundaries of the metalloids, which have ranged from including nothing to just about everything in the p-block.
The other problem is in the assumption that the set of elements {nonmetals} \ {noble gases} has a standard name. The fact that we can't seem to think of anything better than "non-noble nonmetals" seems to show otherwise, and indeed you will be hard-pressed to find anything else in the literature in case this group is meant. It is kind of like a supposed set {metals} \ {alkali metals}; if this set is ever needed for some freakish reason, there is certainly a way to describe it, but it is not at all a standard way to slice up the periodic table. (BTW, regarding "chemically active"; Rn is chemically active enough that there have been serious proposals to use chemical reactions to absorb it from air, just like is done with CO2.) Double sharp (talk) 06:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
re. About our right to categorise, and use names for categories. I beg to differ on the statement "the assumption that these categories exist in real life. They don't". The categories too are based on a question, like groups and periods are, this time like: "which elements show non-metallic, inert behaviour" or so. The answer lies in nature, and can be found empirically, and then be published. Not my personal opinion. Sure border situation elements exist, but that does not undo the element clustering, i.e., some elements gathering closer to the core claim a category makes. The 118 elements are not randomly or continuously spread wrt such properties. Categories are not taught in first year chemistry? Does not say anything about their existence in RL. Sure, some are more important or strongly defined or used in practice, and some are fringe science (as the two RfC'ed categories are I understand). Altogether: categories exist in nature, can be researched & sourced, and so this encyclopedia has a right to describe them.
About completeness. This being the periodic table, it is worth covering the whole once when possible. That makes the categorising way way more meaningful, as it illustrates a trend in the periodic table. For this reason, border issues are to be neglected (well, declared less important), and scholars are supposed to get that. For this reason too, we can rightly add less-important categories to cover all, instead of allowing white 'undeclared' areas that actually are declarable (An example of ~non-trend information could be state of matter @STP, and other properties more randomly scattered in the PT; cristallisation?). Such is the history of the periodic table: Mendeleev too accepted irregularities to show the broad view.
Now since we do use the complete, trending categories principle, we are not free to leave that incidentally. That would undo the categorisation background, would leave the scheme less useful for what it tries to show, would break its periodic table relation: would make the scheme worthless. Especially creating one category with two definitions and two element lists (Scheme IIa) defeats all logic, and introduces ambiguity that is nigh impossible to explain/describe/de-confuse/un-soup. The Abuse of notation motive Double sharp mentioned above is useful when it would clarify stuff, but also says: ... the correct intuition (while being unlikely to introduce errors or cause confusion). This, while other options exist (have two distinct categories).
At last, about names of categories. Of course, when an established name exists we use it. However, when such a name is not available, we can rightly introduce a descriptive name. And again because of the trend reason I mentioned above, it is acceptable to use relative category names, such as "non-...", "post-", "elements that are not ...". An article or section can describe it, giving context. Also less-prominent classifications can be rightfully described in articles. E.g., pointing out the corrosive nonmetals as is done in Sandbh's nonmetal article proposal is perfectly acceptable (though we should not publish those broadly in our standard PT because fringe). For this, relativeness and descriptiveness, names like "other nonmetals" and "non-noble nonmetals" are OK, and also "the elements: ..." or "category that has no name for weird reasons"; all with grades of best-ness. Any such a name is better than no name. re "if this set is ever needed, ...": I don't agree with the 'it's not used/needed/taught' reasoning to accept/reject a category (in the RfC this was brought forward too). If it exists & sourced, we can use it. Some categories are more 'fringe' (less commonly referred to) than others, but when lacking anything better we can use it. Here too, completeness of the scheme trumps daily usage. -DePiep (talk) 09:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
re the RL existence of categories. Yes categories are based on the answers to questions just as groups and periods are. The human/editorial aspect comes in the selection of the questions to ask. Questions about shells and valence electrons are by universal consensus accepted as important questions. Selecting which questions to use for a categorizing scheme has yet to achieve anything like universal consensus, much less WP consensus.
re using names at two levels of a hierarchy. The English language does this all the time, and native speakers find it so easy to disambiguate that they hardly ever notice absent something external that brings it to the fore. For example, the word "man" was once universally used with several meanings, (a) any human being (b) any male human (c) an adult male human. And consider the word "European". If you were to overhear a discussion at a bar in New York complaining about "the European way of doing things", it would mean something quite different than if you heard the same complaint in a London pub. Scientists rightly try to avoid such ambiguity by looking to use words like "continental".
At the moment the status quo of polyatomic/diatomic/monatomic noble gas is what we have. That is fine by me. I would now like to adjust the existing nonmetal article to bring out some more of the interesting properties of the polyatomic nonmetals and the diatomic nonmetals. For example, H is a bit of an odd element among the diatomics but then H is difficult to place generally. But the strongest hydrogen bonds are formed with the most electronegative elements i.e. N, O, F, and that seems another good enough reason to count H along with N, O, F, Cl, Br and iodine, noting as well that the properties of H are sometimes compared to group 17. Sandbh (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure current categorisation polyatomic/diatomic/monatomic noble gas would stand an RfC (could look a lot like current one). I'd say split non-metals into two: NG and NNNM. Meanwhile, article nonmetals could be as detailed as its sandbox now is (with a few tweaks in periodic table connection, reflecting the categories). -DePiep (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
What would it take to close the current RfC? Should we get an uninvolved editor to do it? It looks like no consensus to me, but ... YBG (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
@YBG: Hmm. I can close it. Consensus does not require agreement and many of the opposes are groundless as I now read them. We are not talking about introducing new category names as such, only descriptive phrases to distinguish between different kinds of nonmetal. Let me see how it looks. There sure are a lot of opposes. Sandbh (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
@Sandbh: If I were going to do it, I'd close it as 'no consensus' - which is pretty much the same thing as 'oppose'. YBG (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC) YBG (talk) 05:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
In this case I would much prefer to leave the closure to an uninvolved editor. I was okay with you closing the one on group 12 because it really was unanimous, but I think the opposition has made some quite pertinent points – notably that putting descriptive phrases in this prominent a position effectively transmutes them into new category names. Double sharp (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Formal closure (by anyone) could leave us with explicit conclusions that could hinder the issue development in the future (some road may be closed in general). An other option would be 'withdrawal' by Sandbh, (then we still can digest & use comments). And re YBG: I don't think 'opposed' is the same as 'no consensus' in this situation. See also WP:RFCEND. -DePiep (talk) 06:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
@DePiep: Thanks for the link. My comment re oppose=no-consensus was merely meaning to say that both results leave WP articles in their status quo ante. I was not considering the long term, which you helpfully considered. And I agree 100% that the best result would be for Sandbh to withdraw the RfC, i.e., to end it by removing the {{rfc}}. YBG (talk) 04:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
@Sandbh:. In this thread's OP you advocated to use something like "other nonmetals" (unfortunately is was about that name only, not about the correctness of that category, but alas). I thought that was to introduce a single category for the NNNMs. But now you state that the two poly-/di-atomic nonmetal categories are fine. Would you feel strong about one to the two options? (As said, describing all categorisations in the article nonmetal is fine, and is not limited by our main category set in any way). -DePiep (talk) 10:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Response to DePiep @DePiep: I haven’t replied so far as I’ve been stumped for an answer. I proceed with the greatest of trepidation in submitting the following thoughts.
The marvelous variety and infinite subtlety of the non-metallic elements, their compounds, structures and reactions, is not sufficiently acknowledged in the current teaching of chemistry.
In trying to understand the nonmetals I think there are seven perspectives to consider:
(1)
The general properties of nonmetals at standard conditions e.g. volatility, low elasticity, good insulators, they gain or share electrons when they react with other elements or compounds.
(2)
Their structures, nonmetals having a low number of nearest neighbours compared to metals.
(3)
Which of their properties are surpassed by some metals e.g. the ionisation energy of Hg exceeds that of S and I; the electronegativity of Au exceeds that of P; the electron afinity of Cd is less than than that of N.
(4)
Their anomalies e.g. H’s uniqueness; N’s low electron affinity and relative inertness, P4’s reactivity; Xe’s relatively low ionisation energy; first row v second row differences.
(5)
The chemistry of the nonmetals by group.
(6)
Patterns and trends among the nonmetals in ionisation energy, electron affinity, electronegativity and oxidising power.
(7)
Cross-cutting relationships.
I think if you can keep all this in your head than you can follow why the nonmetals are as diverse as they are. The current nonmetal article only largely does (1) and (2). The rewrite adds some of (4) and (5); a little of (6); and (7). A further rewrite would add or expand (3); (4); (5); and (6).
I tend to think a further rewrite might best be done by having only two formal categories of nonmetal: the top-shelf nonmetal category for H, C, N, P, O, S, Se, F, Cl, Br and I; and a single noble gas subcategory (noting the metalloids are similarly in a top-shelf category and have no subcategory).
The nonmetal article might go partly like this:
Nonmetals are H, C, N, P, O, S, Se in group 1 or groups 13–16; F, Cl, Br, and I in group 17; and the noble gases He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe and Rn in group 18. For convenience within this article, nonmetals other than the noble gases are hereafter referred to using the descriptive phrase "chemically active nonmetals"; and the four group 17 elements are referred to as "halogen nonmetals". Of these terms only "noble gases" and "halogen" are IUPAC-approved.
The chemically active nonmetals have a diverse range of individual physical and chemical properties. In periodic table terms they largely occupy a position between the weakly nonmetallic metalloids to the left and the noble gases to the right.
Physically, four are solids, one is a liquid (bromine), and six are gases. Of the solids, carbon, selenium, and iodine are metallic-looking, whereas sulfur has a pale-yellow appearance. Ordinary white phosphorus has a yellowish-white appearance but the black allotrope, which is the most stable form of phosphorus, has a metallic-looking appearance. Bromine is reddish-brown in colour. Of the gases, fluorine and chlorine are coloured pale yellow, and yellowish green. Electrically, most are insulators whereas carbon is a semimetal and black phosphorus, selenium and iodine are semiconductors.
Chemically, they tend to have higher ionisation energies, electron affinities, and electronegativity values, and be relatively strong oxidising agents, in comparison to metals. Collectively, the highest values of these properties are found among oxygen and the halogen nonmetals. Manifestations of this status include oxygen's major association with the ubiquitous processes of corrosion and combustion, and the intrinsically corrosive nature of the halogen nonmetals. All five of these nonmetals exhibit a tendency to form predominately ionic compounds with metals whereas the remaining nonmetals tend to form predominately covalent compounds with metals.
Characteristic and other properties of metalloids, chemically active nonmetals, and noble gases are summarised in the following table. Metalloids have been included in light of their generally nonmetallic chemistry. Physical properties are listed in loose order of ease of determination; chemical properties run from general to specific, and then to descriptive. While the table shows the main points of difference it is somewhat arbitrary since exceptions and boundary overlaps can be found within each category, set, or subcategory. Important instances of such are so noted.
In writing this it occurs to me that such an approach might work just as well for the di/polyatomic/noble gases. So, after all that, I still don’t know which one will work best. At least you know I haven’t stopped thinking about this/working on it.
I presume project members would be happy with either outcome, depending on how the article in question looked. Whatever the outcome my intention is to have a better, more lucid nonmetal article. It may be that I'll have to do both rewrites.
Somewhere, if we do not do so already, we perhaps need to say that:
(1)
our categorisation scheme, and its subcategories, is not definitive;
(2)
for convenience and economy of description we… (a) use IUPAC-approved collective names for the alkali metals, alkaline earth metals, and noble gases; (b) do not use the IUPAC-approved collective names lanthanoids, actinoids, rare earth metals, pnictogens, and chalcogens; (c) refer to the leftover elements as either post-transition metals, or metalloids, or "nonmetals" for nonmetals not categorised as noble gases i.e. H, C, N, P, O, S, Se and the halogen nonmetals (akin to the LANL periodic table);
(3)
there is a spectrum of properties within each category or subcategory;
(4)
it is not hard to find overlaps at the boundaries (see here), as is the case with most classification schemes.
And perhaps these caveats need to be flagged some more in the periodic table article.
I'm not sure if I'm completely happy yet with this post but I feel the need for some feedback, so "Save changes" here I come. Sandbh (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
This is not my analysis of the RfC. Note that I already quoted & parsed the IUPAC section IR 3.5, with two notable conclusions:
1. IUPAC only lists categories with definite list of elements. Therefor we see no metalloids, metals, nonmetals (under any name), because the metalloids borders are not settled (a top level category btw, and logically spreading this issue to neighbouring categories and into subcategories like PTM, Other Nonmetals.
2. IUPAC does name the sets, but does not describe the sets. There is no description of the "like"-ness of these elements (there is no: in want sense are they "like"?).
Exception to both 1 and 2: transition metals wrt group 12 and d-block.
Now since IUPAC does not recommend 'metals', does that mean we cannot use that? No, we can. Most non-recommended (fully omitted) categories are established concepts, border element issues not denying the concept. More so in the top-level (3 categories, none is recommended). So my conclusion is: we can add a category like 'nonmetals', especially to use and complete the category set.
An other conclusion from the RfC comments, as I read it, is that the new proposed names are WP:FRINGE (that is not: WP:OR!) and therefor not acceptable. It is no big step to claim that poly-/di-atomic names are too. These subdivisions surely can be described in the nonmetal article (as your sandbox does; also subdivisions by other criteria), but can not be our generally published category.
However, the 11-element category is not fringe, and can be given a descriptive name for lack of any established name. A naming issue should not prohibit us of pointing to this category (please keep naming a category separate from category criteria; unlike (1) and (2). A source of trouble). -DePiep (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
My position, after the RfC: subcategories are WP:FRINGE (RfC says), we have a due right to categorise, IUPAC Recommendations are only valid for what they do say, the major categories are undisputably correct & acceptable at wiki (metal-metalloid-nonmetal), for completeness (covering the PT to show PT trends) additional categories are needed, any naming issue can nnot be a reason to not categorise. Practically: one category for the 11 NNNMs (Drop the current two per FRINGE), best named "active nonmetals", go detail in the nonmetal article. -DePiep (talk) 09:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
solid: C, P, S, Se, I liquid: Br gaseous: H, N, O, F, Cl
gaseous
Appearance
metallic
metallic, coloured, or translucent
translucent
Elasticity
brittle
brittle if solid
soft and easily crushed when frozen
Atomic structure
close-packed* or polyatomic
polyatomic: C, P, S, Se diatomic: H, N, O, F, Cl, Br, I
monatomic
Bulk coordination number
12*, 6, 4, 3, or 2
3, 2, or 1
0
Allotropes
most form
known for C, P, O, S, Se
none form
Electrical conductivity
moderate
poor to moderate
poor
Volatility
low: B, Si, Ge, Sb, Te moderate: As, At?
low: C moderate: P, S, Se, Br, I high: H, N, O, F, Cl
high
Electronic structure
metallic* to semiconductor
semimetallic, semiconductor, or insulator
insulator
Outer s and p electrons
3–7
1, 4–7
2, 8
Crystal structure
rhombohedral: B, As, Sb cubic: Si, Ge, At? hexagonal: Te
cubic: P, O, F hexagonal: H, C, N, Se orthorhombic: S, Cl, Br, I
cubic: Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn hexagonal: He
Chemical property
Metalloid
Reactive nonmetal
Noble gas
General chemical behaviour
nonmetallic to incipient metallic
• inert to nonmetallic • Rn shows some cationic behaviour[1]
Ionization energy
low
moderate to high
high to very high
Electron affinity
low to high
moderate to high (exception: N is negative)
negative
Electronegativity
moderate: • Si < Ge ≈ B ≈ Sb < Te < As ≈ At
moderate to high: • P < Se ≈ C < S < I < Br < N < Cl < O < F
moderate to very high
Oxidation states
• negative oxidation states known for all, but for H this is an unstable state • positive oxidation states known for all bar F, and only exceptionally for O • from −5 for B to +7 for Cl, Br, I, and At
• only positive oxidation states known, and only for heavier noble gases • from +2 for Kr, Xe, and Rn to +8 for Xe
Oxidising power
low (exception: At is moderate)
low to high
n/a
Catenation
marked tendency
marked tendency: C, P, S, Se less tendency: H, N, O, F, Cl, Br, I
least inclination
Compounds with metals
tend to form alloys or inter-metallic compounds
mainly covalent: H†, C, N, P, S, Se mainly ionic: O, F, Cl, Br, I
• C, P, S, Se, and I are known in at least one polymeric form • P, S, Se are glass formers; CO2 forms a glass at 40 GPa • acidic, or neutral (H2O, CO, NO, N2O)
•XeO2 is polymeric;[6] other noble gas oxides are molecular • no glass formers • stable xenon oxides (XeO3, XeO4) are acidic
Sulfates
most form
some form
not known
Table alpha Comparative table (by Sandbh)
*Bulk astatine has been predicted to have a metallic face-centred cubic structure † Hydrogen can also form alloy-like hydrides
It looks much better than what I had imagined. You can see the transition in metallic character going across the three columns. I can see a lot of potential for elaborating, in the article, the trends and patterns occurring in the central column. I'm happy and looking forward to finishing the table and adjusting the article accordingly and our categorisation scheme. Sandbh (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Suggestion: In the above table, there are several places where a range is given, e.g., for electronegativity of reactive nonmetals:
Instead of
Moderate to high
we could say
Moderate to high P<Se≈C<S<I<Br<N<Cl<O<F
A further refinement could use << or ≪ for big gaps. It might also be better to show in reverse order. Such a display could have helped the chemically illiterate like me evaluate potential subcategorizations of reactive nonmetals. Just a thought.... YBG (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
There are several other places in the table that say "low to high" or the like. And as a nit, I wouldn't use two bullets since there aren't two separate groups. I might try my hand at changing that to see if it is an improvement or not. YBG (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
@Sandbh, Double sharp, DePiep, and YBG: It appears that we all agree that the best subcategorization of nonmetals is into two subcategories, the noble gasses and the reactive nonmetals. Using two subcategories has been accepted instead of three because there seems to be no general agreement on how to subcategorize the non-noble nonmetals (NNNM).
(1) The diatomic and polyatomic subcategories while generally unambiguous, with the expected few borderline ambiguities (e.g., P and O); nevertheless, the categorization does not appear to be useful in displaying representing broader trends. Thus, it is rejected as being too close to categorization for the sake of categorization.
The other two schemes -- (2) halogens + others and (3) corrosive + others -- have both failed to gain consensus as the best categorization, and the lack of a reasonable name has only exacerbated the difficulties.
Having agreed on two subcategories, we then agreed that the best name for the non-noble nonmetals is "reactive nonmetals".
It is understandable to our primary audience, the non-professional (and so better than, for example, covalent nonmetals)
Although there is some reactivity in the heavier ones, the noble gasses are still strikingly less reactive than the rest of the nonmetals - and than all other elements.
This is my best attempt at explaining the reasoning that led the four of us to agree to subcategorize the nonmetals into "reactive nonmetals" and "noble gasses". What remains now is
Corrections and additions to my explanation, as I'm sure I've missed some of this.
The path forward to gain consensus amongst the broader WP community.
I suggest we refrain from an RfC and keep this particular categorization problem within our project, at least for the time being. We've had three RfC I can remember: on what group 3 is composed of, on the color of group 12, and the previous attempt to establish a nonmetal coloring. The first two are good problems that are commonly disagreed on outside WP and both have clear-cut alternative solutions (either -La-Ac or -Lu-Lr, either TM or PTM, there's no possible third alternative in either case), so people do understand what they'retrying to get. I am no particular supporter of the group 3 RfC outcome, but an RfC was very appropriate for the problem in hand. In contrast, now we have a problem without a well-defined set of alternatives. We could start an RfC if we needed any alternatives to consider but we do have one we want to implement. It appears to me that nobody currently confronts the suggested outcome, so we don't need an RfC for external mediation. And, most importantly, we as a project are free to go bold and try it out. If there is opposition, we can start an RfC for the said mediation.
I get it that it may look like I'm finally getting what I've wanted and trying to make it happen already, but the fear that we may never get anything approved in a non-multiple-choice problem like ours other than by chance is genuine. This is exactly the idea I've had since the previous RfC on this problem.--R8R (talk) 08:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
(ec) re R8R
I'm not (yet) saying we should skip RfC. While I'm OK with this summary/proposal, I think we should also thoroughly check it against all comments made in the recent RfC on this same issue. While some opponents are to the point (I myself read them mainly as WP:FRINGE arguments), other arguments were outside the topic but they did not conclude as being discarded, and they still look like bad !votes for any outsider formally concluding the RfC. I think this is one of the problems with an RfC that R8R described. So what does RfC say about/against this current summary/proposal? IMO:
Removing the diatomic and polyatomic subcategories as step one: generally accepted (i.e., reject these categories), as they as "not common in chemistry". This while they are stronger wrt defining borders (less fuzzy border issues) than the RfC categories are.
Our 'right' or audacity to categorize, even where IUPAC does not tread (that is, the categories with non-fixed member lists, mainly in the p-block): allowed. IMO, "being useful" is not the most important check for encyclopedia, but "correct" (sourced, no OR) and "commonly used" (not FRINGE, not OR) are. This allows categorising by supercategories and main chemistry classifiaction metal–metalloid–nonmetal, and their subsequential subcategories, being complementary with recognised fixed-list subcategories (so that "nonmetals minus the noble gases" too implies a category). Also, this keeps up the full covering and trend showing of the periodic table.
As for names of the categories: where no name is commonly accepted and used, we can correctly introduce descriptive class names (as is "reactive nonmetals"). In a complete-covering scheme, these names can be relative ("nonmetal", while referring to and depending on "metal" is acceptable). I would not limit the scheme with requirement "we should limit ourselves to two words [for new, descriptive names]", but since "reactive nonmetals" is found to be OK, this is moot. Under no circumstance a categorisation may be discarded because of not having an appropriate name available.
As for the new category proposed, as content: IMO it has enough general acceptance in science & common chemistry, together with its complementary well-defined categories "noble gases" and "nonmetals". As said, border issues (mainly with the metalloids) are acceptable in the covering scheme.
Did I miss sound counter-arguments mentioned in the RfC?
In general, and as a reply to the R8R suggestion, we should be stronger in pushing our 'right' to categorise, inside or outside an RfC. -DePiep (talk) 09:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
As color for the new category, I suggest using the new greenish one, not yellowish. Yellow has more issues with white background and such. All else: same.
Question for @Double sharp and R8R:: what would you !vote in this proposal? You opposed the RfC (R8R: "I think "active nonmetals" is a poor term", Ds: "If the proposed classification is not going to be as well-received by chemists as the current one"). I think this round-up overview is a good point to indicate chances of survival. -DePiep (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it is fair to say that we've had a discussion and reached a definite conclusion. DePiep (and everyone), would you help implement it?--R8R (talk) 07:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Not yet, I say, and not in the middle of the night. Let's make this a stronger conclusion. "We" (at enwiki elements) are scrutinised and trusted, for good reason, and so I want this change to be a strong, defendable, well-explained one (like the "option 10" remember: four years old now and still standing). Think of what we must be able to defend, wiki-wise.
Also, recents weeks initiator Sandbh has taken a leave from the talkpages (understandably, especially after those months & kBs of talk and the RfC), but I am seriously interested in the post-sabbatical opinion of Sandbh. Also, making this change requires the Sandbh sandbox for User:Sandbh/sandbox on nonmetals to go live (by their editor) first and foremost.
Maybe we should consider asking opinion from (ping) the RfC contributors. Makes all this stronger. I myself am fine with making this an RfC. We can handle.
That's fine, too. I felt sorry when I stumbled on this section with no replies in three weeks. Would be sorry to bury a consensus in archives.--R8R (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Well said, both of you. We certainly don't want to bury this in the archives. I think that the best thing to do - before pinging the RfC participants, and certainly before implementing any big change - would be to draft a summary statement. I attempted to begin this at the start of this section, but I will be the first one to acknowledge that my statement is briefer than it should be. Would anyone like to take on the task of drafting a summary statement, something that (a) gives a bit of the historical background (b) states the above proposal (c) briefly lists the alternatives that have been considered and (d) gives the positive reasons why this proposal is better than the status quo, better than the previous versions, and better than the alternatives that have been considered in this discussion.
Oh, and as far as "the middle of the night" goes, it is ALWAYS the middle of the night (somewhere). But I understand and agree with the sentiment: any major change should not take place without giving everyone a daylight hours opportunity to say "hold on". YBG (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be too much further discussion on this matter. I'd like to propose that we begin a new top-level section by changing the header of this subsection from ===Summary=== to ==Summary of previous sections==. Before we do such a thing, we should make concerted effort to make sure that this section contains all relevant details, because once the new top-level-section is inserted, the previous section will get archived. An alternative would be to start a brand new ==Summary of previous sections== below this one. Let's move this discussion to consensus and conclusion. YBG (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely agree on this. I'd certainly take part if I wasn't that busy. Maybe in late December or in January I'll make the best of this. I certainly want to do it despite my usual reluctance to do such things.--R8R (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Or start a new top section named ==Proposal to introduce category Reactive nonmetal ==? Maybe a short introduction/summary, pointing to this section. -DePiep (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
That sounds OK too, but if only if we've verified that the summary in this section is complete and detailed enough that someone who only reads this section has got sufficient detail of the whole discussion without having to read all of the rest of the discussion. YBG (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
OK. I add: maybe better be a ===-level section below this one. And: shall we ping all participants in the RfC? Before even (i.e., now)? -DePiep (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, DePiep. Note that you don't need to edit the blurb on the linked TFA date page, a coordinator will trim it to around 1100 characters anyway. Just check that the article has no dead links or other problems. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?10:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The pic just got changed from a pic of the PT to a pic of a single PT cell. I can't revert it and don't know how to protest it. If anyone agrees and knows how to change it back, PLEASE DO! YBG (talk) 07:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The blurb is protected because it is Tomorrows TFA. Errors and suggestions now must be reported at Talk:Main page (which is a very different talkpage, with a very short & bold discussion cycle!). I have requested undoing (and enlarging when possible). -DePiep (talk) 09:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, okay - I didn't notice whoops. I think I checked the logs but because it cascade protected didn't see the protection. Doesn't make sense to have a periodic table Tfa without a periodic table image... Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
More about page views: enwiki most pageviews over December 2017 has Periodic table at #357 (458.586 views). Technical articles higher up are: net neutrality, cryptocurrency, HTTP 404, Wiki, Null (the DAB page) and biographies. So arbitrary without those, periodic table may be the highest science article! This is including the December holidays (which shows considerable lower pages views, as do Saturdays and Sundays; I want compensation ;-) ). -DePiep (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Barium
There is a change in the Barium article. [5] do we recognize the authority of IMA? Or do we go with the Britisch American way and change it back? Will place the same question on the Projects page for minerals.--Stone (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
RIKEN started attempt on element 119 in December 2017
Now that the 248Cm+51V reaction is probably under way now at RIKEN, should we perhaps plan out what we will do when (I hope it's a when and not an if!) element 119 gets discovered? I imagine we would put it on the non-extended periodic table but shade it as "Unknown chemical properties", just as we do now for 109–111 and 113–118 (and yes, that means we'd have to recolour the infobox on the article), but I'd like to open it for discussion. Double sharp (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The status of such an element, wrt the "Occurrance" classification (we show by border style in our periodic tables) is discussed below, in #Implementation. Involves wording like: "synthetic, claimed, undiscovered". - DePiep (talk) 10:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
To decide: do we add a claimed element like E119 to our general PTs? Or only to the Extended ones (where the predicted elements are described)? DePiep (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I should add that this is only for the time period when these elements are claimed (or perhaps only suspected without a claim, like E120 currently). I don't think that it's controversial to say that when the IUPAC/IUPAP JWP acknowledges that they have been discovered, we must put them on our general PTs (but if that is controversial, I'll be glad to open it for discussion; the only way I could see it being controversial is if periodic table manufacturers put post-118 elements in a footnote instead of opening a separate row, like Theodore Gray has suggested to get around the problem that happens once you try to insert a g-block in the 18-column layout). Double sharp (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Of course. Such statuses are not really applicable to elements below Ds (when things were handled by the TWG for Md through Mt), but the record was 13 years(!) for Cn (1996 to 2009). So that while it's useful to state clearly what we're talking about, this is a long period. Double sharp (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Implementation
Unfortunately, this section deviated from the original question, following a misunderstanding (about border coloring). Best advise: do not spend time on the border-coloring discussion here. See also my comment at the subsection end. - DePiep (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
re talk flow. Oh dear. I distracted from original post "What shall we do" into implementation graphics. Now the content discussion, e.g. by Ds, is in between. Split & reorder posts into new subsection "Content"?. -DePiep (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I think "Unknown chemical properties" (background color) is not the essence. Sure an observed (claimed) E119 could get the background "unk chem properties", same as (confirmed) Og. No need to differentiate in there.
But we will have a third status option: "claimed". New heavy elements pass these stages: "predicted" (theorized), "claimed", "confirmed". Few years ago the last four Nh, Mc, Ts, Og left the "claimed" status into "confirmed", so today there are no elements "claimed". Back then and today we do not have two distinct border formats for "claimed" versus "predicted". This was discussed in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements/Archive_30#Predicted_metallicity_colors (no change followed so far). This would be a new cell border format, removing the wording "unknown" in this classfication set. It would be completing the list into:
Hmm, we need two new borderforms: both "claimed" and "predicted", replacing current "undiscovered" [no border]. The situation "no border" then says that Occurrence is not drawn in that periodic table (e.g., in our compact navbox PTs). --DePiep (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, there has been an unconfirmed possible synthesis of 299120 (I've added details to unbinilium), but the one decay chain is rather weak and the discoverers (GSI) have not pressed a claim, so it strikes me that we would need three more tiers: "synthesis claimed" (for actual claims, like 113, 115, 117, and 118 were before 2015); "synthesis unconfirmed" (for 120 at present); and "undiscovered" (for 119 at present). This sounds like an excellent idea; when the JWP approves discoveries, they go up from "synthesis claimed" to "from synthesis" without yet being named till later. Double sharp (talk) 07:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Known and claimed alpha-decay chains from elements 114, 116, 118, and 120. Hopefully we will soon get some confirmation too of the GSI's possible 2011 observation of 299120 and its daughters! Double sharp (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not that good with the wording, but we should keep checking that "Occurrence" is the theme (categorisation principle). The [two] >118 elements' descriptions still do fit that, right? Good news: in the legend, there is space for longer wording. No need to cut letters. I hope their links be as specialised as possible.
re "Undiscovered": to me looks too vague, unspecific. Once we do draw such an element in the PT (position!, g-block!, Pyykkö!), that is a statement already. The word "Undiscovered" leaves the reader's question: "then where does this come from?". Also, a case could be made that a "claimed" E119 is undiscovered too. BTW, the Sep 2017 (Archive 30) discussion gave us "predicted" (after earlier "theorized").
re "synthesis unconfirmed" (e.g. for 299E120, as in: unpublished claim) IMO is way too specialised/detailed for a PT. That's stuff for the article (then again, unpublished = unsourced?).
"From synthesis" is intended to be parallel to "From decay", so that the general topic is "How does this element occur?" or more-or-less equivalently "Where does this element come from?" Answer: It is primordial; It comes from decay; It comes from synthesis; Its synthesis is unconfirmed; It is predicted. By the way, I think I like "predicted" better than "undiscovered" - if put it in one of our PTs because someone, somewhere has predicted it. As far as borders go, I think we want to keep the general trend to be strong border to weak border. Strength can come from the boldness of the border or the boldness of the color. I'm ambivalent about where the double border appears in this scale. YBG (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
In that case, I suggest to imply & read "Occurrence is:" [primordial, from decay, synthesised, ...], not "Where does the element come from?".
About double line border: it's the only straight option left. See here for all css-style options. Even had to reuse it (red and black). Works good in mobile view too. - DePiep (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
My point about double-line border is that it isn't obvious that solid-->dashed-->dotted-->double is the correct order. Yes, I noticed that you reused the double border by using two colors. But the question remains - in addition to determining the correct sequence of border patterns, which one should get doubled up? Oh, and another question: might it be possible to use a thinner solid/dotted/dashed border in conjunction with a compensating amount of white space to produce another border? One thing about the current scheme that I think should be preserved is that the trend solid-->dashed-->dotted intuitively corresponds to the scale natural-to-artificial with "from decay" a kind of middle ground of manufactured by nature rather than manufactured by scientists. YBG (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
All to the point. Before I reply, I add one more point: border line colors used in 2013 purple/brown/lightblue are not OK. There is no usefulness to change the color of a line this way. The eye does not recognise that as a supporting effect, rather it is a distraction or nuisance. As if the screen is not tuned well, or doubting ones eyesight. Also, for the eye these colors do interact with cell background colors (our category colors). See This PT. For this, I'll make them equal all three in the demo (grey for starters). -DePiep (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
re YBG Is solid-->dashed-->dotted-->double the correct order? Ideally not. Reasoning taht double line looks 'heavier' and is graphically more detailed, that should be first (main). However, that heavyness etc stands out, and so is unnaturally more attention-grabbing than any single line form (the second, think the From decay). And a double line also breaks a regularity (one line vs. two lines). Now the three single-line borders today nicely cover the three confirmed statuses, which is also the majority of our PTs. Introducing the attention-grabbing double lines then could go better in the extended PTs and these elements, where this is the topic! (Now this only holds as long as we do not conclude to add unconfirmed elements like E119 to our basic PTs; still then it is not counter-logical to stress their unconfirmed-ness by double lines). It's a trade off, clearly. I tried to explain why the old order is preferable. And double-line the unconfirmed ones, somehow.
re "trend .. intuitively corresponds ...": yes, that is why I gladly support keeping them for the confirmed statuses (see prev re; IOW we agree a lot).
re "use a thinner solid/dotted/dashed border in conjunction with [...] white space to produce another border". (Currently, single-line border is 2px; double-line takes 3px). What that "another border" do you mean? You mean a two-colored 1px+1px border (each could be solid/dash/dot), e.g. for unconfirmed cells? Could try to find that, but first concern is that such a construct would be difficult to build well & stable, and effect in mobile view is often scaring (weird, near-unpredictable). css is good when doing the obvious things, and hard to hack-code.
re new: I surely will play some more with the colors for two double-lined borders (red and black is too extreme). -DePiep (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
For the reason YBG gives, I rather liked how we were using borderless cells for undiscovered elements in the main body of the tables (like Ts before 2010). The question of whether we want to do that (if, say, element 120 is discovered before element 119 is) is a good one, but completely separate, and I will start a new section for it.
After thinking about it, I find myself a little uncomfortable with "unconfirmed". The main reason I am a little uncomfortable with "unconfirmed" as the wording is that these elements are confirmed before IUPAC approves their discoveries. In the case of Ts, for example, the whole experiment had been reproduced several times by the discovery team at Dubna and the team at Darmstadt before the IUPAC approval in 2015, and a link had been established by creating 289Mc (the daughter of 293Ts) in a different way by both teams. These confirmations predate 2015, so Ts was confirmed before then; it was just that IUPAC had not yet approved it. (This is rather obvious, because confirmation is among the prerequisites for such approval. ^_-☆)
So the main thing here is not "confirmation" but "IUPAC approval", and since there isn't really much doubt after the confirmations, I am not sure if this needs to be reflected in our periodic table at all. Yes, occasionally an element will disappear from sight, as it did when the fabricated data for Og and Lv in 1999 could not be confirmed; but that would rarely happen. If we want to reflect this (as it appears YBG and DePiep do), I think "claimed" (as in discovery claims) is a far better wording. Double sharp (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: I've changed the color for the new elements, less extreme. Also added E119, E120, E121 to the sandbox PT. To me looks not that disruptive (attention grabbing). -DePiep (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
See if I get this. Apart from, and before the wording we use, there are two statuses before IUPAC approval (i.e., for all element E119 and up): "predicted/theorized" and "claimed". Sure a repeated creation happens long before IUPAC approves, but I don't think we can not change a status for this second creation: that would be OR right? We can only use the status change when from "claimed (and confirmed by multiple experiments)" to "confirmation IUPAC approved (and likely still with an Uxx name)".
It would be good if we can agree that we will use those two statuses for the >=E119 elements. Wording and graphics then follow, as the right sequence in this.
Double sharp, your suggestion to use (keep using) a "none" border for undiscovered elemetns has two drawbacks. First, if I understand this well, we want to discern two statuses: "claimed" and "predicted". But "none" border only has one option. Second, using "nothing" to say something is awkward working. The legend then has to convey like "when you see nothing, like this: , that means undiscovered". It is a bit contradicting with my long-time goal to make meaningful, explicit legends (keys). Also, the option "no border" is applied when we don't show occurrence at all in a periodic table (such as in navboxes). -DePiep (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the last problem could be addressed by illustrating each with a box with that border, as you do below; then undiscovered elements still have a box, even if they have no border, and there is still something to see. I am not too keen on distinguishing between "claimed" and "predicted" purely by colour, as I think the difference between them is too great. Double sharp (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
My closing note. In this subsection "Implementation" I assumed wrongly that we (@enwiki) did not recognise newly discovered elements as being synthesised. This was wrong: the newer elements 113, 115, 117, 118 were regularly marked "synthesized" years before IUPAC confirmed their discovery. With enwiki, there never was a status of "claimed but not confirmed" (-color code) in the periodic table. The number of border options (four occurrences) has not changed. -DePiep (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I have changed the live border colors (line colors): from 2013 purple, brown, blue into one 2018 #6e6e8e grey with touch of blue. Reasoning is that subtle color differences distract instead of support the key. Does not prejudice this talk topic.
Note that now that you see them in box areas, these colors are recognisable, but when in 2px lines only, that effect disappears. - DePiep (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
As I noted above, a color change in lines is distracting, not supportive. No consequences for this talk issue. DePiep (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the color change can be distracting. But what about a clear contrast between a dark gray and a light gray? Might that give us more options without being distracting? I'm not advocating that we do this, just that it ought to be considered. YBG (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
To be clear: per the 2013 setup and before we use three colors for primordial/decayed/synthetic lines (these also have different intermittance, of course); see above. I meant to say that the difference of color between those three is not helpful. So I choose a single one (blueish-grey).
re YBG: Using darker & lighter greys for these border lines (if that's what you point to) I think is not to be preferred. IMO that does not help identifying the border (for lookup in the legend). It also introduces subtle lighter/darker cells & regions in the PT, while the Reader (Glancer) can not catch its relevance (maybe same distraction effect as the old three color had: a sub-defined difference that puzzles the eye).
Also, the pure greys are best mainly used to support the table-structure: header backgrounds, off-white backgrounds, lines (we use five shades of grey, mostly). Also white & black are used for this. All are non-legend. All good, especially since we use meaningful colors heavily. To illustrate: this is why I did not appreciate this image: colors for headers?
Of course, we also use grey backgrounds for the "unknown property" things, named in the legend. Acceptable to me, because of the "unk" thing. I think it works (today, best for "unk chem properties"). Then there is the grey for post-transition elements: sad-face-emoji here; structural change is on my todo list for years not weeks.
So this is why I did not went for a grey in this. I looked for a blue-ish grey to give it some weight to its meaning (namely: occurrence). Not reddish b/c we already use many reds, and not greenish because that doesn't go well with colorblind readers (when next to red).
When this thread turns out to need more/other color variants, things can change.
TL;DR: All greys (and b/w) better be used for table structure only (meaningless), and "unknown" properties. Grey for post-transition metals is not a good situation. Using shades of grey for this again gives an unrecognised variance in the PT that puzzles the eye. The blueish grey shift gives character to go with its meaning of occurrence. This thread, about more occurrence classes, may lead to new outcomes. -DePiep (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I have no problem with avoiding pure greys; in fact, I like your blue-gray. When I spoke above about lighter/darker greys, I was meaning lighter/darker grayish colors, without specifially meaning which greyish color is meant - i.e., I've no opinion about bluish greys vs. greenish greys. But if we do decide we need to have more border styles, I still wonder if having lighter/darker versions of the border might give us what we want. Another option would be to create different intermittences by some other method. Since we only use top and bottom borders, we could accomplish this by using an outer box that was filled with vertical stripes of various widths and then having an inner box of exactly the same width but slightly shorter height. By this method, we could create any variety of intermittences we like. Whether it would be practical or not is quite another issue.
I suspect that you would prefer to delay the discussion of how to implement the different border styles until after we have decided how many we should have. But to me the "how many" discussion is heavily influenced by whether there is a practical and esthetically pleasing method of displaying that many border styles. If there is such a scheme, I might be more inclined to accept having more border styles. But if there is not, then I would be inclined to reject an increase in the number of border styles YBG (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
The element 120 problem
OK, let me explain what is going on with 299120. In 2016, the GSI team published two separate articles on the result of their 2011 experiments and data analysis, and there is one chain of events that fits the sequence 299120(α)295Og(α)291Lv(α)287Fl(EC)287Nh(α)283Rg(SF) quite well. However, there are uncertainties in the data and they are not pressing a claim because of the need for confirmation. Now, it seems to me that this should not be taken as a discovery of element 120, since there is no discovery claim being made. But it seems to be something more than "undiscovered" or "predicted". So, how should we handle this? Double sharp (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Certainly this could be described in article E120, and in applicable articles like about PT Extension Y. For the periodic tables (graphics), I don't think we should add another occurrence status (with a border legend) like "pre-claimed": ... / claimed / pre-claimed / predicted N. I can not imagine any situation where we could use such a PT, having that marking, without extensive description; this would defy the essence of what a general PT conveys (i.e., much or everything but not exceptional details). So IMO E120 better stay "predicted" (undiscovered) for now. - DePiep (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree. ^_^ (This chain, with all the explanations needed, would presumably be handled the same way as the LBNL one for 267Ds.) If the discoverers don't acknowledge it as a discovery, but just indications, then neither should we. Double sharp (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Undiscovered elements
Previously, when we had elements 113–116 and 118 discovered (or rather claimed), we left element 117 with no border to indicate that it was undiscovered. Should we mark undiscovered elements on the periodic table in future if elements are discovered out of order again (e.g. 120 before 119)? Leaving a gap is no problem for a missing 119, but once the table goes into the g-block it makes things even more confusing than they already were. (Regarding the g-block, I would simply suggest following sources for how they reflect the situation, because the double-footnote that it produces in the 18-column table is, I think, completely intolerable to just about everyone.) Double sharp (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm including pre-claimed elements (e.g. present E120), but not claimed elements (because I suspect most scientists think of them rather as "discovered, pending IUPAC approval"). Of course, elements like present E119 (where there are no indications at all as yet) are also included as undiscovered. Double sharp (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
(By now this is talked in multiple place in this section). I get "discovered, pending IUPAC approval" is how scientists see it, but for us that statement being "discovered" would be OR (we drawing conclusions from sources). Going by sourced facts only, we (wiki) can say "predicted, aka theoretical only", "discovered, claimed, as reported by one or more RS", and "approved to be discovered by IUPAC" [Ts, Og]. Pre-claimed like E120 is today we cannot use in PTs, because no source. -DePiep (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
We do have a source for the E120 "pre-claim": here it is. From the abstract: "The reaction 54Cr+248Cm was investigated at the velocity filter SHIP at GSI, Darmstadt, with the intention to study production and decay properties of isotopes of element 120. Three correlated signals were measured, which occurred within a period of 279ms. The heights of the signals correspond with the expectations for a decay sequence starting with an isotope of element 120. However, a complete decay chain cannot be established, since a signal from the implantation of the evaporation residue cannot be identified unambiguously." I do not see how calling it "discovered" is OR, since that is what you see the scientists saying themselves: "the heaviest element yet discovered is element 118" (and this from 2013, predating the IUPAC approval). Double sharp (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Declaring an element "discovered" (that is: existence has been proven), requires a judgement on the scientific papers that declared successful experiments. Such a judgement we cannot make (OR). It's IUPAC's conclusion only that matters AFAIK. Like with those last four in 2015. So far, this has happened for 118 elements. Am I correct? About scientists saying an element has been "discovered" (or created), what does that say for us? I say we cannot use that word meaning "proven".
However, it is exactly those new elements that have been claimed to be created (successful experiment(s), not yet approved by IUPAC) that I propose to call "claimed (to be discovered/created)", as was Og before Nov 2015. Then if the E120 experiment is a claim to such (I layman cannot read that), then E120 is "claimed". If the experiment is not successful, it is worth mentioning in the article but E120 still is "predicted/theoretical", like E121, E122, ....
My point is, Double sharp, that I want to classify the elements (and their experiments) into two(?) classes by the claiming sources. Apart from describing the recent experiments (good), what would be your goal in this? -DePiep (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
You're convincing me that we should distinguish these pending additions on our main PT's. ^_^ It's just that I still don't think it's really OR to write in the articles that "element so-and-so was discovered in 20XX by team Y" and simultaneously mention that IUPAC approval is still being awaited, though I agree that there is no need to go into such detail on the main PT when such elements are not the main topic. Double sharp (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I haven't really followed the entire discussion (sorry) but I can't help but think you're putting too much spotlight on the least important elements. We handled these problems just fine with existing categories before and we can still do that today. And I really don't see the need to add more categories in the first place. Just go claimed=synthetic. It worked fine with 117. Will work fine with 119 if the Japanese succeed as well.--R8R (talk) 04:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, I agree with R8R. I don't see how the IUPAC approval is important enough to merit being put on a periodic table; everyone puts them on the table even before they are confirmed, except IUPAC. We can mention that they have not yet been approved by IUPAC in the text. Double sharp (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
BTW I did not start this thread to propose "claimed" as a new status, but to discuss what ought to be done to the "predicted" colours when element 119 is discovered. To me, it is obvious that it should lose its "alkali metal (predicted)" colour and instead get the "unknown chemical properties" colour, and that we should simply put a "Uue" below Fr on the compact table and leave it at that (if Ubn is discovered first, then I could agree with putting Uue as "undiscovered", like we did for Ts when it was a gap). Then the extended table would restore the colours. But I don't think this section can realistically be pulled back to my intended topic anymore. Double sharp (talk) 05:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
re 1: Double sharpI did not start this thread to propose "claimed" as a new status, but to discuss what ought to be done to the "predicted" colours when element 119 is discovered, correct (see OP), and we'll have to reread the thread(s) on whether there is (a buried) consensus in this point. Meanwhile, I think it is on topic to include the occurrence (border) issue here, since the original question was about "discovery" of new elements. - DePiep (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me; if we don't need to add more border styles, that's great! After all, there is no dispute that any new elements, when and if they are discovered, will be synthetic. Sorry if I've unnecessarily complicated things. YBG (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
re @R8R, Double sharp, and YBG:: full kneeling surrender. No need to change border styles (so "claimed" and "synthetic" can be the same: dotted).
Background: I mistook our history, thought we did not border the late quartet (113, 115, 117, 118) before they were acknowledged by IUPAC in December 2015. I was wrong all along here [6]. I apologise for taking so much of your time.
2001: E118 claim withdrawn: [8] "The team of Berkeley Lab scientists that announced two years ago the observation of what appeared to be Element 118 -- heaviest undiscovered transuranic element at the time -- has retracted its original paper after several confirmation experiments failed to reproduce the results."
Back to the OP & Double sharp's contributions. (BTW, the blue-grey color can stay...). Will spike this subthread tomorrow. - DePiep (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
No problems; we did get a better border color out of the deal - without this thread, that may not have happened. So all's well that end's well. YBG (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Demo-2018
Developing demo, following ~latest talk suggestions. Please discuss in section above.
Changed the live border colors (line colors): from 2013 purple, brown, blue into one 2018 #6e6e8e grey with touch of blue. Reasoning is that subtle color differences distract instead of support the key. Does not prejudice this talk topic. -DePiep (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Y
Closed. Result: The color change has happened (into the one greyish blue). But no extra, fifth legend option (labeled "claimed" here) was added. -DePiep (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
